Geert Wilders marginalized at CPAC

Geert Wilders, the Dutch parliamentarian who faces trial for criticizing Islam and was banned from Britain, was at least allowed into the US for a speech in Washington last month. But the stepchild treatment he received at the Conservative Political Action Conference, and the shrill counter-propaganda distributed that day by Muslim groups, dramatize the creeping cowardice that may eventually leave America as intimidated as Europe and the UK in the face of soft jihad. Mr. Wilders was hosted separately from CPAC by David Horowitz and a few other outside sponsors. He spoke at 6PM on Saturday, Feb. 28, in the Blue Room at the Omni Shoreham Hotel, on the far opposite side of the hotel from the rest of the conference . I suspect that the American Conservative Union, conference host and supposedly the bastion of liberty, was fearful of “offending” the Muslims present.

We lined up for the talk. The doors were closed and two policemen were standing with metal detector wands.

While we were waiting, a pamphlet was distributed to those of us waiting in line. I have included a scan of it below at the following link, with a couple of photos from the occasion.

Let me address the accusations in that pamphlet: The first point blames the Dutch government for

o “redlining Muslim populations into poverty” o “Muslims held hostage to living in Ghettos o “children receiving little educational resources” o “making 43% less wage.

But let us see what Ayaan Hersi Ali says about this:

“I was beginning to see that Muslims in Holland were being allowed to form their own pillar in Dutch society, with their own schools and their own way of life, just like the Catholics or Jews. They were being left politely alone to live in their own world. The idea was that immigrants needed self-respect, which would come from a strong sense of membership in a community. They should be permitted to set up Quranic schools on Dutch soil. There should be government subsidies for Muslim community groups. To force Muslims to adapt to Dutch values was thought to conflict with those values; people ought to be free to believe and behave as they wish.” ( “Infidel”, Ayaan Hersi Ali, Free Press, New York, NY 10020 page 245)

Thus, the “redlining” was the Muslims choosing on their own to live in their own communities. The schools the Muslims set up themselves were Quranic. Memorizing Suras of the Qur’an and learning Jihad aren’t exactly subjects that lead to gainful employment. Yet they blame the Dutch for no earning power!

The second point in that 2/28 leaflet blames the Dutch for:

o not integrating Muslim youth into their society o For leaving the youth to become gang members o For the their violence o For their unemployment

But what does Ayaan Hersi Ali say about this:

“Children weren’t encouraged to ask questions, and their creativity was not stimulated. They were taught to keep their distance from unbelievers and to obey” (Ibid, page 246).

The leaflet's next point makes the following accusations:

o Mr. Wilders’ translations of the Qur’an are wrong because he doesn’t speak Arabic o That they are “taken out of context”.

Islamic doctrine holds that the Qur’an is Universal. Therefore, are the Muslims for America saying it can only be read in Arabic? Only a small portion of the world’s Muslims read and write Arabic. The Qur’an is translated effectively into many languages.

As for the Quranic quotes in “Fitna” being out of context, Robert Spencer had a Qur’an Commentary at the meeting!. He looked up the passage referring to “strike the unbeliever in the neck”. The context was “usually causing death”.

The Muslims for America went on to assert they were “moderate” and challenged Mr. Wilders to a debate.

But they are saying the same things that CAIR and the rest of the Muslim Brotherhood front organization say: that the Muslims are “victims” and are taking no responsibility for their situation, blaming everyone in sight except themselves.. In my opinion, this sounds like the same deceptive “cultural Jihad” we see everywhere else. Nothing seems“moderate” here!

Debating Muslims is a non-starter. Their concept of “Taqiyya” permits deceit if it furthers the cause of Islam. (Source: Sahih Muslim, Book 032 Number 6303)

The conclusion is stark: it seems we had Dhimmis (defined as a non-Muslim semi-slave that has submitted to Islam: who is ignorant of Islam and afraid of “offending” Muslims) running CPAC 2009. Except for William Bennett noting that the assault of Islam on our Civilization has to be faced and discussed, not a single speaker or panel even mentioned the most serious issue we face in the world today.

My suspicion is that the smiling and hand shaking “Muslims for America” could be infiltrating Jihadists who do not have our long term interest at heart. Are they tied to the Muslim Brotherhood and funded by the Saudis like the rest?

Islam divides the world into two halves: the “Dar Al Islam”, and the “Dar Al Harb”. Pius Muslims would NEVER ally themselves with the “Kaffirs” to strengthen a “Kaffir” government devised by unbelievers. Their sacred obligation is to impose on all humanity The Shari’a, which comes straight from Allah himself.

Principle, expediency & the Republicans

A handful of GOP governors, including Jindal of Louisiana and Sanford of South Carolina, are taking a courageous stand against the stimulus. Pressed with the threat of amending welfare laws in their states for years to come and violating the principles of good governance made this nation great, these governors are refusing to accept funding for new unemployment benefits, much to the chagrin of their Democratic counterparts. "This to me is not about philosophical theory, [but] about real people who through no fault of their own, are laid off because of a recession," argued Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm on "FOX News Sunday" this past weekend.

Apparently Republican stances, based largely on core beliefs but even transcending them into the realm of good governance, particularly the issue of the dangers it sets for future welfare programs in their states, are inappropriate in a time of “crisis.”

This, Governor Granholm, isn’t just about philosophical theory, though that is certainly important. It is also about the people—“real people.” Consider: Three years from now, when federal funding dries up and the states are stuck with these laws, how are higher taxes to make up the difference going to help the people? When Dick and Jane decide to stay on welfare for five years instead of two, how is that helping to get them moving and making better lives for themselves, their family and their community?

The answer is, it’s not. Principles may be driving these stands, but underlying each principled governor is justified concern for the future of their state. They’re doing what leaders should be doing: looking toward the impact of their present decisions on the future, not just the effect of those decisions on the now.

Of course, while America’s greatest national interest has been at stake—its security—the Democrats had no problem crying “principle” and putting “philosophical theory” over effective interrogation procedures. But when their own political interests in appearing to be strong, firm leaders are being threatened, and their own agendas to expand government in unprecedented ways are on the line, they have no problem throwing principle out the window.

Terrorism is a different issue; most of the actions that were taken on the part of U.S. interrogators were not, in actuality, torture. Contrary to popular misconception, waterboarding has only been used three times—and in each of those three times it worked, and innumerable lives were saved. Early on some cases were questionable, such as Abu Graihb and early Guantanamo Bay practices, but by and large principle did guide the nation’s interrogation policy.

On the issue of warrantless wiretapping, the government was not wiretapping every phone in America without a warrant, converse to ACLU misinformation. Rather, if Abdul’s conversations are being monitored in Pakistan and he calls Ahmed in the United States, is the government supposed to put down the phone and say, “Oops, American citizen?” Of course not, and that’s what the policy ensured. Yet the Democrats made a big fuss about how this violated the “rights of the citizen.” They cried “principle,” yet none were actually violated.

But now the tide has turned and the Democrats are the one whose policies are being challenged. Their reckless willingness to throw up their hands and truly abandon our ideals is troublesome at best. If we can just casually say, whenever a new crisis arises, that principle is irrelevant, what will we have left? Can we pick and choose when to let core beliefs be our guide and when to ignore them?

Far too many leaders have given the same argument—we’re in a crisis, so let’s set aside our core beliefs. Such is the true test of leadership. Will our leaders stand by those convictions in troubled times, or will they set them aside because of the perceived ease in doing so?

If we refuse to allow our conscience of principle to be our guide in crisis, instead only permitting its surface in pleasant times, our ideals are rendered meaningless.

Thomas Jefferson’s statement that his “reading of history convinces [him] that most bad government results from too much government” no longer holds any meaning for the Democrats, as well as Republicans like Governors Charlie Crist and Arnold Schwarzenegger. That is, if it ever has.

“The spirit of resistance to government,” Jefferson once said, “is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.”

One can only hope that more governors will have the courage to stand up and resist the temptation to cede more power and authority to government. The future of this country may depend on it.

Paranoid liberals at Metro State

Tonight on Backbone Radio, campus editor Sean Doherty related the hilarious, but also deeply paranoid, fears of a Metro State staffer who voiced the following chain of spontaneous word associations in regard to a then-proposed (and since launched) campus newspaper called The Constitutional Reporter. "Constitutional... Klan... Republican... hateful... illegal... Nazi... swastika"

Yes, those are direct quotes. This really happened. Doherty's full notes of the phone conversations are given below.

STATEMENT BY SEAN DOHERTY Senior Political Science Major Metropolitan State College of Denver

Here are the minutes from my phone conversation with a representative of Metro State's administration.

Setting: I had previously asked for permission to put my paper on campus. They agreed. When I asked for written permission, the "gatekeeper" said he would get the permission slip to the right people and contact me. So, on the morning of 2/4/09 at 10:23am, I got the following call (I wrote down the following notes immediately after the conversation)

The gentleman on the phone had spoken with the appropriate people in admin who had him tell me the following:

"This is not a reflection on you as an individual but..." (an important distinction. What he is saying is that they don't know who I am but what concerns them is what they do know: the title of my newspaper: The Constitutional Reporter. They have no knowledge of anything except for the title of the paper)

He then goes on to say that the title Constitutional is concerning since the word is sometimes associated with radicals. He goes into rambling mode and lists a few other concerns such as "how do we know you're not part of the Klan?" He asked specifically if this was a Republican newspaper.

I responded that it was nonpartisan.

He then said that they don't want anything that could be considered hateful or illegal on the campus.

Then, he tried to justify their refusal to sign with this number: "we are for freedom of speech, freedom of speech..." and he explained that they understood this was a state institution and state property but that they wanted to "see an outline of the paper, you know, a business plan, to know what its about because they have to be careful before they give approval for something to be placed on campus.

I objected and said they did not need and could not request a business plan- I'm not even associated with the school other than being a student!

He said that was right but they would still need an outline of some sort.

I knew he wasn't the guy responsible for these concerns; he was just speaking for some administrators behind closed doors. I asked if I could meet with these people and address their concerns specifically so they may see that I am a good guy and certainly not a radical Klan member!

He said that they're busy folks (to which I responded that I am too) and he said they're always in meetings. So I asked him, "what about today at 3:30pm? Are they busy today at that time?" He could not give me an answer one way or the other and brushed off the question. He just told me to bring in an outline and we'd go from there. According to him, if I brought in an outline, then he could schedule a meeting with the administrators who could meet me and sign off giving our paper documented approval.

A day later 2/5/09 and around 11:30am, we have another phone conversation:

He reaffirmed that they were concerned and instead of just a Klan reference, he used the whole term in question: Ku Klux Klan. In addition, he added a new one to the list of concerns: that they did not want a Nazi paper on campus. "they did not want to pick up our paper and see a swastika on the cover."

I questioned him about what could be radical about the term Constitutional. To his credit, he said that the Constitutional Convention and other key events and figures in history were not radical (although, technically, in a way they were radical for that time) but he did not state any specific concerns or examples for what could be radical about the word Constitutional in a modern day context.

I asked him to submit his request to me in writing before I submit any outline in writing to them. I said something to the effect of "if the admin sees fit to request a written outline from me, I want a written outline of what their concerns are"

Nothing. He just told me to do an outline. I then said, basically, "well what if I did a news story about this? Would you want to put it in writing so nothing is mis-quoted?" He answered, "Absolutely not."

www.theconstitutionalreporter.com

To contact Sean Doherty 303.263.2281 kairoshappens@gmail.com

Transparency please, Mr. President

It would likely be impossible for me to deal with the crowd that will attend Mr. Obama's stop in Colorado next week.  Standing in line for a long period of time with folks that are looking at America's future through rose-tinted glasses, oblivious to the lessons history has taught would be more than I could tolerate. I would, however, like a chance to ask questions of our president: 1.  Mr. President, during your campaign you favored tax cuts for small businesses.  In recent days, you've come out with a forceful regulatory tone toward big business.  Your Stimulus Bill does not include those tax breaks for small business.   Is business, small and large, under attack in your administration?  Are the American people correct in observing that you are moving toward as much government take-over of business, in general, as you can push through?  Are you not in favor of providing incentive to Americans that may want to start a business, or grow a business to include additional hiring and productivity?

2.  Would you please explain to the American people why you believe the census should be managed by you and your administrative team?  If you are fearful that not enough minorities are being counted, it would seem most appropriate that you appoint a non-political census task force to conduct this process in a completely transparent, and certainly non-partisan way.  

3.  You have been adamantly opposed to lobbyists since the early days of your presidential campaign.  You've made assertions about not having lobbyists in your White House.  Your campaign team attacked Senator McCain for connections to lobbyists.  Of course, we know now that lobbyists are connected to your administration and yesterday, lobbyists were given the first opportunity to review your Stimulus Bill before members of Congress.  What other campaign promises can the American people expect to see broken?

4.  Your SCHIP bill was recently signed into law and was done so very quickly before the American people had a chance to examine the expansion and revisions.  Funding for this bill will be taken from tobacco taxes.  Your Stimulus Bill provides funding for a nationwide stop smoking effort.  Can you explain the reasoning as to how healthcare initiatives can be funded on one hand with a tobacco use tax, and then on the other hand, we are asked to pay for smoking cessation programs?  It would appear that the costs of the expanded SCHIP program would actually necessitate the need for every American to start smoking.

5.  You have stated that your Stimulus Bill is not perfect.  You acknowledge there are likely some mistakes.  Your vice president went further and stated it may only have a 30% chance of working.  Given our financial crisis, and your own admission that if we don't get this right, we may never recover, shouldn't the American people have a right to expect a better plan from our president, perhaps a plan that has even a projected 50% chance of working?  The fact that you have no prior business or economic experience comparable to the level of your new job and our current situation, should we not expect to see you sitting in your office every day working closely with your advisors to make sure you put forth a plan that has better than 30% odds?  Many Americans are troubled to observe your travel around the country promoting a bill that your administration admits may not have the desired outcome.  Would it not be more prudent for you to spend your time instead, working on a plan that includes historically proven positive outcomes? 

6.  Your Treasury Secretary was asked this week from whom the money will be borrowed to set your Stimulus Plan in motion.  He was not transparent.  He stated some American and some foreign investors will be loaning the government the money.  Since American taxpayers are on the hook to pay back this money, in the spirit of transparency do we not have the right to know the lending sources?

7.  During the campaign, Republicans pointed to your lack of experience and suggested the presidency is not a position that is conducive to on the job training.  You've experienced several set-backs in terms of improper vetting of high ranking appointments.  You left the White House one day unexpectedly when things weren't going well to visit a school, and you've fallen back on your greatest strength, which is public appearances rather than stay at your desk.  Would you admit that the office of the presidency has presented you with more challenges beyond your previous experience than you expected?

8.  In Elkhart, IN, you stated that private citizens will be able to email you with questions or concerns with respect to how your Stimulus money is being spent.  If Americans observe delays, waste or other problems with these public works projects, they will have direct access to you in order to report.  Another campaign promise was your claim that Americans would be able to view all policy and legislation online for 5 days prior to your signing into law.  This has not occurred thus far.  Because there is an early failure to adhere to transparency ethics, can the American people really expect to  email the White House whenever they want to report problems with the spending of Stimulus money and receive a credible response?

The list of questions could go on and on, but the reality of our life here in Obama Land tells us we will not get transparent answers.  We probably shouldn't even dare to ask.   This new transparency is about as clear as mud.

As Obama acts, Atlas shrugs weary shoulders

For almost nine months during the 2008 campaign I wrote about the dangers of Barack Obama's socialist views and liberal voting record -- both in the Illinois State Senate and United States Senate. I argued that his goal of "spreading the wealth" around would amount to a new socialist era in America, with tax and spend policies that were designed to transfer wealth from a shrinking percentage of tax payers to a growing percentage Americans "on the dole". Critics of my views kept telling me that I was wrong -- that Obama is a "new style" politician -- one who understands the importance of compromise and who would govern as a pragmatist from "the center". I was highly skeptical. Nothing in Obama's record led me to believe that he was anything other than a classic "tax and spend" liberal interested in using government for social engineering purposes. "Prove me wrong" I said on many occasions to images of Obama on the television (I said many other things to him as well, but this is a family blog).

Sadly, Obama has instead proven me right. Though he has mastered the image of bipartisanship -- inviting conservative Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration, having Republicans to the White House for tea and cookies -- his actions have shown him to be true to his liberal roots. The so-called "stimulus package" now before the U.S. Senate has become an increasingly unpopular pork-laden spending bill served up by Nancy Pelosi and her cohorts, designed to enact social change rather than economic growth. Rather than choosing a truly bipartisan process for creating the bill -- to include targeted infrastructure spending and tax cuts to stimulate job creation -- Obama chose to throw a bone to every left-wing social and environmental cause, using tax payer money to "stimulate" social policy objectives. As opposition from Republicans grew, Obama chose to attack rather than compromise, lashing out at Republicans for their "tired old ways" of arguing that "government is the problem and that tax cuts are always the answer". To Obama, of course, government is the answer and tax cuts are for the rich -- exactly what you'd expect to hear from a socialist.

It is amazing to me that Obama calls this a job creation bill, for the only jobs this will create are in the public sector. Doling out cash to people to spend is not the same thing as creating an environment where employers will start to hire again. Businesses require structural relief -- tax relief -- to create the economic incentives necessary to spur new jobs. But Obama doesn't see the private sector as the real engine of growth -- he pointedly sees government in that role. For Obama, an economic stimulus that leads to New Deal-style public works programs is the ticket to getting out of this recession. Never mind that the original New Deal in the 1930s only served to prolong the Great Depression. In the minds of big-government liberals, FDR is a hero, and the conventional orthodoxy that government can solve the people's problems is alive and well.

It is hard to stomach what is going on now in Washington -- from the continued wasting of taxpayer's hard earned money to the hypocrisy of Obama's cabinet nominees who don't mind raising people's taxes because they apparently don't pay their own. Now we have the specter of the Federal government telling companies how much they can compensate their top executives because they took public funds -- funds that in certain cases the government forced them to take against their will. It's all so reminiscent of Atlas Shrugged: collectivist action denying the ability for those who create wealth to do so, and then confiscating their gains in the name of societal "good". This cannot -- and will not -- end well.

As I've said many times, elections have consequences. We shall see if a newly resurgent Republicans can use concrete proof of Obama's socialist plans to regain some momentum.