America faces a crossroads and most Americans know it. They know that the state invading every aspect of life from constipation to thermostat setting to TV type elevates the state over the individual. If God isn’t making the rules for America, god, in the form of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama, the Triune of I-Know-Better-Than-You-What-Is-Good-For-You will be making the rules. And boy, are they.
So, Americans can either buy the illusion–that the state will care for them. Or, Americans can recognize that no human power can adequately care for the mind, body, and spirit. And when the state does care for basic survival needs, it starves the mind and spirit needs as a result.
John Hawkins joins me to discuss this topic–oh, and health care, the shooting at Fort Hood and lots of other topics are woven in together.
How does a man weened on politically correct thought, race grievance, and collective versus individual responsibility deal with this:
Here was the President’s response:
President Obama gave a shout out before his statements about the rampage at Ft. Hood. Does that seem dissonant to you? Bookworm calls it “frightening insensitivity“.
But instead of a somber chief executive offering reassuring words and expressions of sympathy and compassion, viewers saw a wildly disconnected and inappropriately light president making introductory remarks. At the event, a Tribal Nations Conference hosted by the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Indian affairs, the president thanked various staffers and offered a “shout-out” to “Dr. Joe Medicine Crow — that Congressional Medal of Honor winner.” Three minutes in, the president spoke about the shooting, in measured and appropriate terms. Who is advising him?
Anyone at home aware of the major news story of the previous hours had to have been stunned. An incident like this requires a scrapping of the early light banter. The president should apologize for the tone of his remarks, explain what has happened, express sympathy for those slain and appeal for calm and patience until all the facts are in. That’s the least that should occur.
As more uncomfortable information comes out, information President Obama probably knew even yesterday, it will raise more questions. For example, the killer yelled “Allahu Akbar” while he shot his fellow soldiers. In addition, Hasan gave a weird presentation on the Koran during Grand Rounds. Jimmie Bise of Sundries Shack, said on Twitter:
It is this simple: 12 people were murdered yesterday by a man who holds political views the MSM has guaranteed us aren’t dangerous.
And when Jake Tapper just asked Robert Gibbs when an attack becomes a terrorist attack, the response, according to David Almacy also reporting on Twitter was this:
In an answer to @jaketapper, Robert Gibbs just said that he doesn’t have the theoretical background to define “terrorist attack.” Wow.
When faced with the uncomfortable facts, President Obama and his administration are having a collective psychic break. Reality is not conforming to the fantasy they’ve built.
So far, it seems that this killing spree, this terrorist attack, could have been prevented. This man’s radical Islamist views were widely known. He did not hide them. He did not hide that he didn’t want to go to Iraq. He did not hide that he disagreed with America’s wars. He did not hide his frustration about President Obama. He even praised evil–beheadings and terrorism.
Since it’s politically incorrect to “profile” for terrorists or look for threats proactively, how is one to prevent such events? President Obama’s answer has been to pretend. If he ignores threats, they will go away. But they’re not going away. Neither individual or group or State-sponsoring terrorists are going away. And pretending they don’t exist or aren’t serious and deadly is liable to get a man killed. Or many men.
And so, President Obama’s decision to make light of the Ft. Hood killings by burying the story into a pre-planned press-conference makes sense. This act of terrorism revealed all the lies liberals tell themselves and tell others. There are two choices in this situation, then: One, admit the lie and speak the truth. Or two, continue the delusion.
President Obama has chosen to continue the delusion. If he can, and the mainstream media continues to aid and abet him, he’ll reframe this “unfortunate incident” as the actions of one “troubled individual” who should have “received help sooner.” And it looks like he’ll get help in that regard.
But for normal people, this attack was a terrorist attack by a Muslim man schooled in hate-filled ideology. Hasan would have rather killed his fellow soldiers rather than go to an Islamic nation and help his own country find justice there. That is, Hasan was a Muslim first, and a radical one at that, and a countryman second. And because no one can name Islamism evil, because that might make someone uncomfortable, what is there to say?
So the President and his press people fumble around, trying to find some politically correct verbiage to describe evil. And they can’t. What this man did was wrong and heinous. There are no excuses. He was an individual and he’s responsible. He was an educated doctor, a psychiatrist, and enlightenment did not prevent the taint of radical ideology. And he was also a murderer who intended not just to kill, but terrorize.
He is everything President Obama wants to pretend doesn’t exist. Well. America can’t afford to indulge President Obama and his liberal minions their p.c. fantasies. It gets citizens killed. The Ft. Hood massacre was a reality-check.
Michelle Malkin reports that Hasan had “extra weapons training”.
Michael Goldfarb on Obama searching for the “real cause” of the massacre.
Shrinkwrapped discusses the psychology:
When the immediate reaction of Islamic spokesmen is to warn everyone of Islamophobia, they too are supporting the projection and externalization that is the hallmark of radical Islam and the “lone, psychiatrically deranged” paranoid.
Every effort should be made to resolutely maintain a posture that specifically and emphatically denies the use of projection and externalization to the radical Islamists. Groups like CAIR should be confronted by our MSM and government on a regular basis to expose their use of such psychological processes for all to see. Whenever a “lone, psychiatrically deranged” individual commits an atrocity, we must be alert to attempts to shift the psychological impetus for the attack from the attacker to the surround. It is an unhappy reality that confronting a paranoid’s projection and externalization does not work in a therapeutic context. It either convinces the paranoid that you are part of the persecutory conspiracy or, if accepted and internalized, leads to significant depression. However, we cannot treat terror as a therapeutic situation. When Muslims support, in their speech and writing, convictions that reflect the use of projection and externalization, they must be considered potential dangers to the community. This requires a form of “racial profiling” but the alternative is to wait for an atrocity of such significant proportions that “lone, psychiatrically deranged” non-Muslims begin to take things into their own hands.
Naomi Wolf defended the Muslim veil. This is something I wrote about a couple weeks ago amidst some controversy because I feel that the face covering specifically is wrong for the reasons Phylllis Chesler mentions here:
I know that writers don’t often choose the titles of their articles but your article led your editor to title the piece: “Behind the Veil Lives a Thriving Muslim Sexuality.” I do not want to repeat what I’ve already written but your article asks whether “we in the West (are not) radically misinterpreting Muslim sexual mores?” And, you write that the “Western interpretation of veiling as repression of women and of their sexuality….is not so, (but is rather) rooted in a strong sense of public versus private…what is due to God and what is due to one’s husband.”
This does not sound like a feminist indictment of female genital mutilation, forced veiling, forced illiteracy, forced arranged child marriage, polygamy, normalized daughter- and wife-beating, honor killings, or the torture and murder of so many people, both women and men, in Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Sudan, Somalia and Algeria, by Islamists paramilitary forces and by the Islamic government.
You ask that I publish your piece. Indeed, I have already “published” your piece by linking to it in my blog. It is embedded in the piece. Check it out for yourself.
Naomi: Both your generation and my much earlier generation of feminists have failed a universal vision of women’s human rights; most have become multi-cultural relativists and politically correct leftists. Such feminists have been more concerned with the rights of formerly colonized Muslim men than with the rights of formerly colonized and still colonized Muslim women. And, they view America and often Israel as the Evil Empires par excellence and give a free pass to Muslim tyranny.
I have stood almost alone and have been condemned by many for telling the truth about Islamic gender and religious apartheid, and about Israel, anti-Semitism, jihad, and America.
Post-modern feminists are loath to condemn real injustices towards Muslim women. They prefer whitewashing with pap like this from Wolf:
“Many Muslim women I spoke with did not feel at all subjugated by the chador or the headscarf. On the contrary, they felt liberated from what they experienced as the intrusive, commodifying, basely sexualizing Western gaze. … Many women said something like this: …’how tiring it can be to be on display all the time. When I wear my headscarf or chador, people relate to me as an individual, not an object; I feel respected.’ This may not be expressed in a traditional Western feminist set of images, but it is a recognizably Western feminist set of feelings.”
Here’s what I wrote August 19:
It would make sense that Feminists would oppose burqas because they are a tool of oppression for women: that is, burqas are specifically made to make a woman persona non grata. A burqa’s very purpose is to hide the woman and make her invisible as an individual. She is just not there.
But feminists, and liberals in general support the burqa. The woman has a “right to choose”.
Most Muslim girls and women are not given a choice about wearing the chador, burqa, abaya, niqab, jilbab, or hijab (headscarf), and those who resist are beaten, threatened with death, arrested, caned or lashed, jailed, or honor murdered by their own families. Is Wolfe thoroughly unfamiliar with the news coming out of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan on these very subjects? Has she forgotten the tragic, fiery deaths of those schoolgirls in Saudi Arabia who, in trying to flee their burning schoolhouse, were improperly veiled and who were beaten back by the all-powerful Saudi Morality Police?
And this reality is what feminists don’t want to see. They wish to excuse sexist, abusive, raping, and murderous behavior inherent in much of Islamic practice because to be against it would be a tacit approval of Western standards and that simply would not do. It would require a moral choice that would undermine their own criticism of their own patriarchal culture that has long since ceased to be abusive to women. Again, Phyllis says:
Wolf presents the West as anti-woman because it treats women as sex objects. Am I happy about pornography and prostitution in the West? Hell no and, unlike Wolf, I’ve fought against them–but to portray these vices as a “Western” evil, and one that the Islamic world opposes, is sheer madness.
It is well known that the Arabs and Muslims kept and still keep sex slaves–they are very involved in the global trafficking in girls and women and frequent prostitutes on every continent. You will find pornography magazines in every princely tent–those for boys as well as for girls. I am told that the Saudis fly in fresh planeloads of Parisian prostitutes every week. Perhaps they veil them before they conduct their all-night and all-day orgies. Or, perhaps they view them as natural, “infidel” prey.
Naomi Wolf and her American feminist ilk are spoiled rotten grown women who seem to have lost the ability to spot true oppression when it’s right in front of their faces. The burqa has been effective on them, too, evidently. They don’t see the individual under the cover, either. They see their own desires to be judged purely by their brains and accomplishments and long for a way to have their physical imperfections hidden. They see a burqa as a useful feminist tool to achieve that end. What they don’t see is that by being visually invisible, burqa clad women become literally invisible in society, as a cohesive force, as women.
The Feminist’s own callous disregard for the covered and abused women as individuals demonstrates why burqas are an abomination. Perhaps if they saw the bruised, beaten, bleeding, burnt bodies of these women, the torment of women suffering under radical Islam, under the burqa, would be real to them.
My latest Pajamas Media column practically wrote itself this last weekend and could have been twice as long. The column discusses how feminists are a-ok with misogyny as long as conservative women are the recipients. It’s summed up nicely in the bumper sticker, “They’re not women! They’re Republicans!”
I’d like to add a few more examples of the Feminists willful ignorance and determination of silence in the face of injustice. India has experienced a gendercide–that is millions of female babies have been aborted because they’re female. The same thing has been happening in China where single men looking for women become scam victims. All in all, the very tool the Leftist women worship (Bonnie Erbe, “Abortion is a rite of passage”) is used against women to annihilate the “lesser” sex. Leftists will stand around and wonder, however, what happened to 100,000,000 women–that’s the gender disparity now. Don’t say it ladies. Do not say it. Don’t condemn the tool used to create this disparity. And don’t condemn the religious and cultural foundation of hate for women. Don’t do it.
You know those women being stoned in Saudi Arabia for showing ankles? Crickets. You know the women beaten, have acid thrown on them, and are beheaded for shaming a man? Not a word.
No wonder the Feminists are okay with President Obama’s hideous Cairo speech. No wonder they stay silent regarding the hypocrisy of a President Obama’s moral equivalence while he kept his wife out of Egypt and out of a burqua.
And finally, why would Feminist women condemn the cyber-rape of women they believe have it coming when they won’t even defend themselves. Cassy Fiano writes of a Dutch journalist kidnapped and repeatedly raped by Islamists in Afghanistan who then goes on to defend her attackers who “respect her”:
This is a perfect example of the problems with so many liberals today. They are so terrified to call Muslim jihadists what they are — terrorists, murderers, monsters — not because they might be physically harmed in some way, but because they might be branded intolerant. People like Joanie de Rijke don’t look at themselves as sufferers of Stockholm Syndrome, they look at themselves as righteous and intellectual and open-minded and modern. What Mrs. de Rijke, along with so many others on the left, do not understand is that we do not call Muslim thugs and murderers (like the coward who abducted and raped her) monsters or terrorists simply because they are Muslim. We call them monsters or terrorists because they are murderers, rapists, and terrorists. Unfortunately, situations like this are black and white, even though liberals love the idea of moral relativism. There are no shades of grey. Murder is murder, just like rape is rape. A rapist cannot “respect” you, and rape is not something beyond a man’s control simply because of his “high testosterone”.
Also interesting is de Rijke’s description of Gul as a religious man, yet also a hypocritical one. She, of course, is holding Gul to Judeo-Christian religious standards, not Islamic ones. The truth of the matter is, that his actions would indeed be considered hypocritical (and monstrous) by Judeo-Christian standards. By Islamic standards, they are not only not hypocritical, they are expected and acceptable. Muslims are commanded in the Koran to rape and kill infidels, and de Rijke would be considered an infidel. Of course, that little nugget of truth does not fit very neatly into her enlightened liberal worldview, so she ignores it.
So backward and insane are feminists that they will abuse themselves, abuse other women, and annihilate their own gender to serve the ideology that there is no right or wrong and that there is no one better or worse. The only sin is the sin of judgment and intolerance. And these women are willing to tolerate nearly anything except anyone who points out the limitation of their belief system.
Please read the column here.
Addendum: Yesterday night, Media Lizzy and I talked about feminism, beautiful women, sex and much more on my radio show for RFC radio called Right Doctor. You can listen Monday and Wednesday nights and chat with me from 10 – 11 EST, 9 CST, or catch the podcast from iTunes. Subscribe to The Right Doctor on iTunes.
Megan Carpentier editor of Jezebel contacted me and noted that she had written about the Playboy article. I had read her post but didn’t link the article since the website itself seemed more of a fashion and style website. Upon further investigation, the site covers news of the day, too. Megan deserves credit for giving voice to what many self-professed pro-women refused to do: condemn sexism. Read her piece here.
For me, it wasn’t the President’s speech that interested me all that much. The translation of the speech is simple: Appease. What was interesting in Egypt was who wasn’t there. Where was Michelle?
Yesterday, we found out that she was firing staff members while the Eye of Sauron was drawn elsewhere. Not sweet, sweet Michelle!
Feeling churlish today. Anyway, because Michelle stayed home, guess what didn’t happen? This:
Yeah, because you know that in the context of President Obama’s “no one is better than anyone else” speech, it’d be strange and disrespectful, not to mention weak and lame looking to the impotent Muslim men, to not have his woman covered up.
The solution? Partay like an oil lord in Paris, baby! See you there, honey! No one will notice the hypocrisy of carting my family to Western Europe, Paris, the symbol of Western civilization on that side of the pond (forget the jet fuel), while denying the super advanced Muslim civilization being graced by my glorious wife and her dashing Burquini.
No one sees the hypocrisy because the press has their collective noggins veiled in another head covering. Perhaps it will be removed in four years, but I doubt it.
Yesterday, I wrote about the reason why gays aren’t bothered by President Obama’s forked tongue: they know he’s lying.
So, it’s also been noted that President Barack HUSSEIN Obama has rediscovered his inner-Muslim, the part of the Obama that was racist during the campaign. Now, see, it’s convenient and helpful to be part of the Muslim brotherhood. During the campaign, dad was atheist and grandma Christian. Now? Dad and grandma were, surprise!, Muslim, but we all already knew that. Wink! Wink!
There’s a reason all the falsehoods, double-speak and mangled language work and President Obama seems a-ok with it. Bob McCarty says:
In an article published at Islam Review, former Muslim Abdullah Al Araby provides a great deal of information about how lying is condoned within Islam via Al-Takeyya. Among other things, he writes the following:
Unfortunately, when dealing with Muslims, one must keep in mind that Muslims can communicate something with apparent sincerity, when in reality they may have just the opposite agenda in their hearts. Bluntly stated, Islam permits Muslims to lie anytime that they perceive that their own well-being, or that of Islam, is threatened.
In the case of President Obama, he appears to have used the umbrella of Al-Takeyya during his presidential campaign after sensing that his own well-being — or, more specifically, that of his campaign — would be threatened by any admission that his father was a Muslim or that his paternal grandmother, Sarah Obama, is a Muslim.