Best wishes to the wonderful Jane Hamsher of Firedog Lake for a full and speedy recovery. (Several very encouraging updates from Christy at FDL).

Uncategorized | 5 Comments »

…bringing people to World o’ Crap:

“Dick Cheney satanic ritual.”

I can’t believe people are still coming here for that.  You’d think Dick would’ve put up a Myspace page for that stuff by now.

For No Good Reason | 4 Comments »

In light of Dinesh D’Souza’s recent appearances on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report to promote his book, The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11, it may seem cruel to pile additional abuse on his piece in today’s L.A Times.  But given that I’m one of the people who caused the attack on 9/11, you’ve got to admit that it’s just the kind of thing you’d expect from me.  (Okay, okay, I don’t want to be accused of being an attention whore; maybe I didn’t cause 9/11, I just transmitted the “go” code to the terrorists from my secret aerie in the ziggurat of the Woolworth Building.  And like the words “Tora!  Tora!  Tora!” that launched the bombing on Pearl Harbor, the 9/11 code phrase will serve as the title of the definitive motion picture treatment of the attacks.  Look for The Gaberdine is Crisp!, coming to theaters this fall.

By now I’m sure most people are familiar with D’Souza’s thesis:  Radical Islamic theocrats attacked us because of Will and Grace and Girls Gone Wild, and those Bowflex commercials with their toned delts and sweaty torsos, thrusting us into the single defining conflict of this generation, which we must fight to the death by becoming exactly like the people who attacked us in the hope that they’ll get confused and accidentally bomb themselves.  Pretty succinct theory, really.  But a facility for inadvertant irony isn’t Dinesh’s only contribution to the public debate; he also has a gift for proceeding from false assumptions that is so dazzling that I suggest his next book be titled, How Many Questions Could a Question-Beggar Beg if a Question-Beggar Could Beg Questions?

IN CONSIDERING a funding cutoff for U.S. troops in Iraq, the liberal leadership in Congress runs the risk of making the United States more vulnerable to future attacks, not just in the Middle East but here at home.

Wow, a lie right out of the box.  Apparently Dinesh learned his sense of pacing from all those porn movies he watched while researching our degenerate culture, where it’s necessary to jump right into the action lest the viewer hit the Fast Forward button, or flip around to see what else is on Spectravision.   Anyway, a show of hands if you’re heard any members of “the liberal leadership in Congress” talk about cutting off funds for U.S. troops in Iraq.  Certainly they’ve talked about capping the number of troops at their present level, and John Murtha has said he wants to ‘“fence the funding,” denying the president the resources to escalate the war, instead using the money to take care of the soldiers as we bring them home from Iraq “as soon as we can.”‘  So far only Dennis Kucinich is seriously talking about cutting off all funds and demanding an immediate withdrawl from Iraq, but last I looked, the Democratic leadership has installed a “You Must Be At Least This Tall To Lead Congress” sign at the switchbacks leading to the Speaker’s Chair.

Pundits on the left say that 9/11 was the result of a “blowback” of resistance from the Islamic world against U.S. foreign policy. At first glance, this seems to make no sense.

Exactly.  U.S. foreign policy making people mad at us?  Whoever heard of THAT?

American colonialism in the Middle East? The U.S. has no history of colonialism there. Washington’s support for unelected dictatorial regimes in the region? The Muslims can’t be outraged about this, because there are no other kinds of regimes in the region.

MUSLIM:  Why did you give our unelected, dictatorial regime helicopter gunships and chemical weapon components?  They just sprayed our village with VX nerve agent and set my entire family on fire!

U.S.:  Well, we would’ve been happy to give the Blackhawks and the nerve gas to an elected, non-dictatorial regime if you’d had one, but those kinds of regimes don’t usually need sophisticated weapons systems to stay in power, and we had to give ‘em to someone.  Surely even you, standing in a scorched impact crater with your skin peeling off, has to admit that it would be a wee bit unreasonable to get all outraged at us about this.

U.S. support for Israel and wars against the Muslims? Yes, but the U.S. has frequently fought on the side of the Muslims, as in Afghanistan in the 1980s or in the Persian Gulf War.

Well, except for sending John Rambo and Luke from The Real McCoys, we didn’t exactly fight on the side of the muhajadeen in Afghanistan in the ’80s.  But we did give them lots of guns and ammo, which came in very handy after we abandoned the country to lawlessness and warlordism following the Soviets’ withdrawal.  But the altruism of our effort in the Persian Gulf War is undeniable, except if you count all those permanent bases in Saudi Arabia that we got out of it.

But in a sense the liberal pundits are right. The U.S. made two gigantic foreign policy blunders in recent decades that did sow the seeds of 9/11. What the liberals haven’t recognized is that these blunders were the direct result of their policies and actions, and were carried out by Democratic presidents — Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

Also, as Stephen Colbert prodded Dinesh to admit, FDR, since he handed Stalin the keys to Eastern Europe at the Yalta Conference instead of ordering a nuclear strike on Moscow, which would have prevented the Soviet Union from invading Afghanistan forty years later, forcing us to give guns and training to Osama bin Laden.

To understand this, we need a little perspective.

Forced perspective, but still…

Radical Islam became a global force in 1979, when it captured its first major state, Iran. Before that, radical organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood were fighting losing battles to overthrow their local governments. This changed with the success of the Khomeini regime in Iran. The Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was the first Muslim leader to describe the U.S. as the “Great Satan”

…and he’s yet to see a dime in artist royalties for it.

…and to counsel martyrdom and jihad against it. Iran continues to be a model for radical Muslims.

Except for the radical Sunni Muslims who attacked us, since they pretty much hate the Persian Shia.  But they’re still willing to do a quick charcoal sketch — under protest — as long as Iran agrees to model nude.

Khomeini’s ascent to power was aided by Carter’s policies. Carter came into office stressing his support for human rights. His advisors told him that he could not consistently support the shah of Iran, who had secret police and was widely accused of violating human rights. The administration began to withdraw its support and finally pulled the rug out from under the shah, forcing him to step down.

Yes, the Shah had “secret police” (Dinish makes it sound so nice, like the Shah had an imaginary friend or something) and was “widely accused of violating human rights.”  But consider the source: the accusations against the Shah came almost entirely from people he’d had tortured, so they clearly had an axe to grind.  But this does pose a question:  if a tyrant is in danger of being overthrown by his own people the instant we stop propping him up, exactly how long can we keep him in power before the populace is legitimately allowed to get irked at us?  20 years?  30?  In Dinesh’s ideal world, would there be a Pahlavi on the Peacock Throne and a SAVAK agent at every keyhole in Teheran today?

Clinton’s policies also helped to provoke 9/11. After the Cold War, leading Islamic radicals returned to their home countries. Bin Laden left Afghanistan and went back to Saudi Arabia; Ayman Zawahiri returned to Egypt. They focused on fighting their own rulers — what they termed the “near enemy” — in order to establish states under Islamic law. But in the mid- to late 1990s, these radicals shifted strategy. They decided to stop fighting the near enemy and to attack the “far enemy,” the U.S.

The world’s sole superpower would seem to be much more formidable than local Muslim rulers such as Hosni Mubarak in Egypt or the Saudi royal family. Bin Laden argued, however, that the far enemy was actually weaker and more vulnerable. He was confident that when kicked in their vital organs, Americans would pack up and run. Just like in Vietnam. Just like in Mogadishu.

Just like in Beirut in 1983, when President Ronald Reagan (I don’t have his biographical information handy, but I’m guessing he must have been a Democrat) pulled out of Lebanon, a decision that prompted Osama bin Laden to declaim:  “Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took place in 1983? You were turned into scattered pits and pieces at that time; 241 mainly Marine soldiers were killed.”

Bin Laden saw his theory of American weakness vindicated during the Clinton era. In 1993, Islamic radicals bombed the World Trade Center. The Clinton administration did little.

Except catch the guys who did it and put them in jail.

In 1996, Muslim terrorists attacked the Khobar Towers facility on a U.S. base in Saudi Arabia. No response.

Well, there was an investigation, but it was stymied by the unelected, dictatorial regime in Saudi Arabia.  Thank goodness they’re on our side.

In 1998, Al Qaeda bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa. Clinton responded with a few perfunctory strikes in Sudan and Afghanistan.

And was promptly accused of “Wagging the Dog” by Republicans, which didn’t really help advance of the cause of counter-terrorism, but was preferable to stupidly appropriating the title of some other movie released in 1997; Tom Delay might, for instance, have criticized the President for cynically “Jungle 2 Jungling” or for committing a blatant act of ”Air Bud.”

These did no real harm to Al Qaeda and only strengthened the perception of American ineptitude. In 2000, Islamic radicals bombed the U.S. destroyer Cole. Again, the Clinton team failed to act.

And it happened on October 12, almost a month before the election!  As any moron knows, THAT’S the time you start a war.

Still, the 2001 attacks might have been averted had the Clinton administration launched an effective strike against Bin Laden in the years leading up to them. Clinton has said he made every effort to get Bin Laden during his second term. Yet former CIA agent Michael Scheuer estimates that there were about 10 chances to capture or kill Bin Laden during this period and that the Clinton people failed to capitalize on any of them.

Michael Scheuer also said this:  “I think Iraq is finished. We’ll just find a way to get out. I frankly don’t think we ever intended to win there. We certainly didn’t send enough troops to close borders, to control the country. [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld was obsessed, apparently with his new, lighter, faster military. The inflow of fighters is growing. The pace of the insurgency, both there and in Afghanistan, is increasing. I don’t hold much of a brief for Sen. John McCain, but he’s right, in an unpalatable way: Unless we greatly increase the number of troops we have in Iraq, we’re going to have to leave. I think the question is how do we leave? Do we leave with some dignity, or do we leave by flying off the top of the embassy as we did in Saigon?”  So I guess he knows what he’s talking about.

Two lessons can be drawn from these sorry episodes. The first one, derived from Carter’s actions, is: In getting rid of the bad regime, make sure that you don’t get a worse one. This happened in Iran and could happen again, in Iraq, if leading Democrats in Congress have their way.

To quote the Hoosier Sage, Doghouse Riley:  Boy, That’s A Hell Of A Mess We Left In Your Yard There.  Here’s How We Think You Should Clean It up.

The second lesson, derived from Clinton’s inaction, is that the perception of weakness emboldens our enemies. If the Muslim insurgents and terrorists believe that the U.S. is divided and squeamish about winning the war on terror, they are likely to escalate their attacks on Americans abroad and at home. In that case, 9/11 will be only the beginning.

But if we stick it out and continue to dump blood and treasure into an unwinnable, inescapable quagmire, our perception of victory is assured.  So the question is simple: do we fool our enemies and lose, or do we fool ourselves and win?

Revenge of the Nerds | 29 Comments »

Remember when Ben Shapiro said in an interview that his sisters “can’t watch TV anymore because of all the raunchy broadcasting”?  Well, we think Ben’s parents should prohibit Ben from watching TV, because it’s warping his mind (and a mind that was carefully homeschooled for all those years is a terrible thing to waste). 

Yes, sadly Harvard Law student Ben turns out be be just another coach potato preoccupying himself with steamy fantasies involving Jack Bauer, as shown in his latest column “Where’s Jack Bauer When You Need Him?.”  (The title apparently refers to Ben’s belief that we need Jack Bauer to torture Andrew Sullivan until Sully recants his claim that torture is wrong.)

Anyway, here’s a bit from Ben:

No one doubts that arbitrary torture is wrong. Were we to pull random American citizens from their homes and drag them into a cell for a bit of waterboarding, we would undoubtedly be destroying our own moral fiber and discrediting our history. We would be no better than the Islamists we fight. But there is a fundamental difference between our treatment of non-citizens and our treatment of citizens.

Watch out, Canadians!

This does not mean we should treat all outsiders as terrorists. We should treat outsiders with civility as long as they do not threaten our civilization — this in and of itself distinguishes us from our enemies. If, however, outsiders threaten our civilization, we should do what we deem necessary. If we must sometimes get our hands dirty to protect Western civilization, so be it. Western civilization is not a fragile edifice, infinitely susceptible to fruits of fascism. We will not become Nazis because we torture terrorists. We can safely fight our enemies without destroying that which makes us what we are.

That’s an Interesting belief for a religious man: that Western civilization is so strong that we can torture all the terrorists we want without ever turning into the bad guys.  But here are some questions for Ben: Just how many “terrorist associates” can we torture before we become Nazi-esque?  How many of those who were in the wrong place at the wrong time when we conducted a roundup can we torture before we lose the moral high ground?  And what if we find that torture isn’t effective, but we do it anyway, just because it gives us the illusion of power over our enemies — doesn’t that cause some kind of a cloud over our claims to being civilized?  And if, as you say, the one question we must ask ourselves when deciding how to treat our enemies is “Do the benefits of torture in this case outweigh the harms?” then why not use that standard for every case when we are dealing with somebody who might be a danger to our civilization?  Why not torture child molesters, war protesters, and litter bugs? 

Anyway, I’ll let the rest of you weigh in on this — I want to go get Jack Bauer and have him “persuade” Ben to enlist in the infantry.

Uncategorized | 33 Comments »

Okay, now Professor Mike Adams, Ph.D., is unleashing his devastating wit on panhandlers.  (You know, those people who ask you for spare change, and who are, by and large, untreated sufferers from mental illness and/or addicts or alcoholics — so, unfortunates who have fallen through the cracks of society).

Seriously, Dr. Mike is now engaging in battles of wit with crazy street people.  See his column “How to Manhandle Those Who Panhandle” if you don’t believe me.  (Sure, he claims justification in the fact that a local town leader who previously objected to the word “niggardly” wouldn’t support anti-pandhandling legislation, but it just comes across as really mean-spirited and pathetic.)

The good news is that, as usual, Dr.Mike’s conversations are all in his head.  The bad news is that this column is clearly a cry for help on Dr. Mike’s part — but I can’t see his friends and family (or even his employers) rushing in to get him the treatment he needs. Anyway, here’s an excerpt from the column for use at the commitment proceedings:

I’ve decided to fight back. In fact, I’ve been waging my own personal war on panhandlers for months now. Since I’ve gotten pretty good at it, I’ve decided to share a dozen or so of my best responses to panhandlers. Hopefully, they will help you to avoid unpleasant encounters. So, without any further delay, I sincerely hope you enjoy the following:

Crack Head (hereafter “CH”): “Excuse me brother, but could you spare some change?”

Major Smart Aleck (hereafter “MSA”): “No, but if you would like I’ll go straight to the projects to buy you some crack rock. I like to know for certain how people are spending my money.”

CH: “Excuse me brother but …”

MSA: “You already asked me that once. Don’t you recognize me? Oh, I get it – you think all white people look alike. You’re a (rhymes with “bucking”) racist!”

Ha, ha!  Dr. Mike certainly told off the confused, hungry guy with schizophrenia, and thereby damned some local liberal who objected to the word “niggardly”!

Now, here’s another one of Dr. Mike’s snappy retorts:

CH: “Hey mister …”
MSA: (Faking conversation on cell phone). “I don’t know, Scott. I mean killing panhandlers is a little too much. I think they should just be castrated. We are talking about the first offense, right? Recidivists should definitely be hung or shot. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not going liberal on you.”

Sad (and scary), isn’t it, to see what goes on in Dr. Mike’s mind.  We’d say “How art the mighty fallen,” except that Dr. Mike was never mighty.

With Dr. Mike | 30 Comments »

I want to thank D. Sidhe for alerting us to the very amusing parody site  OBJECTIVE: Ministries.  (The links to sincere but nutty sites such as Christian Exodus, the Chalcedon Foundation, and Judge Roy Moore make you think it may be real, but such things as the “battle cry” of “Cut Up the Concubines” let you know that it’s a joke).  It’s lots of good Christian fun for the whole family!

 

UPDATE:  Although Wikipedia isn’t always right, if you are in doubt about whether this site is a joke or not, their entry on OBJECTIVE: Ministries might help you make up your mind. 

What convinced me that the site was a parody was not just the “Kirk Cameron infiltrates a Druid Coven” piece, but the fact that the link in the article was just to a boring, old “Way of the Master” broadcast that didn’t mention Druids AT ALL!.  Plus, I never got my free Bible for converting the hippie atheist.  Bottom line: while all of the ideas presented at OBJECTIVE are held by actual religious wingnuts somewhere, said beliefs never come together in such an abundance of wingnuttery in nature (because such a site would be too stupid to live, proving that Darwinism even applies to wingnuttery). …  Unless, of course, God is now intervening to make life a lot easier for bloggers like me by allowing nuttiness without even a dab of sense to flourish, or Satan is busy ushering in the apocolypse or something,

Uncategorized | 22 Comments »

This week, in a little didactice essay entitled “Blurting with Disaster,” Dr. Mike shares some of his stories with us in order to teach one of his students why he or she shouldn’t interrupt Dr. Mike during class.  And while we don’t find fault with Dr, Mike’s goal, we do feel that his methodology is suspect, mainly because, as usual, Dr. Mike’s stories reveal a little too much about Dr. Mike’s thought processes for comfort. (It’s always hard to learn moral lessons from a guy who makes you want to smack him.)

Anyway, Dr. Mike first recounts three incidents where four of his stupid, obnoxious students (three of them being women, but only one specifically identified as a feminist) blurt out inappropriate comments in class, and then go on to live lifes of failure, dishonor, and despair (and spinsterhood). Dr. Mike then tells us about three instances where stupid, obnoxious, smelly students annoy Dr. Mike, but he refrains from telling them just how much they disgust him (saving that for this column), and Dr. Mike wins their hearts and minds, which he then tosses in the crapper, because hey, they were just idiot liberals, after all.

So, let’s learn about the dangers of blurting by first meeting Goofus (who will be played by one of Dr. Mike’s students):

*Once, I did an interesting exercise on self-report studies of criminality. I was teaching students about the evolution (but certainly not the creation) of self-report studies, some of which were not-so-intelligently designed. The students were all required to write a brief anonymous account of their most serious criminal act. I then read some of the highlights in class accompanied by my usual sarcastic commentary.

I read one account of a female student chasing a woman down a residential street with a machete after she caught her in bed with her boyfriend. I then joked “They’re doing great things with anti-depressants these days.” I even offered directions to the office of the university psychiatrist.

But the girl didn’t think it was so funny. She thought “But that bitch was sleeping with my boyfriend.” And, simultaneously, she stood up and shouted “But that bitch was sleeping with my boyfriend.” She blew her anonymity and thereafter had a difficult time finding a good study group.

It would have been better if the young woman just learned to control her blurting.

Yes, it certainly would have. But before we move on, let’s take a closer look at Dr. Mike’s teaching technique: He requires that his students write about their most serious criminal act. Then he reads their confessions out loud to the class, adding satirical commentary. And when this provokes one young woman into an incriminating outburst, SHE’s the jerk.

While some might think that this exercise was simply a way for Dr. Mike to salivate over the depravity of his students, while at the same time sadistically mocking and demeaning then, it was, in truth, a lesson on the unintelligence of self-reporting criminology studies. Socrates would be proud.

Now, on to Gallant (played today by Dr. Mike), who will teach us about not blurting.

*I was giving a lecture at a leftist university in the northeast. A Muslim student was whining about how he was “offended” that he was (supposedly) targeted by airport security agents. He also said the First Amendment was not there for powerless people like himself. It was there for white people only. The Muslim fellow smelled so badly I was choking from about twenty yards away. I thought to myself:

“Yes, but you haven’t showered in a month. And, come to think of it, you smell bad enough to knock a buzzard off a turd wagon. That really offends me so sit down and stop whining.”

But I didn’t say it. Instead, I talked about poor powerless Martin Luther King, Jr. and all he accomplished with the First Amendment. And I asked the kid to reflect on the number of countries where such great achievements might be duplicated.

We concluded our exchange with nods of mutual respect, largely because I was able to control my impulses.

Yes, because Dr. Mike was able to control his impulse to mortally insult a student at a public gathering, Dr. Mike was able to teach the stinky Muslim that if racial profiling was good enough for Martin Luther King, Jr., it should be good enough for him. And the kid respected Dr. Mike, all because Dr. Mike didn’t tell the kid (and the rest of the world) just how stinky the non-Christian bastard really was – well, until now.

Anyway, I think we’ve all learned a valuable lesson today, and I hope we can all try to emulate Dr. Mike when it comes to decorum, tact, and self-restraint.

With Dr. Mike | 27 Comments »

Our next guest lecturer will be the doyen of deep thinking, Miss Peggy Noonan. Her latest column is about the President’s latest speech, which she didn’t like, since she didn’t write it and dear Mr. Reagan didn’t deliver it.  She also provides a brilliant argument for why we have to stay in Iraq, even though it’s the wrong thing to do: because the Democrats and the Iraqis are a bunch of uncooperative slackers who just won’t do as they’re told.

The Two Vacuums

Neither Iraqis nor Democrats seem ready to do what’s required of them

I had the odd and wholly unexpected experience of feeling supportive of a troop increase until I saw the president’s speech arguing for it.

Yeah, even Peggy has realized that if George is for something, it must be wrong.

But forget all that, it’s time for a story! Your job is to guess which one Peggy told to illustrate a point about … something, and which one was provided by humorist Jack Handey.

Like the old woman in the flood who took to the roof and implored God to send a boat to save her. A hunk of wood floated by as she prayed with fervor. A busted wooden door floated by as the waters rose and she doubled her prayers. Finally she cried “God, I asked you to save me and you didn’t send a boat!” And the voice of God answered: “I sent you a hunk of wood and a door!”

The whole town laughed at my great-grandfather, just because he worked hard and saved his money. True, working at the hardware store didn’t pay much, but he felt it was better than what everybody else did, which was go up to the volcano and collect the gold nuggets it shot out every day. It turned out he was right. After forty years, the volcano petered out. Everybody left town, and the hardware store went broke. Finally he decided to collect gold nuggets too, but there weren’t many left by then. Plus, he broke his leg and the doctor’s bills were real high.

Anyway, on to Peggy’s critique of the speech:

There was something unnerving about the speech, from the jumpy beginning to the stumbles to the sound glitches. A jittery affair, and some dusk hung over it.

Um, right. That’s just how it would have seemed to me too, if I had watched it.

Now, for Jack’s critique of the speech:

To me, clowns aren’t funny. In fact, they’re kind of scary. I’ve wondered where this started and I think it goes back to the time I went to the circus, and a clown killed my dad.

And now for Peggy’s critique of the Democrats.

They are sunk in the superficial.

When Nancy Pelosi showed up at the White House Wednesday to talk with the president it was obvious she’d spent a lot of time thinking about . . . what to wear. She wrapped herself in a rich red shawl. Dick Morris said it looked like a straitjacket. I thought she looked like a particularly colorful mummy.

Yup, that certainly shows just how superficial those damned Dems really are!  You know, we should get Peggy and Dick together to do a fashion review of all of the Democratic legislators, because I’m sure it would prove that said politicians are shallow people who are too petty to run this country.

Well, that’s probably enough deep thinking from Peggy – we wouldn’t want her to strain her pretty little head.

So, here is Jack Handey with more thoughts on the speech, the proposed troop increase, and the war

As a young boy, when you get splashed by a mud puddle on the way to school, you wonder if you should go home and change, but be late for school, or go to school the way you are; dirty and soaking wet. Well, while he tried to decide, I drove by and splashed him again.

Fear can sometimes be a useful emotion. For instance, let’s say you’re an astronaut on the moon and you fear that your partner has been turned into Dracula. The next time he goes out for the moon pieces, wham!, you just slam the door behind him and blast off. He might call you on the radio and say he’s not Dracula, but you just say, “Think again, bat man.”

Thank you, Mr. Handey.  And that is why I think Jack should be writing speeches for the President.

Uncategorized | 14 Comments »

Our seminar will commence with a study of our new favorite professorial wingnut, Mary Grabar, whose latest column “Arrest all jaywalking history professors,” starts by applauding the arrest of a visiting historian for jaywalking, then uses that incident to springboard into an attack on Keith Ellison for using a Koran at his swearing-in ceremony without explaining that Thomas Jefferson used said book to fight pirates.

Seriously, that’s what her column is about.  And yes, it makes almost as much sense as last week’s effort, “Dear Teach’: ‘I am macaca,’” which started by denouncing S.R. Sidarth for capitalizing on his “macaca” fame when he applied to a political science seminar, and ended by complaining that minorities are too often rich these days.

Anyway, here are the key passages from the new column – try to follow the logic.

But historians are guilty of more egregious forms of jaywalking—to use the apt metaphor: distorting history, and their roles as scholars. This group of “scholars” did something decidedly unscholarly at the meeting funded by their universities: they voted in a resolution against war, specifically the Iraq war. The panels consisted of the usual panoply of multicultural, anti-West advocacy, as well. And, thus, many of these scholars share much in common with newly elected Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison who has distorted history for his own purposes.

Banking on the public’s ignorance of history and the mainstream media’s complicity, Keith Ellison had Thomas Jefferson’s Koran taken out from the Library of Congress under security, for his swearing-in ceremony.

[...]

While the self-proclaimed intellectuals and profanity-spewing bloggers applauded Ellison’s “savviness,” those who know history and have retained the ability to smell a rat—but not crowned by the Left with Ph.D.’s or Pulitzer prizes–started spreading the truth about why Jefferson might need to refer to his Koran: he needed to know the enemy.

He needed to understand Muslim pirate slavers off the Barbary states who were pillaging villages and making slaves of non-Muslims: women as concubines and boys who were castrated.

[...]

What the arrogant Congressman is banking on is the ignorance of the American people—that we will take him at his word that Jefferson’s reading of the Koran proves him a “broad, visionary thinker”—i.e., one who would approve of Ellison’s agenda.

[...]

And a perusal of the jaywalking professor’s own nineteen books reveals a decidedly anti-Western stance. [...]

The privileged professors who live in a Marxist wonderland talk to each other in this way. But these inheritors of privilege are cut off from the demands and dangers of the real world—like economic uncertainty, physical labor, or contact with criminals or enemy combatants.

Deep thoughts indeed. So, if I might, I will now summarize Temporary Assistant Professor Grabar’s scholarly paper:

=============

A historian got arrested for jay walking (and rightfully so) — but all the historians at the conference should have been jailed for being against the war.

Also against truth and decency is Keith Ellison, who borrowed Thomas Jefferson’s Koran, thus making it appear that Jefferson owned a Koran, possibly because he was interested in other religions, when in truth Jefferson owned a Koran, undoubtedly because he was fighting pirates. Muslim Pirates with perverted sexual desires.

Historians never told you this, because unlike you and Mary, they are all rich bastards who live in ivory towers, and they never have to mow the lawn or kill enemy Muslims, such as Congressman Ellison. So, um, historians suck. And so do minorities. We should jail them all, because they’re all traitors!

================

I know you want to run out and write your own column now, but remember, kids, Mary has a Ph.D. and is a professional wingnut, and you aren’t, so you shouldn’t try this at home.

But let’s go back to Mary for the unvarnished version of her stunning conclusion:

We now have a Congressman who has rejected his heritage by a conversion to Islam, worked for Louis Farrakhan, was featured speaker at meetings of Islamic organizations with ties to terrorists, defended six imams staging a stunt, has been appointed the House judiciary committee where he proposes to ban racial profiling (in effect granting immunity to non-Caucasians), and with impunity has misrepresented a historical document.

So, I suggest a citizen’s arrest for all jaywalking historians—those who refuse to remain within the lines of truth—for the crime of attempting to lead into the hands of tyranny.

And that, kids, is how you wingnut. I hope you were taking notes, because it will be on the test. Oh, and if you missed class, Professor Mike Adams will shoot you like the dog you are.

Uncategorized | 35 Comments »

 … the latest addition to our blog roll, Beat Incomplete: The ‘Like a Virgin’ Blog.  It’s probably the best source of “like a virgin” blogging that I’ve found anywhere.  Be sure to check out the latest on little Ben Shapiro and non-virgin Nancy Pelosi … if you DARE!

Uncategorized | No Comments »