Janeane Garofalo’s Alter Ego

On the show 24, Janeane Garofalo plays a computer analyst for the FBI who can always be counted upon to keep the barbarians like Jack Bauer in line.  When a suspect needed to be shouted at to get information, she was there to protest and remind everyone how bad that was.  When Jack Bauer suggested narrowing a search for suspected terrorists by looking for only Muslims, she balked: That’s racial profiling!

Actually it’s religious profiling.  What’s funny is that Ms. Garofalo probably didn’t have to try too hard to play this character on the show.  After all, she says the same inane things whenever NBC or left-wing talk radio lets her run her mouth on the air.  These people are like broken records: Everything is always a Republican government infringement of rights.  There’s usually racism involved too.  They never say the first word about Obama and his Democratic meddlers taking away our freedoms, because they’re hypocrites, plain and simple.  They don’t care about our rights being taken away; they only care about a left-wing agenda.

Case in point: I bet you’ll never hear Ms. Garofalo flap her lips about how the Fairness Doctrine is pure government censorship, that it would take away the rights of Americans.  And why?  Because it only takes away the rights of the conservatives.

On 24, Ms. Garofalo’s character is too dumb to realize the hypocrisy of her words.  Racial (or religious) profiling isn’t discrimination; it’s called common sense.  It’s the consequence of being a rational human being.  If the FBI intercepts information with the words “infidel,” “bomb,” “Allah,” and “jihad,” you probably shouldn’t worry about searching among white Christians.  Indeed, you’d be derelict in your duty and a moron to boot if you did.  Likewise, if the words were “Hitler,” “white power,” and “Nazi,” you’d better be looking at skinheads and not Saudis.  But that’s never a problem, since racial profiling is universally accepted by all when the race in question is white. (Witness the cowardly and pathetic screen adaptation of Tom Clancy’s The Sum of all Fears, in which the Muslim terrorists were rewritten as neo-Nazis.)

I like 24; it’s good escapism.  But could you imagine someone like Garofalo’s character actually being in charge of the safety of Americans, actually having authority in the matter of hunting suspected terrorists?  Let’s broaden the question and include the real-life Ms. Garofalo and her left-leaning pals.  Listen to the way people like her, Sean Penn, and Bruce Springsteen talk about this country.  This is the delusional mindset that the left has.  Do we really want these types of people representing us, protecting us from people willing to commit suicide just to make a statement?

Janeane Garofalo, Bruce Springsteen, and Sean Penn will never be in those positions, but their intellectual brethren (Pelosi, Napolitano, Reid, and dare I say Barack Obama) already are.  Me, I’ll take the civil-rights violation Jack-Bauer-types any day of the week.

Islam Can’t Take the Heat

Recently on the news I saw an issue with the textbooks in high school.  Apparently the PC police in America have began adding “censorship” and “revisionism” to their list of goals (their main one being restriction of free speech).  In some new textbooks, it is reported that the attacks on 9/11 were committed by a “band of terrorists.”  No mention of the religion for which that little band murdered.  The books also defined “jihad” as a personal struggle of faith – nothing about a holy war.

Then we have this “anti-blasphemy” law the UN is trying to get countries to adopt.  These people want to make it against the law to defame a religion (the law was made specifically for Islam).  Normally, this is not a big deal, since no one with any influence listens to the UN anyway, but this PC trend is getting a little silly.  How many American news organizations were afraid to show the Danish cartoons lampooning Islam?  And what about the UK?  Displaying their fortitude and devotion to a free society, the British government wouldn’t let that Danish writer into the country because he’d been critical of Islam.

I’ve heard the American Muslim groups come on TV and whine like every other group in America.  We’re being treated unfairly, boo-hoo-hoo.  We’re victims.  We want our piece of the pie.  They talk about avoiding negative stereotypes and unfair biases against Muslims.  That’s all well enough, but the way to go about it is not to ignore the facts.  The facts are these: Muslim terrorists have been killing Americans for something like three decades.  Muslim terrorists orchestrated 9/11.  Muslim terrorists have a particular way of using the term “jihad.  This is called reality, and offended people with the latest “I’m a victim” gripe don’t get to change it.

Why should Islam have special privileges?  Why must freedom of speech and expression be mitigated so Musllims won’t be offended?  Why should they be asking for anything at all, other than the same rights that every other religion should be afforded?  These are good questions, but the better one is: Why are so many people – and governments – bending over backwards to accommodate Muslims at the expense of inalienable rights?  I mean, it’s not like they’re going to spark a worldwide riot and burn flags and kill people if you refuse, right?

Endorsement from Al Qaeda

So it comes out that Osama bin Laden is supporting John McCain for the presidency.  Talk about a high-profile star endorsement.  McCain certainly needs some celebrity endorsements, doesn’t he?

I was at first surprised, because the general attitude I’ve heard is that Barack Obama is the terrorist president of choice.  Even Joe Biden seems to think that our enemies will “test” Obama shortly after he becomes president.  After all, he wants to let al Qaeda win in Iraq.  (If we followed his plan and never instituted the Surge, guess what would have happened?)  He seems to have an almost apologist approach sometimes (downplaying the threat of Iran getting a nuclear weapon, saying that Georgia should “show restraint” after getting invaded).  Hezbollah voiced their support for Obama.  As McCain himself once said, “I guarantee they wouldn’t endorse me; I’m their worst nightmare.”  Well said, but now it’s been proven erroneous, right?

Not really.  You have to look at the reason why bin Laden seems to hope McCain becomes the president.  He states it outright: A McCain presidency is likely to keep the Muslim world riled up against America.  I mean really, how dare we elect a guy who wants to kill terrorists?  We’re so not like Europe.  We’re so yesterday.  Us Americans are just so uncouth and aggressive and we never listen to other people’s feelings.  Obama will make all the terrorists like us.  That’s the goal, right?  Everyone knows the sensible thing to do is sit down with murderous dictators without precondition.

Give me a break.  I’m so tired of hearing milquetoast liberals like Obama whining about how we need to “restore America’s standing in the world.”  He makes cowardly comments like accusing our troops of killing civilians in Afghanistan, and draws a moral equivalency between Russia invading Georgia and our War in Iraq.  If that’s how he views America, maybe he should move to Europe and becomes one of the naysayers who whines about American “imperialism.”

John McCain wants to kill the scum who do things like perpetrate 9/11, obliterate Israeli couples in cafes, and murder babies so they can pop seventy-two cherries in heaven.  He’s a tough old bastard, and he’s unapologetic about it.  He subscribes to the apparently “outdated” tactic that if there’s a global movement bent on the destruction of your country, your people, and your entire way of life, you should perhaps be a little cavalier when fighting it.  If this is what riles up the Muslim world, if they unite and call America evil, then so be it.  Have at it.  The more excitable ones will burn a few flags, terrorize some elderly people in Europe, and maybe even prove their bravery by beheading a tourist or a homosexual.

Of course, I’m sure I have it all wrong.  Everything is America’s fault.  All the Muslims in the world were just meditating peacefully and minding their own business, then the Great Satan came along with capitalism and a thirst for oil and corrupted everything.  It’s that “white greed” that Obama’s mentor Jeremiah Wright will tell you all about.

I’m so glad we have Obama to guide us away from that “defunct” method of fighting one’s enemies.  We should apologize to them, legitimize them, kiss their ass and promise that the old days of George Bush are over.  This is a new America; a softer, gentler America.

Yeah, because “softer and gentler” has always been such a great method for success.

Obama’s slogan should be: “Less Capitalism But More Capitulation.”

America’s First Left-Wing Radical President

Maybe I’m way out of the loop here, but I just don’t understand why Americans are voting for Barack Obama.  A man with this many questionable ties and friendships is going to be in the Oval Office.  A man who sat listening to a racist scumbag like Jeremiah Wright for twenty years and then has the temerity to tell us he never knew the extent of his views.  Christ, Obama acts like Wright just said his controversial statements in a vacuum, like he got drunk one night and started spouting off.  This “reverend” paints these sickening notions as the main thrust of his message.  They’re on the church’s website, they’re on fliers in the lobby!

Yet Obama defends this guy, then decides to drop him when it might hurt his political career, then tells us he never knew the man had those views.  And America doesn’t care.

We have a similar situation with Bill Ayers and his wife.  Again, Obama’s piddling little excuses come out.  He was eight years old when Ayers committed his bombings.  Okay, but how old was Obama around 9/11, when Ayers stated that he should have done more?  How old was Obama when he sat on boards with this guy or wrote a blurb for his book?

This is mind-boggling to me.  We’re going to put this guy in the White House!  One of the most liberal leaders in America is going to have a very Democratic Congress at his beck and call.  A guy who is comfortable hanging out with – and even choosing as his mentor and spiritual advisor – radicals, racists, and domestic terrorists.  How is Obama going to fight terrorism?  He doesn’t even have the moral fortitude to tell a guy like Bill Ayers: “You’re an unrepentant terrorist who hates this country – I’m not going to talk to you or have any dealings with you whatsoever.”

I’m a convicted felon and I wouldn’t shake hands with a guy like Bill Ayers.  But Obama needed the guy for his political career.  And America doesn’t care.

This isn’t about partisanship.  If McCain had ties to people like Wright and Ayers, I would absolutely be calling for his head.  But it wouldn’t matter – if McCain had friends like Wright and Ayers, he would have been forced out of the race long ago.  He never would have had a chance.  Jeremiah Wright talks about “white greed” and America being run by racist white men and the “United States of KKK.”  What if McCain had chosen as his lifelong spiritual advisor someone who said equivalent things?  And what if McCain’s excuse was, “He’s really a good man who taught me about Jesus.  Don’t listen to that time he called all black people crack-smoking gangbangers.  That was just one stupid thing he said.”

Even without his connections, the future Obama envisions for this country appears rather ominous.  More government spending, more social engineering, wealth redistribution, mandated health care, an apologist approach to dictators like Ahmadinejad, a blame-America-first stance.  But hey, he’s charismatic and he promises to give all the voters money.  So elect away, America.  Put your hands out and Obama will smile and pat your little heads and give you your allowance.  He knows what’s best for you.  Just ask him.

As I’ve said before, I hope Obama does well.  I hope things improve.  I don’t wish harm on him and especially not on America.  But this seems to me absurd.  Wake up, people.

Why the World Needs Ann Coulter

It’s not only annoying when people are hampered by political correctness; it’s downright dangerous.  By “hampered” I mean afraid to speak up and criticize bad behavior because it might get them labeled a bigot.  The prime example of this nowadays is the rank cowardice of people who won’t criticize fundamentalist Islam for fear of being called “intolerant” or “anti-Muslim.”

You can hardly blame them, I suppose.  Every time such a point is made – every time someone says that traditional Islam is oppressive to women, that thousands of so-called moderate Muslims cheered in the streets on 9/11, that anti-Semitic hatred and extremism is being preached in mosques, that we should favor scrutiny of people of Middle-Eastern descent over scrutiny of elderly Caucasian ladies at the airport – the PC Police cry foul and say “you’re unfairly labeling all Muslims, you big meanie!”

Never mind that no one said the first thing about “all” Muslims.  Look at what happened to Salman Rushdie.  Look at what happens when an elderly British teacher names a teddy bear after the prophet.  Look at what happens when a Danizh cartoon lampoons the prophet.  Look what happens when Ayaan Hirsi Ali says that by current laws, the prophet would be a child molester. (What is untrue about that, considering that he took a wife whose age was a single digit?)

Just because someone is criticizing the bad aspects of Islam doesn’t mean they’re criticizing all Islam, and it doesn’t mean they’re criticizing only Islam.  No reasonable person thinks that all Muslims are terrorists, or that the overall message of Islam is violent jihad.  I like to think that the civilized world is beyond such simple-minded stereotyping.  But to say that we don’t have a right to criticize terrorist murderers sworn to destroy us because they happen to be Muslims is absurd.

This problem isn’t solely limited to challenges of fundamentalist Islam.  If you censor Barack Obama, you become a racist.  Challenge Hillary Clinton, and you’re sexist.  Ask tough questions about God or faith, and you’re being disrespectful of people’s beliefs.  This is nothing but a way of slinking away from our responsibility to deal with the tough issues.  It’s intellectual laziness, it’s moral cowardice, and worst of all, it damages our ability to use reason.  How can we have an honest discussion about anything if we’re forced at every turn to worry about hurting someone’s feelings?

Recently I even saw a man on TV claiming that the term “black hole” is racist against blacks.  Words fail me.

It is to this end that I say the world needs more people like Ann Coulter.  Not because I agree with her, not because I think she’s always fair, not because I think people should mimic her viewpoints.  I wouldn’t repeat some of the things she’s said.  Hell, almost everyone I know calls her a heartless bitch for what she said about those 9/11 widows – and I’m talking about convicted felons here!

The point is that she’s not afraid to be despised by the PC Police.  She doesn’t care if they point that finger at her.  She won’t be guilt-tripped into silence by dingbats who whine about feelings getting hurt at the expense of critical inquiry.  If for no other reason, that makes her voice an important one.  If you can’t stand her, then let everyone know the reasons why.  Argue with her.  If she’s as horrible as you say she is, shouldn’t it be simple to expose her?  Wouldn’t it be more constructive to try to prove her wrong instead of trying to shut her down with shackles of political correctness?

Why Americans Should Come To Their Senses About Barack Obama

I’ve been saying for months that I think Obama is going to be our next president.  I wish it weren’t so, but I don’t see how McCain can compete with the record turnouts of Democratic voters and the energy of Obama’s speeches.

I don’t get it.  People talk about how Obama is going to bring change, pull people together, and achieve bipartisan solutions.  How?  On what position can Barack Obama – arguably the most liberal senator in America – come to bipartisan terms with Republicans?  Where can he meet them halfway?  On nationalized healthcare?  On raising the capital gains and estate taxes?  On rigid gun control?  On surrendering in Iraq?  On more social entitlements?  On immigration reform?  On environmental standards?

How is President Obama going to get Republicans to work with him on these issues, considering his rather leftist views?  Oh, I get it.  He won’t have to – he’ll have a Democratic Congress to hand him whatever he wants.

Let’s forget all those questionable connections Obama has, or the fact that he renounced his church and former friends twenty years too late – and only because it was politically expedient.  How does he get away with doubling the capital gains tax?  I just had a discussion with a friend of mine.  Her working-class family (like many others) is currently investing for retirement.  Why is Obama going to punish them?  Honestly, how is it not penalization to make it more difficult for working-class families who invest in the stock market?  I thought Obama was trying to help families?

Another thing my friend was concerned about was the estate tax.  In Obama’s book The Audacity of Hope, he said he wanted to raise the estate tax or else much of America’s wealth will “end up in the hands of those who didn’t earn it.”

My friend was a little upset to hear a politician saying that her son didn’t deserve what she worked to give him.  Who wouldn’t be outraged at that?  Who the hell is Barack Obama to decide whether someone’s child deserves the money their parents want to leave them?  If our kids haven’t earned it, who has, Senator?  The poor?  What did they do to earn it, if we’re going to use your rationale?

I also remain unconvinced that pulling out of Iraq is the right thing to do, especially now that we appear to be making so much progress (the Sunni are fighting with us!).  A stable democracy in Iraq will keep America safe.  There’s a reason terrorist groups like Hamas would like to see Obama become president – they think he’d be softer on the war against Islamic terror.  Pulling out of Iraq can definitely qualify in that regard.  In January, I don’t want to wake up on Inauguration Day to the footage of thousands of Muslim fascists celebrating in the streets and shouting that they “defeated America.”

Saving face is not a trivial goal.  This isn’t about pride; it’s about practicality.  If you give in to an enemy who’s bent on destroying you, he doesn’t call it quits; he simply tries to go further next time.  They already think – perhaps even with a grain of truth – that while America’s military might is unparalleled, we don’t have the will to back it up for the long haul.  A show of strength saves lives and prevents more bloodshed.  Confrontations always involve a standoff to see who will back down first.  Barack Obama would have us back down first.  It’s foolhardy.

But hey, whatever.  Maybe I’m dead wrong.  Maybe pulling out of Iraq will somehow make the situation better with the Islamic fascists.  Maybe they’ll suddenly respect us.  Maybe raising taxes and taking away personal responsibility will make our economy stronger.  I want McCain to win, but since I don’t think he will, I’m rooting for Obama.  I genuinely hope he does well and things improve.  Wanting to see him fail is irrational; it’s like hoping that harm will befall America.

Why Suicide Bombers are Really Cowards

I don’t want to call terrorists cowards because they target innocent people.  For that, I would call them murderous, unjust, evil, dishonorable, and contemptible.  Likewise, I don’t think the 9/11 hijackers are cowards simply because their targets were helpless civilians who had nothing to do with their “cause,” and I don’t necessarily call Osama bin Laden a coward because he hides in caves and kills little kids.

In my view, they’re cowards for a bigger reason.  Some people like to say that these suicide bombers are brave for choosing death to further their cause, but how is it bravery if you’re given an eternal reward?  Where’s the sacrifice?  They’re dying to attain paradise and a bevy of virgins.  They’re materialists.  Their highest aspiration is a beautiful place to love and indiscriminate sex.  They want what they’re too “pious” to attain in real life.  They’re ashamed of their earthly lust, but somehow it becomes okay to own seventy-two prostitutes if the price you pay is your life.  (I’ve always wondered: What exactly do the seventy-two virgins get out of the deal?)

They’re worse than the American materialists that they constantly shriek about.  At least us Americans only want material things in thislife.  Even the silliest Christians aren’t under any illusions about heaven being full of gold mansions and pliable maidens.  These terrorist “martyrs” want divine paradise because it justifies the humanity they openly despise  Is divine materialism somehow nobler than earthly materialism.  I think not.  I’m a de facto atheist and I still understand that tainting the divine this way is a travesty.  If your spirituality consists of behavior to earn an award that you aren’t allowed to pursue on earth, what’s the point?

I’ll give you an example of real bravery, realy martyrdom.  How about dying for a cause here on earth when you know oblivion waits for you?  How about defying an unjust God and gladly facing damnation for your conviction?  That’s courage.  When you get nothing out of the deal but the knowledge that your death helped accomplish whatever goal or point you deem so important.  A father who willingly goes to his death to save his child isn’t thinking about what awaits him, is he?  He doesn’t care about being a martyr, or pleasing God, or all the virgins he gets to deflower in heaven.

That’s courage.  That’s a hero.  That’s what makes a martyr: caring about something or someone else more than you care about yourself.  If you get a wondrous eternal reward out of the deal, doesn’t that kind of defeat the whole purpose?