In comparing the Left and Right views of Barack Obama as always I am amazed at the Liberal tendency to twist reality to serve their purposes, while the Conservative perspective is presented in an analytical and logical fashion which arrives at a reasonable conclusion.  Yes, I am not exactly an objective observer, but by contrasting two articles I think this point will be amply demonstrated.

Rosa Brooks of the LA Times has written a fawning paean which is almost Messianic in its emotion, and which seems to come to the conclusion that for him NOT to be President is absurd. If you read her reasoning however you might find it less than persuasive.

For Brooks, Obama's lack of campaign experience is more than made up by the fact that his growing up part Black exposed him to trying times. I am not making this up- for Parks this is logic. As for the fact  that he has only been in the Senate for two years, well that's a good thing. In her own inimitable words:

Obama bashers now complain that his two years in the U.S. Senate have been largely devoid of shock and awe. That's not a bad thing. Obama wisely hasn't tried to hog the limelight; instead, he's focused on issues that are unsexy but important.

Yes you read correctly, he just didn't want to hog the limelight, or else perhaps he would have ended the war in Iraq or at least balanced the budget. I know I much prefer the humble to the successful legislator.

When she does mention one of his "important initiatives" she discusses his work with Richard Lugar [thereby cleverly showing his bipartisanship- Rosa you are subtle!] to step up US programs to control or destroy conventional weapons, which she points out are the real problem in the world, not WMD's [perhaps her credibility is beginning to fade if she thinks a nuke and a bullet are comparable?]. Now what these programs are is left undescribed, and in fact all he has done is helped get them "stepped up" whatever that means. I may be cynical, but I am just not impressed.

Unfortunately all that she says about his other legislative efforts is that he has shown a "similar steady commitment". Again, what does that mean? We are not to find out from Ms. Brooks, who finally equates experience with charisma as being "overrated". I guess she prefers her Presidents boring and unprepared [she must have LOVED Jimmy Carter!].

Now we come to what I found the most amusing section, where she tries to get around Obama'a lack of experience by saying that is not really a problem because President's really only have to learn on the job, listen, and appoint good people, but I guess she realized that this sort of undermines Liberal criticism of Bush so she stipulates that they can't know nothing about everything,  and therefore successfully covers her tracks. Ah these Liberal pundits are slippery aren't they? Just when you thought you had them dead to rights they cleverly escape by- well, by reciting nonsense which contradicts what they were trying to prove. A clever ploy don't you think?

Finally , she mentions how impressed NH people were who attended his book signing, and ends with:

So why not Obama? Contrary to what his detractors suggest, he can offer prose as well as poetry, and this country desperately needs both.

Yes folks, what we have been really missing is a good Poet in Chief wielding iambic pentameter verse in the War on Terror. Is that even covered by the Geneva Conventions? And is Maya Angelou available for Secretary of Defense?   Thank you Rosa for enlightening us as to our true needs.

Peggy Noonan on the other hand has written an article which is much more mundane and lowkey, not espousing good poetry or the hardships of an interracial upbringing. Instead she just points out that:

What does he believe? What does he stand for? This is, after all, the central question. When it is pointed out that he has had almost--almost--two years in the U.S. Senate, and before that was an obscure state legislator in Illinois, his supporters compare him to Lincoln. But Lincoln had become a national voice on the great issue of the day, slavery. He rose with a reason. Sen. Obama's rise is not about a stand or an issue or a question; it is about Sen. Obama. People project their hopes on him, he says.

In other words, he is a canvass on which his doting admirers can paint whatever picture they want because he really has accomplished little, and he says even less, preferring grand sounding generalities that make you feel good while really offering nothing of substance, sort of like a "healthy meal" from a fast food restaurant. 

He offers all things to all people [well maybe not Conservatives, but you cannot please everyone] but says really nothing about anything. His confidence is really in his destiny as opposed to his ideas or stands on issues.  He is a hope and not really a candidate, but Noonan realizes we are in a position where that may unfortunately be enough.

There you have a quick overview,and I hope you read the articles to get more depth, but my point remains: in comparing these two  one cannot help but be struck by the Liberal contortions, some of which are pretty funny, some of which are nonsensical, which are necessary to arrive at a conclusion that they seem to have arrived at regardless of facts, which really do get in the way. At the same time the Conservative viewpoint, while it may not be completely objective, remains consistent with the facts and arguments ,which are consistent with each other, that are elicited to support it. Just as a study in logic, the Conservative paper is much more effective, while the Liberal one offers comic relief. As depictions of a man who could be President of the United States,  well if that's the best the Left has to offer Hillary Clinton should be one happy lady.

As I  "declared" a few days ago, the Palestinians are in the midst of a civil war which has seen tens of thousands of their more educated people already flee, or making plans to do so. In a new report the violence between Hamas and Fatah is shown to be escalating, and even the Palestinians are starting to acknowledge what the MSM seems to be ignoring- that the region is dissolving into anarchy, and what the Israelis have never been able to do they are achieving themselves by destroying what little national identity they have.

What is going to remain is an extremely poor and fundamentalist enclave riven by militias with competing agendas. Any possibility of coming to an agreement to end the strife with Israel appears to be quickly fading, something which perhaps should be pointed out to the ISG group which considers a peace there to be a fundamental step in pacifying the entire Middle East. That's not going to happen.

All those who plead the case for the Palestinians being a poor, oppressed people who just want a homeland should be taking note of the power politics and killings which demonstrate the true agenda of the rival factions; they are power and money hungry thugs who have nixed every attempt by the Israelis to settle their conflict,  and will never accept the existence of Israel or each other.  The problem is being clarified and it is not Israel.

So try as Jimmy Carter and his Anti -semite ilk might to indict the Jewish State for preventing peace in the Middle East,  now we have  a secular  Fatah at war with a Fundamentalist Hamas , whereas in Iraq we have Shia versus Sunni. It seems the Arab Islamicists only outlet for their creativity is finding ways to justify their hatred and killing while forming new alliances and identifying more enemies to extend their struggle. In the meantime the Liberals of the West close their eyes and pin their hopes on these murderous gangsters. The willful blindness they are demonstrating proves that Lenin knew what he was talking about when he called them "useful idiots".  Now it is the Palestinians'  turn to use them.

  "No state can make its own actions legitimate in the eyes of others. When power, especially military force, is used, the world will consider it legitimate only when convinced that it is being used for the right purpose—for broadly shared aims—in accordance with broadly accepted norms."
 
These are some of Kofi Annan'a parting words regarding  US foreign policy, and for me they summarize the Liberal mindset perfectly: only if you get the approval of others can your decisions be correct. Yes, he says legitimate in others' eyes, but the underlying message is that theirs is the only legitimacy that counts since if we all decide that for ourselves there would be anarchy. The mob therefore is the arbiter of truth, pretty much the operating philosophy of the French Revolution, that iconic moment that has spawned more death and destruction than any other single event in history through its authoritarian descendants. Sounds like a role model for me!

If you think about it, all old Kofi is saying is that the jury gives the final verdict, and guilt and innocence, truth or falsity, is just something they decide based on their normative [or maybe not so normative] values. It's just Liberal relativism in different words.

And as we have found in such classic cases as O.J.Simpson, sometimes a jury's definition of truth doesn't seem to hit the mark, but then again, what is truth?  For Liberals, truth is what the majority says it is.

Therefore for a Liberal, and the UN is just the institutionalization of their beliefs writ large, unless you can convince all those other hundreds of countries, each weighing their own interests, that your policy is "correct" , your efforts are "wrong" and illegitimate and have to be undermined.

Now there are reasons to seek international support for your foreign policy, among which is sharing the logistical and military burdens, but to believe that you need the validity bestowed by majority acclaim is as stupid as believing the Sun circled the Earth until Copernicus convinced the masses that it was the other way around. The truth was always there; Copernicus' fight was with the ignorance of the masses, as in our case it is with the stupidity and /or self interest of other nations.

So as Bush continues to wage a war the rest of the world eschews, we should remember that its righteousness doesn't depend on China or Russia or France, but what we believe to be in our's and the world's best interest. The majority rule for establishing legitimacy is a tool which is  used in many contexts, but the greatest leaps forward for civililzation have been made when a single person has refused to accept what most believed to be true, and found the actual truth which others eventually  came to accept . Truth is real, and only history will tell us if our choice was correct, not the votes of a bunch of envious countries.

Senator Bill Nelson has met with the Syrian President in apparently open defiance of the policy that the Administration is following [see article ]. He claims others, including Republicans, are to follow, and if they do they will all be wrong and damaging the US's efforts to stabilize the Middle East.

The Constitution gives the Executive Branch the right to control foreign policy, and by obviously indicating that there are internal rifts and disagreements, Nelson has given  Syria and perhaps Iran hope that they can convince us to negotiate with them, something which would absolutely be in our worst interests [see excellent post by V. D. Hanson here ]. 

And the pilgrimage of an American Senator on bended knee asking Arabs for help will only feed the narcissistic delusions  and confidence of the Islamic fanatics who are waging war against us.

Yes the MSM is all too ready to announce to the world that these divisions on policy exist, but by traveling to Damascus Nelson has given them that much more credence, and is encouraging a nation which is supporting the insurgency in Iraq and is therefore our enemy. This is disgraceful and while there is apparently nothing that can be done about it, I hope the people of Florida are paying attention  for they are the only ones who can eventually punish him.

Hillary Clinton continues to methodically assemble the pieces for her Presidential run, now adding a strategist who specializes in wooing evangelicals and social values voters to the Democratic party. How very spiritual of her.

According to the article, Clinton has "always" been a religious person who even attended prayer  group meetings as First Lady . Wow, I find that so impressive. I know I am convinced.

What's that you say. How is this reflected in her policies and programs?C'mon,  is that really  important? Can't we just take her at her word. After all, she is religious, so she wouldn't lie, would she?

The article also pointed out that Kerry, too, among other Dems, is busy burnishing his spiritual side, and getting the message out that he believed in God before he seemed to stop...well whatever.

Getting past all the announcements and strategizing and prostrations before various altars, I do think it will be interesting to see how all these Liberals who blanche at the thought of government support for faith based initiatives and become hysterical at the sight of the Ten Commandments hanging in a government building are going to demonstrate their religiosity. As the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding no matter how many strategist you have spinning for you in the media.

Will Democrats now become anti abortion, or anti Gay marriage, two keystone issues that many evangelical Americans use to discern those who are spiritual from those who aren't? I don't see that happening, do you?

More likely, they will try to impress us with a version of Liberation theology. For those who don't remember, that was the Leftist theological attempt to make Christianity "pertinent" in Latin America in the 80's. In place of sacraments and Jesus it substituted socialistic policies for the poor with the message that helping the destitute was the real work of the Church. All the rest was just window covering I guess.

This approach has been tried by Liberals here, as when they "preach" that income redistribution and entitlement programs are certainly in the spirit of Christian teaching.  Expect this to be magnified over the next two years, as suddenly every Liberal initiative suddenly is hailed as a revelation from the Holy Spirit.

Will the American people buy this repackaging of the same old Democratic "wine" in a new skin? Will we be willing to overlook their espousal of killing fetuses to empower women,  or destroying the traditional family to empower Gays as they insist their motives are holy and sacred?  Will we point out that as religious as they claim to be they seem to have an aversion to the word "God", and seem uncomfortable in it's presence? Will we stand idly by while they hijack the concept of spirituality for their own uses,  completely distorting it's meaning while engaging in the same double speak that allows them to say "We support the troops but not the War"? Will we allow them to say "We support religion without recognizing the sacredness of Life or the Mystery of the Divine"? 

There is more to being religious than making an appearance in Church every now and then, and the fact that the Libs don't understand this, and need a strategist to guide them,  shows how far off the mark they really are. And now we get to watch them as they try to convince us otherwise.

Nile Gardiner , who is always informative to listen to or read, has absolutely excoriated Kofi Annan in an article which leaves no rock unturned in revealing the harm this man has done due either to inepitude or worse.  While I usually seek to analyze or add something to the information I reference, this is such a comprehensive piece that I am just presenting it to you to enjoy. If you think as highly of Annan and The UN as I do, I have no doubt you will.

 In my ongoing effort to understand the enemy, recently I have been contemplating the Liberal infatuation with “groups”, categorizing people by what they perceive to be commonality of interests, whether it be Black, females, Gays, or whatever. This Group Think mentality I have always ascribed to their effort to eliminate friction in society by removing individual traits, with the added benefit that it helps them to target their constituencies. However, recently I have begun to realize that it is more than that, much more. If I am right, it is the key to their governing philosophy, and if it is threatened they recognize their Big Government philosophy is doomed.

To follow my reasoning, first it must be realized that effective laws are predicated on the consensus of a large part of the population, hence things like murder, robbery, rape and other major crimes are no brainers. Up until the 20^th century, these were the kind of laws we had, and government was relatively small and constrained. Most Americans were treated as individual units, and common interests were relatively few, so forging laws was difficult.

With the Depression suddenly there was a huge poor population with needs, and the Liberal mentality of Big government offering solutions arose to answer the call of these people. FDR’s administration saw the birth of Liberalism as we understand it today, and for that he will forever be remembered, for good or bad.

After the war, with the demise of the destitute masses, Liberals latched on to the Black population and began applying their paternalism to another group which demanded action for inequities that affected most of them. The civil right actions of the 1970’s was the result.

However, as the Black population began to diversify , the Liberals realized that they had to define new groups who had mutual needs which were easily definable, or trying to pass laws and government programs would become difficult if not impossible. Developing laws for a nation of individualists is harder than herding cats, and unless the Liberals could create new block constituencies that were "victims" needing to be saved they could see the era of big government fade.

So they latched unto women, as if all females share the same needs and aspirations, other ethnic minorities, Gays and just about any other group that they could convince should “stick together” for the cause, whatever that was. Again, aside from finding voters, this driving urge to group people into categories with actuarial precision and identify their “needs” allowed Liberals to perpetuate Big Government by providing the critical mass needed to pass more and more arcane laws.

As a result of this, Liberals fear the fracturing of any of their "victim" constituencies, and so when a Michael Steele threatens to show Blacks they do not all have the same goals or dreams, Dems immediately go on the offensive to disparage him. After all, think how many government programs and laws have arisen from addressing perceived Black needs, and imagine if suddenly they were not a source for Liberals to tap into to justify affirmative action , quotas and more educational spending.

And the day women are treated as individuals as opposed to a group is the day the rationale for a female Supreme Court Justice, representing “Women’s Views” becomes an anachronism, relegated to the dustbin of historical nonsense. Consider the good job Ginsberg does representing conservative females today and you begin to understand that the invented need for a female justice is based on a farce.

And so the party which nominally espouses personal liberty and freedom and the value of the individual finds itself needing blocks of victims all identified as having the same needs and wants to justify and implement its big Government beliefs. Torn by this internal struggle Liberals, like many mentally tormented people, manifest contradictory and destructive behavior as they seek to reconcile that which cannot be conjoined, fearing the day that our individualism once again relegates them to obscurity, supplanted by Conservatism's gospel of limited government. When there are no more  group "victims", the need for Liberals will be no more.

 

 Iranian President Ahmadinejad today was jeered and forced to cut short a speech by University students calling for his "death" for being a tyrant, the first such episode since the little man's election last year.
 
While one such occasion doe not a revolution make, it is promising that the young people in that theocracy are obviously disgruntled and not afraid to show it. As opposed to the students in this country who protest at the risk of being put on television and lionized by the Left, the Iranians are truly risking their safety and lives and we should all acknowledge that.

Many believe the only way to deal with the Persian nuclear threat is regime change, and if that is so, these kids may be the beginning of the answer. I hope someone in Washington is watching.

Taking a page from Matt Lauer, I am declaring the Palestinians in a Civil War  as the violence between Hamas and Fatah continues to escalate. Yesterdays heinous killings of three little children [ I know Rosie, they are just mothers and fathers like us, a statement which is causing me  more and more to believe that lesbians may not make the best parents] was followed up with an attack on people protesting those murders.

If you waste your time reading the ISG report or listening to Jimmy Carter [and if you do, why?] you come away with believing that the poor dispossessed Palestinians just want a place to hang their burkhas, and that the violence caused by those vile Israelis subjugating them  is what prevents the Middle East from becoming Nirvana. In truth this is a simplistic, facile view which takes into account none of the reality on the ground.

As Lisa Beyer from Time magazine writes, this emphasis on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a straw man which allows the Arab nations to ignore their own problems while pacifying their unhappy citizens. As the Jordanians proved when they essentially declared war on them years ago in their country [see history ] the other Arabs fear and loathe the Palestinians, who are often treated as second class citizens. The emphasis on their "well being" which is used by everyone from Bin Laden to the King of Saudi Arabis is an insult to the intelligence of anyone really studying the Middle East.  Unfortunately many of us have been insulted over and over again.

Now with the constant , increasing battles between Fatah and Hamas, we are beginning to realize that power and wealth, not a front yard for the kids, is the driving factor for the Palestinians, something which is accepted readily as the behavior of Americans, but for some reason seems so out of character for these "noble" people.  And as things like the ISG report place more and more importance on making them happy, these thugs and gangsters are given increasing leverage over the world's fate,  as if  the book "The Mouse That Roared" has come alive in a perverted, twisted rendition.  

And if by chance the Israelis were willing to sacrifice their existence to bring "peace to the Middle East" , we would then be subjected to the spectacle of Palestine being torn apart by internecine feuding as the International community scrambled to find someone else to blame for the animalistic behavior of the combatants. It would be tough, but I am sure America would have to have  something to do with it, right?

And  to get back to my opening sentence, I wonder when Lauer or one of his compatriots will announce this civil war? I am betting never, for to do so would be to admit that the fairy tale of Palestine which Liberals have spent so much time cultivating would have to be discarded, replaced with a story not nearly as appealing or readily accepted by the Anti Semitic and Hate America crowd . Where are the Brothers Grimm when you need them?

To recap a hectic two weeks, William [$90,000 in the freezer] Jefferson, who everybody expects to be indicted, won reelection with 57% of the vote, Gerry  Studds was eulogized  by his Congressional compatriots as a champion of the environment and gay equality [see article ] ,  which he helped heroically to accomplish by sodomizing a teenager , an act which he defended as " a consensual connection with a young adult.", and the Mark Foley email scandal , which resulted in Foley's almost immediate resignation, saw a bipartisan report reprimand the House leadership for not doing "more"  when they originally found out about the emails, and that they:

 "failed to exercise appropriate diligence" in the matter, the committee's report found, and tried "to remain willfully ignorant of the potential consequences of Foley's conduct."

Please note that the drastic action taken during the Studd's "incident" was that he got a slap on the wrist censure and was reelected to office. Yes, maybe the committee is right, and the House leadership didn't handle it anywhere like the Dems did back in 1984. Unfortunately.

Anyway, this is all old news to most of us, and hardly warrants a post. What does, however, is the reaction this information ellicits from those maybe not quite as politically attuned as we chronic bloggers. To experiment, I told my 21 year old daughter and my wife the above information, and with laser like intensity studied their reactions.

My daughter said "Really?" with the same bored expression she wears when I tell her just about anything. For her this was neither earth shaking or particularly egregious. Rather it seemed acceptable more than anything else, even expected.

My wife, on the other hand, was genuinely shocked and I had to verify my information with online articles [yes, she doesn't always trust me!]. When I had finally allayed her doubts she was angry and upset. And she is far from an extreme right wing partisan.

What this attempt at  a sociopolitical experiment confirmed for me was that this country is developing a real bifurcated view of the political parties which holds the Dems to a decidedly lower set of expectations and it doesn't  divide nicely along political affiliations. Rather the acceptance of  the Dems as the "ethically challenged" group also seems to be more acceptable to younger people [ while I only talk about my daughter here, who  also happens to lean right in her views, I have asked others, and seen the same results].

Considering they came of age during the period when Clinton was coarsening our political dialogue with  the inclusion of  "oral sex" and "White Water"  to the usual topics of foreign affairs and tax policy it is no wonder that they seem to accept the Dems as a sleazier group than the Republicans, and we could almost take this as a compliment.

But as they age, and become more involved in the political process, this is going to be a true problem for Republicans. In any game, if one side has the rules eased for it, whether it be four strikes versus three, or  six men on the ice versus five,  over time that side will win. We saw it this past election when Republicans paid the price for their indiscretions and scandals, while the Dems were just about all reelected. If my daughter and her friends are indicative, this disparity is going to get worse with time, and eventually the "adult" party will find itself ostracized for its very responsibility.  The Liberal 70's was the  time of "Don't trust anyone over 30". Now it may be "Don't trust anyone who acts over 30".

As was bound to happen, several Arab nations have announced a program to develop "nuclear energy", a  recognized euphemism for weapons, in all likelihood in reply to concerns about the Iranian atomic program.

This move by the predominantly Sunni nations is not unexpected considering the fear that they have of Shia controlled Iran, but the recent ISG report and the Dem  victory can take a little credit too, as concerns increase that the US will desert the Middle East, leaving  it to fend for itself.

All those brilliant strategists who espouse cut and run as the way to peace are now helping to foster the spread of nuclear weapons in the most unstable region of the world. Good work guys! If you can just get us to completely accept the Iranians having the Bomb you will have succeeded in paving the way to  Armageddon .  Ahmadinejad , who is currently  hosting a  conference which is debating the truth of the Holocaust , would be proud of you.

How does one address someone who sees the War on Terror as an imperialistic US's excuse to wage war for gain and power? As stupid and ridiculous as this sounds, some do expound this viewpoint, as seen in an article in the Pittsburg Tribune by someone named Ralph Reiland, who is described as an " associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University and a local restaurateur"  but sounds to me to be , well I hate to write disparagingly of someone who seems to be mentally challenged.

While his political affiliation is not mentioned, I'll eat  my...in his restaurant if he is not a died in the wool Liberal [and if Mr. Reiland does not feel that is leftward enough for him, my apologies]. The absolute nonsense which he puts forth seems like a throwback to the days when Stalin was the hero of the Left , Moscow was the Promised Land, and the United States was seen as a decadent, tottering straw man who was ready to be toppled by the proletariat.  History has put the lie to all that, but it seems some still cling nostalgically to their fairy tales.

Reilland begins by reciting the usual pap about how the State has the right to kill, and how rulers use imperialism to gain wealth and wage wars to distract their subjects while they are being abused  and robbed by their leaders. If this sounds like a rehash of "1984" , well, it is. I guess Reiland just wanted to wake up all us unaware Winston Smiths.

He then describes why the War on Terror is the perfect front for the US to engage in a perpetual war of imperialism. Yes, you heard right, it's all about our greed for wealth and dominance , and we now have an open ended invitation to go anywhere and everywhere to wage battle and take home treasure.

Where does one even start tearing this apart? I guess you could mention 9/11, and   the Jihad  that the  Islamists have declared on us. Or perhaps we could politely ask where is all the wealth and power we are supposed to be accruing if this is all about imperialism?  I may be wrong but last time I checked all this empire building was costing us dearly, and if we are imposing our will anywhere I think it's been overlooked by ... everyone.  Is this anyway to run an nascent empire?

And then of course there is the internal debate which is on the verge of having us retreat from our empire before it has even been born. Picking up the newspaper or reading the ISG report, I find it hard to see any of the triumphalism or conquering mindset of a Roman Empire, which Reiland compares us to.  I guess we just don't have the hang of this Caesar thing yet.

Reiland does attempt to explain all the calls for ending the Iraqi War- he says it is because we are losing, and that if we weren't,  we would be off and running all over the place with our dominating soldiers and devastating weapons and the full support of the stupid, abused citizens who don't realize what a facade this all is.

Of course Reiland never says why we are losing, only that we bungled it . It never crosses his mind that the reason we are where we are is because we are not imperialists and instead shirk from the responsibilities associated with conducting a war [see post ]. By ignoring all the meanings of imperialism, and disregarding the existence of a world wide enemy that is seeking to destroy us, Reiland blithely espouses a view that has absolutely no correspondence to reality and, if believed and followed, would most likely get us all killed. We are probably the most reluctant super power in the history of the world, and yet for people like Reiland we will always be the villain crushing others in our path as we seek to take over the world. It would almost be comical if we weren't facing a life and death situation which just doesn't seem to register with those like him.

 The Left has taken the Six Imams incident and turned it into it’s latest crusade against racial profiling [see post ], but as is so often true , in reality they are using misleading labels to create a false impression and distort reality for their political gain.

What is racial profiling? Simply put, it is the singling out of people because of their race or genetic makeup, something over which they have no control, and which neither represents nor indicate their actions or thoughts. It is choosing somebody based on who their parents were, not on what they themselves have decided to do. Examples are the police stopping a man because he is black, or Nazis sending a woman to the gas chamber because her mother was Jewish. Racial profiling is morally wrong because it is factually wrong, drawing conclusions based on traits that do not warrant them. It is therefore a heinous, horrible mistake, and should not be tolerated.

Now let us consider the Imams case, where those Muslims chose to verbalize and act out their beliefs in what some consider an aggressive, maybe even antagonistic manner. Were they picked out and harassed because of racial profiling? I do not believe anyone has claimed it was their skin color [which I am not even sure of] that was the problem, nor was it their ethnic or national origins which seem to be the contentious issue.

The problem, plain and simple, is the faith which they have chosen to follow, and in this case, flaunt. and the inflammatory language they used regarding the United States. In other words, they were singled out for further investigation because of things they had voluntary and knowingly chosen to do which in our society have come to be associated with dangerous actions. In fact, they were ideologically profiled, something that has nothing to do with racial profiling, and those who have suffered from the latter should be offended by the association.

Ideological profiling is what we do when we assess the words of someone and decide they are wrong or harmful. It is what most of us do in regards to the Ku Klux Klan, and in fact Trent Lott’s ignominious downfall was actually a case of ideological profiling, since he did nothing wrong but indicate he might hold offensive views. Funny, I don’t remember anyone accusing the Democrats of racial profiling when they castigated him.

Ideological profiling justifies the surveillance of mobsters in pursuit of proving their guilt. The police know their ideology [ a criminal, outlaw mindset] and so act on this to try and gather the proof that they are committing crimes. No one seems to find fault with this logic either.

The point is that once a person chooses to act or think in a given way people are perfectly valid in drawing their conclusions about what this means, and in the case of the Imams, because Islam has become so clearly identified with Terrorism it would be hard for someone not to become nervous as a result of their actions, and the airline would have been remiss not to investigate further. As this case clearly shows, ideological profiling is people judging you based on what you say and think, and acting on what that implies or indicates. It is holding you responsible for your choices.

Some would then say this is a violation of the First Amendment and freedom of speech, but that is not correct either. The Imams were not forbidden from praying, nor speaking, but like someone who yells “fire” in a crowded theatre, once their expression was felt to be a danger action was taken [and all things considered, all that was done was that they were delayed, hardly what I would consider a major constitutional infringement].

Why the Liberals have chosen to inflame the affair by incorrectly labeling it racial profiling, with all the historical baggage that word implies for Americans, is something we can only wonder about. But based on my ideological profile of them, it was not an innocent mistake, but a conscious decision to use an historical weapon in their arsenal to undermine national security, a weapon with absolutely no pertinence to this case.

CBS must be wondering what they were thinking as the newest ratings show Katie Couric behind Bob Shieffer's numbers of a year ago. I don't know what he was paid, but I suspect it was considerably less than the 15 million Couric is receiving. I wonder if there are Lemon Laws for News anchors which would allow the network to get their money back? I hope not.

As I consider this, I find myself smiling and not because I have anything personal against Katie, who to my mind is just another Liberal mouthpiece who masquerades as the voice of objectivity [though the charade is becoming less and less sincere for all of them] while cheering on their Leftist causes. Rather, I actually look upon this as a victory for the American people in refuting the Liberal beliefs that I believe led to Couric's hiring.
 
It is obvious that CBS believed that a woman, especially the only woman anchor, would draw all those other females out there like a feminine magnet. After all, isn't that the  way it should work? This is the same thinking that justifies quotas,  or the need for a woman Supreme Court Justice, since a man just cannot represent or understand a feminine point of view , forget the fact that a Ginsberg  is less representative of a Conservative woman's beliefs than a Scalia is.

The point is that Liberals like to reduce individuals to groups, and then deal with them en masse, ignoring the fact that we are all unique. It is so much easier to treat all blacks as the same,with the same needs and desires and attributes, than it is to consider them separately which can get very sloppy. In fact, the only way you can justify the large Government programs that are the lifeblood of the Left is if the polity can be broken up into large, manageable actuarial blocks with supposed common interests and traits, for only then can the claim be made that a program can be effective. If the reality of our individuality is acknowledged, no program could possibly meet the demands of so many disparate voices. Only something like the market economy, which allows each of us our expression while creating an outcome positive for us all can be successful.  No, the left has to maintain is delusion that we are all basically the same, or things get much too complex for their solutions or way of thinking.

Thus when I see Couric floundering and gasping for air, I applaud the American people, especially the women, for refusing to play by the Liberal rules and flock to a woman only because they might share common genitalia. Once again the Left has shown they  underestimate and misunderstand us , and this might very well be a trial run for 2008 when they will probably either expect the black or female vote to flock to them because of the race or gender of their candidate. Hopefully the results will be the same as they are for Couric.

 Yesterday Tony Blair basically announced that immigrants to his country either assimilate or leave [see post ]. Today the the Telegraph applauded him in an editorial which one cannot imagine being written in the United States MSM.  Gramps has a harrowing post on his site in which Dick Lamm,  the former Governor Of Colorado spelled out a plan to internally destroy the US which was a blueprint for a multiculturalist agenda.Finally it seems that people are waking up to the danger posed by muticulturalism, and are begining to attack this fundamental belief of the Liberal establishment.

To understand the true danger it poses, first we must understand why it is so important to a Liberal mindset. Remember the Left is always trying to create a "frictionless" world to remove the threat of violence. By announcing we are all basically the "same" [or in Rosie O'Donnell's version, we shouldn't fear the terrorists because they are just "Mothers and Fathers" like us] aren't they just seeking to defuse the patriotism, nationalism and prejudice that are the cause of wars? If we just understand that other guy we will see he's not so bad. And of  course a wonderful side effect of this is that by the same token, the US and Western culture is nothing special, another core belief of the Left. See how nice everything comes together.

The problems this utopian fantasy create are nefarious. Firstly, in attempting to understand the other guy what the Left really does is project our beliefs onto them in a truly hypocritical transference mechanism and so those Islamic Terrorists who kill innocents in cold blood in pursuance of an ideology we cannot fathom suddenly morph into Mr. Hamid Smith, your next door neighbor and all around good guy. Thus we sap our will which is so important in waging war, and find ourselves doing what the Liberals hoped- abdicating our responsibility to defend ourselves and our children because,hey , why fight  guys who are only trying to do what we would do in the same circumstances. The problem is obvious to anybody with half a brain, and thus the Left misses it- the other guy is nothing  like us, and if we don't defend ourselves murderous lunatics are going to kill us.

Aside from sapping our survival instinct,  even those who do want to fight are blinded by multiculturalist blather into not truly understanding the enemy, something I addressed in a previous  post . Warfare is based on knowing your enemy. Multiculturalism is willful blindness which is inexcusable and crippling us in battle.

Internally, multiculturalism fragments society, and as Thomas Sowell has written, diversity is not wonderful at all in creating a nation, but rather a hindrance to it's cohesion and successful existence. The US is a wonder because it took all those immigrants and turned them into Americans, with American values, in spite of tolerating other beliefs and traditions not because of them. Ideally these should be subsumed over time as all of us become citizens of this country. Multiculturalism would reinforce these separatists tendencies, and create the sectarian friction which we see so many other places in the world.  A melting pot should meld all its ingredients into a homogenous whole. This is not the metaphor of multiculturalism, which can't go far enough in keeping separate the components of a society. The results can be seen in the former Yugoslavia, or in today's Iraq.

I have often wondered why an immigrant comes here and yet refuses to assimilate. If things are so wonderful you choose not to forget Lithuania or El Salvador, well then stay there. The only reason you are coming here is to get our money,and that is unacceptable. As much as Liberals repeat over and over again that without illegal aliens certain of our jobs would not get done, I believe a citizen is more than a job; he is someone who values our traditions, language, beliefs and values, and seeks to make them his own.  As much as I don't want to sound like a xenophobic Pat Buchanan, this is one area I agree with him. Our country is too precious to allow it to be stolen insidiously by those who don't appreciate or respect it.

And so the recent developments which indicate that multiculturalism is losing its luster bring a smile to my lips. I know it is going to be a long battle and people like O'Donnell and her ilk are going to fight us tooth and nail, but at least I can see some progress, and that's a start.