Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Kathleen Parker Ignores Islamists

In her most recent column, conservative writer Kathleen Parker claims that the Ground Zero Mosque must be built, precisely because we are a free and tolerant people.

"Ultimately, when sensitivity becomes a cudgel against lawful expressions of speech or religious belief -- or disbelief -- we all lose. "

On that point she is correct. I would hope that she would express that same idea in defense of free political expression in this country, and that she would be vocally critical of those that would limit speech. This is especially important regarding political speech. The tendency to seek to limit opinions is a problem rampant amidst the left leaning p.c. among us. Nancy Pelosi's recent call to investigate critics of the Ground Zero Victory Super-Mosque is a perfect example. The woman is a menace to a free society.

That being said, in this case the Muslim proponents for a Ground Zero Victory Super-Mosque (The GZVSM) are far from nonchalantly and inadvertently choosing to build at the sight of a horrendous massacre of US citizens. The project was selected specifically because the site is tied to jihad. After years of being blown to bits in caves, losing fire-fights to the US Marines and suffering death in the dead of night from guided munitions delivered atop roadside mischief makers, it was important to show that they did do something 'right' in the past ten years.

What is galling is the breathless energy by which the lefty pols rushed in to fast track and support the event, as though that would establish their credibility of being higher minded. They yearn to distinguish themselves from common folk, those of us who took it amiss to see commercial airliners crashed into New York skyscrapers, and who hurt inside for the loss of our fellow citizens.

It is the same kind of empty symbolism that marks most everything they do. Why did so many vote for Barack in the first place? Was it not to show they were ready and willing to vote for a person of color? What did those rank and file Dems and the masses of independents know of his intentions and philosophies? Precious little. No, many voted just because they thought it would show what a mature and open people they have become. Imagine Abraham Lincoln behaving in such a frivolous fashion. Not on your life. He was a serious person who dealt with serious events in a serious way.

The same cannot be said for our current political leadership.


  1. I don't think I'd exactly consider Kathleen Parker to be a conservative.

    When I moved to this town, twenty-five years ago or more, her column was callied in the local paper; and over the years I watched her move rightward ... it seemed to be in large part because she doesn't hate men and, being the mother of young men, she didn't want the culture in which they were growing up to be anti-masculinity.

  2. I remember reading her columns and agreeing with her most times from the 1980s on. She seemed to make a complete transformation in her way of thinking when she joined the Washington Post. Such changes are rare outside of head injuries or intentional deception in the first place (Arianna Huffington).

    Her argument makes as much sense as the French's rationale for their behavior post WWII--In order to show their independence from the United States they had to oppose everything the US supported, even when it was a common-sense "slam dunk." Funny how the Left has gone from the proponent of "freedom from religion" to the greatest supporter of religious freedom when it comes to Islam. While still tearing down crosses honoring fallen highway patrol officers along the highways and crosses on private land that can be seen for miles. I guess that's why God created two sides to mouthes. The Left supports Islam because Islam openly seeks the destruction of the United States and Capitalism.
    Time to stop beating around the bush.

    Now that Obama is championing the Constitution maybe he can apply the same enthusiasm toward the complete document--the Second Amendment comes to mind. And the right of citizens to speak out against things they find unacceptable.

  3. I think this essay by 'Spengler' goes far to explaining France for the past four centuries: The sacred heart of darkness

  4. "Habsburg Austria was a competitor, but America is an obsession. The fact that America twice saved France during the 20th century merely reinforces the French sentiment of ultimate irrelevance. "

    That explains the chip on the shoulder and the haughty assumption of superiority, unmerited I would add. But it does not explain the simple greed of working financial deals with Iraq that put the Middle East and Europe at risk. Are they still at it with Iran and Syria, while continuing to claim a moral superiority over those that would challenge the threats to an uneasy Middle East peace?


  5. "But it does not explain the simple greed of working financial deals with Iraq that put the Middle East and Europe at risk."

    The French view themselves as the "keepers" of "true" Socialism, the "perfecters" of the concept. Like Hitler, they believe that French philosophers laid the groundwork for the ideas and those were put into practice by the French trade unions--at huge personal cost. Since WWII, the Sorbonne has come up with individual programs for tailoring Socialism to get a foothold in countries with specific religious histories--e.g., Latin America and Muslim countries. Those make use of infiltrators in local religious organizations, effectively making the status quo work for them.
    If you carefully examine the backgrounds of all the problem groups/individuals in the Middle East and Latin America, you can find links back to the Sorbonne. Do you think the Ayatollah Khomeini and more specifically the "worker bees" that made the Iranian Revolution happen sprung up in isolation? The Ayatollah was basically a figurehead being uneducable by the time he went to the Sorbonne, but there had already been multiple generations true believers moving throughout the Middle East (Egypt, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Libya) laying the groundwork. Did you ever wonder why the rhetoric of the Islamic fundamentalists sounds so familiar and so in tune with the Left?

    The point is that it always been about the destruction of the United States and Capitalism, building enemies on many flanks--too many to address.