Crazy Liberals
Gonorrhea Superbug: It`s Antibiotic Resistant And A Global Public Health Threat (Thanks Libs)
“The mounting evidence indicting the leaders of the sexual revolution is impressive. They promised joy, liberation, and good health. They’ve delivered misery, disease, and even death.” ~ Drs. Alexandra and Vernon Mark (Medical World News)
From Jill Stanek’s site:
Over the last two generations, the political and cultural left has changed the way many Americansview relationships, sex, and children. With about 1.2 million abortions per year, divorce rates at around 50%, and out-of-wedlock birth rates at record highs, one could easily believe they are winning.
However, even humans can’t beat natural law and reality. Marriage, which is mostly a college-educated, upper-income phenomenon these days, offers many benefits “shacking up” does not. Abortion, long claimed to “help” women, is increasingly shown to be done for so-called “elective” reasons, even for partial-birth abortions.
And now the Centers for Disease Control is proving the Catholic Church, LDS Church, Baptists, and other socially conservative institutions correct on abstinence until marriage. From USA TODAY, August 9:
Federal health officials took steps Thursday to head off the emergence of a new gonorrhea “superbug” that’s resistant to standard antibiotics.
Gonorrhea, a sexually transmitted disease that infects 700,000 Americans a year, already has become resistant to all but one class of antibiotics and could soon become untreatable, federal health officials warned.
Why is this so critical? According to USA TODAY, gonorrhea is devastating to many communities, especially women, gay and bisexual men, and blacks:
Gonorrhea is a major cause of infertility among women. It increases the risk that people will be infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, and that they will spread it to their partners, according to the CDC….
Doctors are already seeing the beginnings of drug resistance on the West Coast, especially in gay and bisexual men, Philip says….
Gonorrhea increases the risk of a dangerous condition called ectopic pregnancy, when a fertilized egg implants in the fallopian tubes, rather than the uterus. It also can cause pelvic inflammatory disease, which can lead to infertility. Gonorrhea also can harm newborn children of untreated mothers, although this rarely happens in developed countries such as the USA, where women and babies receive preventive screening and care, Workowski says. People can protect themselves by being monogamous and using condoms.
The concentration of gonorrhea cases among the poor is especially evident in African Americans in the South, with infection rates 30 times higher in Mississippi than in Wyoming, according to the CDC.
Paul Krugman Casts Science in a Fascistic Way (scientism): `Use It To Force Social Change` (How the Left and Evolutionary Thinking Destroys Science)
This is another reason that many on the right distrust liberals/liberal scientific predictions about the environment. That is, they believe it okay to lie in order to produce a social response. Marxists called this propaganda. From exaggerating the Greenland Ice melting by almost 50-times, to this example:
“The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders. . . . Dr. Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furor over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.” (David Rose, The Daily Mail, January 24, 2010)
✔ Krugman: scientists should falsely predict alien invasion (motls.blogspot.com)
✔ Krugman: Scientists Should Falsely Predict Alien Invasion So Government Will Spend More Money (newsbusters.org)
✔ Krugman : Scientists Should Lie – To Force The Country Further Into Debt(stevengoddard.wordpress.com)
Nature Journal hits it on the head, here-and-there. Here is a “there”
Alarming cracks are starting to penetrate deep into the scientific edifice. They threaten the status of science and its value to society. And they cannot be blamed on the usual suspects — inadequate funding, misconduct, political interference, an illiterate public. Their cause is bias, and the threat they pose goes to the heart of research.
Bias is an inescapable element of research, especially in fields such as biomedicine that strive to isolate cause–effect relations in complex systems in which relevant variables and phenomena can never be fully identified or characterized. Yet if biases were random, then multiple studies ought to converge on truth. Evidence is mounting that biases are not random. A Comment in Nature in March reported that researchers at Amgen were able to confirm the results of only six of 53 ‘landmark studies’ in preclinical cancer research (C. G. Begley & L. M. Ellis Nature 483, 531–533; 2012). For more than a decade, and with increasing frequency, scientists and journalists have pointed out similar problems.
Early signs of trouble were appearing by the mid-1990s, when researchers began to document systematic positive bias in clinical trials funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Initially these biases seemed easy to address, and in some ways they offered psychological comfort. The problem, after all, was not with science, but with the poison of the profit motive. It could be countered with strict requirements to disclose conflicts of interest and to report all clinical trials.
Yet closer examination showed that the trouble ran deeper. Science’s internal controls on bias were failing, and bias and error were trending in the same direction — towards the pervasive over-selection and over-reporting of false positive results. The problem was most provocatively asserted in a now-famous 2005 paper by John Ioannidis, currently at Stanford University in California: ‘Why Most Published Research Findings Are False’ (J. P. A. Ioannidis PLoS Med. 2, e124; 2005). Evidence of systematic positive bias was turning up in research ranging from basic to clinical, and on subjects ranging from genetic disease markers to testing of traditional Chinese medical practices.
How can we explain such pervasive bias?
To top it off, this “flawed thinking’ is the best evolution has to offer us, never reaching truth (see also my recent Serious Saturday post):
Morality, as Kant pointed out, hinges neither on success nor on failure. The moral law transcends the material world. The evolutionist’s sophomoric response is that morality evolved and so therefore is not absolute, but rather is relative. That’s like saying water is not wet. And while they’re at it, evolutionists, at least those in the atheist wing, not only deny values, they also deny truth. That’s right, evolutionists—who are constantly making religious truth claims and casting judgments on those who don’t go along with their mandate that evolution is a fact—deny the existence any real morality and truth. You can see the obvious dilemma they have constructed. If there is no morality or truth, then how can evolution be known to be a fact, and how can doubters of this modern mythology be such bad people?
All of this is painfully obvious at the New Scientist which today explains that evolution has bequeathed us with a clouded, flawed thinking process. And just why did we evolve such an apparently flawed instrument?
[….]
Our confidence is not helped by the evolutionist’s selective use of evidence and, yes, confirmation bias.
But if we evolved to be argumentative apes, then the confirmation bias takes on a much more functional role. “You won’t waste time searching out evidence that doesn’t support your case, and you’ll home in on evidence that does,” says Mercier.
Sound familiar? The article which reveals evolution’s circular logic finally comes around to a precise description of evolutionary thought: “You won’t waste time searching out evidence that doesn’t support your case, and you’ll home in on evidence that does.”
In their value-laden world where they deny the existence of values, evolutionists insist they know the truth which is that, ultimately, we cannot know the truth.
So Paul Krugman is merely spreading untruths in a fashion that fit with flawed evolutionary “confirmation bias,” causing science to merely be used as a power tool, thus making it fascistic:
“Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition…. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be bearers of an objective, immortal truth… then there is nothing more relativistic than fascistic attitudes and activity…. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.”
Mussolini, Diuturna pp. 374-77, quoted in A Refutation of Moral Relativism: Interviews with an Absolutist (Ignatius Press; 1999), by Peter Kreeft, p. 18.
Which is why Prager mentions that whatever the left touches is destroyed:
Same-Sex Matters (Race and Gender in Marriage)
(This audio is a FLASHBACK from JUNE 17, 2008) The only reason I know that is because of the reference to this L.A. Times article, “The Right to Love” (Reproduced in full in the appendix)
I wanted to share here some conversation and further thinking on a topic that was discussed vigorously amongst friends while partaking in choice hops this past Halloween weekend. The below is written in conversation style (almost all my posts are like this) for friends. So it will seem personal at times.
A plea for friends who are in relationships… this is meant for continued deeper reflection. Take your time and reflect thoughtfully and if discussed amongst yourselves, discuss civilly. Through all the conversation, know that right now in California civil partnerships hold all the legal equality (taxes, health-care coverage, hospital visits, etc) to marriage. So the push to have “same-sex marriage” isn’t about “equality,” it’s about ideology.
Also keep in mind that I am not in any way under the impression that a simple conversation like this will undue many years of thinking on a matter/subject. (You or Myself.) I would rather you at the least be introduced to a side of an issue that maybe you haven’t heard of before. This introduction to other arguments may be long and tedious. TAKE YOUR TIME (*caps not yelling but said for impact*). Great theories and coming to positions (spiritual and political) on a matter take time and evolve, sometimes over years. Or at least they should be considered with weightiness and not merely adopted from university or parental influence.
I have no idea either what you may have been introduced to (for instance: Howard Zinn, the self admitted Marxist and historian whose historical viewpoint was born from Marx and Engels writings – on other words, his historical philosophy didn’t exist prior to the Communist Manifesto). This view of history tends to be popular at the university campus. In other words, many of our views are rooted in deeper worldviews and the peripheral views we hold may never change until you look a bit deeper into our worldview.
- (What does a worldview entail? Any “coherent worldview must be able to satisfactorily answer four questions: that of origin, meaning, morality, and destiny.” Another writer outs it thusly: “A Worldview is how one views or interprets reality. The German word is Weltanschauung, meaning a ‘world and life view,’ or ‘a paradigm.’ It is a framework through which or by which one makes sense of the data of life. A worldview makes a world of difference in one’s view of God, origins, evil, human nature, values, and destiny.” Raising one’s self-consciousness [awareness] about worldviews is an essential part of intellectual maturity.)
In my mind’s eye we are talking about peripheral positions that would be impacted more by a deeper look into how we view reality… something not often looked into by the general populace today (see my first chapter in my book). So again,
- I am more concerned about clarity than agreement in this conversation.
Many positions we hold as fact can be based in fallacious thinking. I will exemplify this by a topic that was brought up the other night, anthropogenic global warming (man caused global warming). History and science come together to disprove this theory. Not only has the “hockey stick” model that gave birth to this giant theory which was popularized by Al Gore [Britain’s courts referenced many lies in his presentation to not show it in public schools] has been torn to shreds science-wise, history shows the complete breakdown of the premise. For instance:
MOVING ON.
I almost wrote on the topic we spoke a bit about the other night back in September and wish I had, but instead I switched gears and wrote on the Left’s support for pedophilia (explicit and implicit) in their support of many groups who promote it – here in the united states and abroad (See: The Left / Islamo-Nazis / Homosexuality / Womens Rights / and Contradictions). I would like us to stay on just this topic if we can work though it.
Before getting to the main topic that we left last night about interracial marriage being illegal on the basis of color and homosexuality being equated to that [i.e., race], I wish to post some of what I said last night for record sake. This comes from a question asked of me by one of my son’s friends. He asked “What is your views on gays? Are they bad? Are they going to hell? Are you born this way?” (Question #3 from Q & A Session – PapaG Style) Most of what I talked about last night can be found in this post for clarity [updated a bit]:
Many homosexuals stand against same-sex marriage. I document some in-depth views by a couple of politically astute gay persons reasons on why they stand against same-sex marriage (so it isn’t homophobia [#1], and [#2] it isn’t about a lack of “rights,” because these homosexual writers believe they are equal now). I also quote a well-known Canadian homosexual psychologist and sociologist on this topic:
These are considerations often not addressed by the Left. But all this is not the main point I want to deal with, which is, race and sexual orientation.
Dennis Prager mentions the power of this argument with one of his few refutations of it:
(In the audio to the right, this first caller should be listened to, below is the visual of the discussion.)
That first reason is why almost all the black civil rights leaders that marched with Martin Luther King Jr. do not support this comparison. For instance,
APPENDIX
Average Household Income:
Homosexuals – $55,430 / African Americans – $12,166
Percentage of College Graduates:
Homosexuals – 60% / African Americans – 5%
Holding Professional Positions:
Homosexuals – 49% / African Americans – 1%
Taken Overseas Vacations:
Homosexuals – 66% / African Americans – 1%
Ever Denied the Right to Vote:
Homosexuals – No / African Americans – Yes
Ever Faced Legal Segregation:
Homosexuals – No / African Americans – Yes
Ever Denied Access to Public Restrooms:
Homosexuals – No / African Americans – Yes
Ever Denied Access to Businesses and Restaurants:
Homosexuals – No / African Americans – Yes
(Wall Street Journal, 7/18/91, B1)
Read more: RPT Homosexuality: Is It Good For Society? For The Individual?
In a New York Times article entitled, “Blacks Rejecting Gay Rights As a Battle Equal to Theirs,” we find some interesting supposed parallels made by the Left taken to task. For instance, Vernetta Adams, A balck 24-year-old woman and history major at the University of the District of Columbia said this, “I can’t go in a closet and hang up my race when it’s convenient…. Gays hid in the closet when they wanted to advance. Now they’re out and demanding rights and yelling ‘discrimination.'” The The Rev. Lou Sheldon intimates the reasons he thinks many in the gay community are making this parallel:
- “The reason gays are making parallels,” Mr. Sheldon said, “is that it may bring empathy from white men like me, who feel a collective sense of guilt about the way blacks have been treated. The fact remains that this is not a civil rights issue but a moral issue.”
This is the point that separates race from gender. That is, homosexuals have not been discriminated against:
Some discussion of the 3/5ths Clause in the Constitution came up as well. Frederick Douglas in his early years thought that this proved a “race bias” embedded in our country. Until that is, he read the Constitution and those writings of the authors of these sections and the debates (history) on such clauses:
Another point I make (in the post Homosexuality: Is it good for society? For the individual?) is that there is an issue before us:
- A liberal society might, then, find it prudent to ignore homosexuality. It might well deem it unwise to peer into private bedrooms. However, this is not the issue before us. Today the demand is that homosexuality be endorsed and promoted with the full power of the law. This would require us to abandon the standard of nature, the one standard that can teach us the difference between freedom and slavery, between right and wrong.
What is the “issue before us?” I will let professor Robert George talk about it further:
While the following may be a bit graduate level, it is worth reading and digesting, as it makes similar points to the above comments by Robert George in the article he wrote, but it looks at the health of society. Like I said, you should take your time, follow through on some of the links, which would be equivalent to a small book being read. The following is taken from the chapter of my book entitled, Roman Epicurean’ism – Natural Law and Homosexuality (this section starts on page 14 if you wish to follow the references):
So there was a progression from Pagan rights for women, which were basically none, to a protection and equalization under a more Christianized system. It is this system that is being undermined in redefining marriage. What is meant by this is that marriage between a man and woman is not an institution created by the state. As philosopher Michael Pakaluk argues, “[it] is an objective reality prior to the state.” If it is merely an institution created by the state, the case used by same-sex advocates (Loving v. Virginia) to equate homosexual marriage to race falls apart:
This “right to love” (which is separate from marriage) is discussed further by Dennis Prager and others. Before ending with some audio, another issue that may be embedded in your mind is that Christianity has enslaved women more than freed them. This misconception – common on the university campus – is another historical misconception. You may see this on pages 12-18 of my chapter entitled Gnostic Feminism – Empowered to Fail. A very important read to understand the protections that came from the Judeo-Christian worldview ultimately afforded to women almost from the conception of the Christian faith and later embedded in Western legal tradition. It is this tradition being undermined and the human rights homosexual persons and women have fought so hard for for centuries. If one rejects this American experiment founded in the rights of their Creator, then one rejects the rights found in this same document. Reverting back to the same positions that treated women and homosexuals in a less than demeaning manner is self-destructive and well, if you will forgive me, juvenile. Juvenile not in a negative way, but needing more input that is outside you normative “sounding board.”
Some important audio. Again, this topic is one I expect you to set aside some time for. Maybe a year even? I will politely keep you on track. The reason for this is that the typical position is reached on the Left some say merely by feeling. I am challenging you to leave the world of feelings and to put your feelings up against reasoned positions. Some of this will be religious in nature, but not in legal terms. What do I mean by this? Theologian Wayne Grudem explains the often mischaracterized cross-pollination of the religious with legal:
In other words, one needs to make some “subject” “object” distinctions herein. Knowing that just because one’s view is religious or secular does not necessarily exclude her of his view from the panoply of legal tradition. A quick note about another small topic that cropped up. If you are unaware of the horrible consequences of polygamy, I have some books and DVD documentaries that you are more than welcome to borrow that can increase your understanding of the psychological and positional destruction of children and women in these cultures:
- Escape, by Carolyn Jessop;
- Shattered Dreams: My Life as a Polygamist Wife, by Irene Spencer;
- Stolen Innocence: My Story of Growing Up in a Polygamouse Sect, Becoming a Teengae Bride, and Breaking Free of Warren Jeffs, by Elissa Wall;
- Banking on Heaven: Polygamy in the Heartland of the American West (DVD);
- Lifting the Veil of Polygamy (DVD);
- Escaping Polygamy: ABC Primetime Investigation (DVD).
APPENDIX ~ L.A. TIMES
Across California today, in mass public weddings and in small, private services, gay and lesbian couples will exchange official vows of undying love and wedlock. With the sanction of the state Supreme Court, these couples stand together as full citizens at last.
Their long odyssey to reach this day serves to remind us why people marry at all, especially in an era of casual relationships. As any married person can attest, marriage is significant precisely because it is difficult. True, it confers certain public protections, but even more, it requires personal sacrifices. If mutual affection and appreciation were enough to sustain relationships across the years, there would be no need for solemn vows of fidelity. Those vows protect many a marriage through many a rough patch; when two people agree to enter into such a union, it by rights should carry the name and honor of marriage, whether it’s between people of opposite sex or between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.
Opponents of same-sex marriage often deplore this expansion of the meaning of marriage because they view it as threatening to traditional unions. As they use this day as a rallying point for a proposed amendment to the state Constitution to ban such marriages, it’s time to ask them directly: How does marriage of one type threaten others? Why do many heterosexuals feel that the beauty of their own marriage vows is in no way changed by today’s weddings, while others feel theirs have somehow been diminished?
Perhaps the next few months will ease these fears, as same-sex couples begin their married lives together. Those couples will settle into communities without disorder or threat; they will bring legal protection to their bonds of love. Those bonds can only be good for society — children gain from being raised by married parents, and communities are stronger when residents are legally committed to one another. As more and more Californians marry, society will grow stronger, not weaker.
That’s no doubt why opponents sought a stay of the court’s ruling until after the election. They know that as same-sex marriages become commonplace, the fears about them will fade, and eventually we will wonder what all the fuss was about. In the meantime, opponents will resort to hyperbole and fear. Take this missive last week from the Alliance for Marriage, issued in response to the announcement that the state of New York would recognize the unions performed in California:
“The governor of New York state will declare hundreds of years of marriage law in New York to be null and void. … The governor of New York state will force California-style ‘gay marriage’ on all the families and children of his own state.”
It’s a fairly reliable indicator of a bad argument when its proponent is forced to overstate the case in order to make it. The above surely qualifies. Same-sex couples are not upending the institution of marriage; nor are their supporters. Rather, they are engaged in a profoundly conservative act: They ask not to abolish marriage but to uphold it.
Some religious organizations won’t perform these marriages or recognize these unions — that’s their constitutional right. But the government, which has obligations of equity, may not engage in the discrimination that religions are allowed. As long as it bestows the privileges of marriage on some couples, it must bestow them on all.
In California, the initiative process allows voters to amend the state Constitution directly, and unfortunately, a measure on the November ballot will give them the chance. The question won’t be whether same-sex marriage is right or wrong — that’s a matter of personal conviction — but whether those who believe it is wrong should have the power to deny marriage to those who seek its protections.
Put another way: Many Californians undoubtedly object to unwed couples who have and raise children together, but no constitutional amendment prevents that, whatever the moral calculus.
To those who insist that an unevolving morality undergirds our state and federal constitutions, we remind them that not so long ago, many Americans believed with passionate conviction that it was a sin, a threat to families and a violation of the law for people of different races to marry.
The 1959 ruling of a Virginia state court judge to deny this right to a black woman and a white man aptly summarized the fervor with which opponents of miscegenation drew on tradition and religion to support their views:
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents,” trial judge Leon Bazile wrote. “And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
The U.S. Supreme Court struck down that ruling in 1967; on that happy day, 16 states were forced to abandon their laws banning interracial marriage. Today, interracial couples go about their lives without legal threat; some no doubt still feel the sting of disapproval. But those who would look askance on those lawfully wedded couples do so without the state to reinforce their bigotry. Our courts, certainly our supreme courts, exist not to assess God’s will but to enforce the precepts of our constitutions, including the insistence that all Americans — black or white, male or female, straight or gay — are entitled to equal protection and the due process of our laws.
The California Supreme Court affirmed that principle last month and delivered the eloquent basis for today’s ceremonies. As the state’s voters watch the celebrations in the coming months, they should enjoy the sight of fellow citizens availing themselves of a public institution, that of marriage. These celebrations allow us to share in the newlyweds’ happiness, to join in acknowledging a milestone of joy and lifelong commitment. And they prompt at least one more question for those who disapprove: How can the state’s blessing on these acts of love in any way diminish us?
A new survey from Pew confirms that liberals are the least tolerant of differing opinions
Anonymous Aligns Itself With `Anarcho-Leftist` Organizations and Causes ~ `Social-Justice` As An Excuse To Commit Felonies
Big Government has this on the Anonymous arrests:
As an influential member of Anonymous and two other splinter groups known as” LulzSec” and “Internet Feds,” Monsegur is alleged to have spearheaded multiple cyberattacks against various business and governments in the US and elsewhere in the world, according to the unsealed indictment.
[….]
Five other prominent hackers with LulzSec were also exposed by Monsegur.
From FOX News:
As a result of Monsegur’s cooperation, which was confirmed by numerous senior-level officials, the remaining top-ranking members of LulzSec were arrested or hit with additional charges Tuesday morning. The five charged in the LulzSec conspiracy indictment expected to be unsealed were identified by sources as: Ryan Ackroyd, aka “Kayla” and Jake Davis, aka “Topiary,” both of London; Darren Martyn, aka “pwnsauce” and Donncha O’Cearrbhail, aka “palladium,” both of Ireland; and Jeremy Hammond aka “Anarchaos,” of Chicago.
Hammond was arrested on access device fraud and hacking charges and is believed to have been the main person behind the devastating December hack on Stratfor, a private company that provides geopolitical analysis to governments and others. Millions of emails were stolen and then published on Wikileaks; credit card numbers and other confidential information were also stolen, law enforcement sources told FoxNews.com.
Hammond has reportedly been a fixture of the Chicago anarchist scene and is said to have been active with numerous left-leaning groups. He was previously sentenced to two years in prison for hacking into the website of a conservative group known as “Protest Warrior,” which organizes counterprotests to those of anti-war activists. He has also been arrested numerous times over the last nine years; the Chicago Tribune notes that those convictions range from disorderly conduct to computer hacking to felony mob action. The Tribune article details Hammond’s extensive background in “hacking to fight for social justice” and liberal activism. (Side note: the article also notes that Hammond’s mother is a Tea Party activist!).
Obama’s Algae vs. Oil Speech Destroyed! (Prager & Krauthammer)
The Liberal Brainwash ~ Brian Lilley`s kid comes home after a day of ingesting global warming propaganda
Via Vlad Tepes:
Michael Coren Interviews Liberal Film Maker and Former Contributor to Daily Kos, Eric Allen Bell, About His Change of Heart on Islam
Allen Bell is a liberal film maker and former contributor to the Daily Kos who, while in the process of making a film demonizing small-town American opposition to the building of a mosque in their town, had his whole world change once he started reading up on islam. Bell has since seen the light but in the process has been viciously turned on by the Left and islamofascists.
David Horowitz wrote about this whole indecent at his JihadWatch site:
Recently two extraordinary articles have appeared at the Daily Kos — extraordinary because, to the rage and dismay of many of that site’s commenters and regular readers — they depart from the standard Leftist line that Islamic jihad violence has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam, even if jihadists invoke Islamic texts and teachings to justify that violence, and that only greasy Islamophobes think otherwise.
The articles are “Loonwatch.com and Radical Islam” and “How and Why Loonwatch.com is a Terrorist Spin Control Network,” both by Eric Allen Bell, who is so far from being a “right-wing Islamophobe” that he made a documentary about the “Islamophobia” supposedly being suffered by the proponents of a huge new mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee — and is far enough to the Left to get space to write at the Daily Kos.
Yet Bell had the intellectual honesty to make this entirely true observation about the hate and defamation site that is the subject of his pieces: “But for LoonWatch.com any criticism of the Koran or of violent Jihad – even those criticisms that might have some legitimacy to them – even of radical Islam, are branded as Islamophobia and anyone who dares to raise questions about the nearly constant acts of Jihad going on increasingly around the world today is labeled a ‘Loon’ – thus the title of their blog, LoonWatch.com.”
Since I am the subject of obsessive attention at Loonwatch, I am mentioned in the original article as well as in the followup, which Bell wrote after Islamic supremacists and their Leftist tools rounded upon him with predictable and ludicrous charges that he is a right-wing anti-Muslim bigot. I have a few disagreements with his view of me and of the jihad threat in general. He says I have some kind of religious agenda here, which anyone who reads this site will know is false. While I am a religious believer, Jihad Watch is not a religious apologetics site, but a non-sectarian site seeking to provide the context for a broad coalition of people of all perspectives — atheists, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims of conscience — who are threatened by Islamic jihad. He dismissively distances himself from my colleague Pamela Geller, ignoring her courageous and pioneering work in, among many other things, raising awareness about the human rights abuses in Islamic law, such as honor killing and the death penalty for apostasy. And he seems to be a bit credulous in accepting the smooth deceptions of Muslim Brotherhood-linked forces behind the building of many mega-mosques around the country, and about the stealth jihad in general.
Nonetheless, I was intrigued by Bell’s capacity for independent thought, which is such a rare commodity these days, and willingness to acknowledge that there is a problem within Islam, which is even rarer, so I sent him a note, telling him: “I predict that you will not find anyone on the Left who will be willing to consider the ‘correlation between some of the violent passages in the Koran and the Hadiths and many of the acts of brutality being carried out by radical Muslims in the world’ [that’s a quote from one of his Kos pieces]. However, I do not now and never have considered my work ‘right-wing’: if defending civilized values against institutionalized violence and religiously justified savagery is ‘right-wing,’ the Left has a great deal to answer for.”
I got this email back from Eric Allen Bell, and he has kindly allowed me to publish it here:
Mr. Spencer –
Very good to hear from you. I made a short documentary called “Not Welcome” (http://www.NotWelcomeDocumentary.com) regarding the backlash against construction of a mosque in Murfreesboro, TN. What inspired me to make that film was the same feeling I have now about what is going on in the greater Islamic world. It was my conscience – a sense of justice.
That said, in the process I absorbed a whole lot of information from traditionally liberal sources. I have only recently come around to a hopefully more expansive point of view. When I finally read one of your books for the first time, I kept waiting for the part where you would prove yourself to be a “Loon” so that I could stop reading, but that never happened :)
I watched the documentary, “Islam: What the West Needs to Know” and wanted so badly to prove wrong what I had seen and heard – but I could not. This was not only humbling but it has caused me to really rethink and rethink the possibility that perhaps the truth is not politically correct.
And more is still being revealed. When I made “Not Welcome” most of the arguments against Islam I heard among the people of Murfreesboro, TN were religiously motivated. People would actually say to me that “America is a Christian nation” and they believed it said this in the Bible. The leaders of the movement were Christian Zionists. It was ugly, and yet their concerns were not entirely unfounded.
So I decided to keep the focus of the film on America and look for ways to convey a message about what I perceive to be a real enemy at home. At that time I did not perceive a real threat to America in the way of “creeping Sharia” and so I left that alone.
But as I watch with great disappointment the developments that have followed the so-called “Arab Spring” I am very, very concerned. Islamism is clearly on the rise, they have weapons, they are not rational and I am concerned.
It means a lot to me to hear from you directly like this. I apologize if in fact I have mis-characterized where you are coming from. In my own defense, the anti-mosque crowd in Murfreesboro, TN were a very nasty bunch – and they love JihadWatch ;) So, perhaps I wrongly judged you by some of them, and if that is the case I am very sorry. I will continue to read your blog and continue to research.
I admire your courage and conviction in being one of the only truth tellers out there about the dangers of Islam, your willingness to use your name and put your picture on your blog, your fearlessness in posting the Mohammed cartoon.
Please feel free to contact me anytime. My sense is that this war of words with Loonwatch (who now have several Islamic websites backing them up and putting my name out on the street) has only just begun.
Peace,
Eric Allen Bell
Here is his short video documentary:
Failed Leftists Scares ~ Caller Evokes Dennis Prager To List Some
The Inquisitions Bush`s Fault? Almost ~ The Tale of Two Books
NPR has a left leaning bias, we all know that and I have proven it in the past. So reviews of a book they laud connecting the fanciful imaginations of the progressive in regards to history and Bush is a dream come true. In two reviews of the book/topic with the author of the book, God’s Jury, you can see a creeping bias, much like the pre-war Germany propaganda, has on the cover a “hooked nosed” Pope designating (implicitly or explicitly) the secular leftist hatred for anything Christian.
Cullen Murphey’s Cover:
WWII Propaganda:
Some NPR stories on the book/author:
1) The Inquisition: Alive And Well After 800 Years
2) The Inquisition: A Model For Modern Interrogators
NewsBusters has this in what they call a Liberal Two-Fer:
This book is at odds with the most renown scholar and author of the book, The Spanish Inquisition, Henry Kamen. Take note of the difference in tone and most probably scholarship — as this interview shows… his [Cullen Murphey] connections are so general that any religion or government can be connected to this event. These generalities are not to connect a historical event to a modern one but in progressive fashion the goal of stoking emotions rather than basing something in fact/history is the prime mover.
From an Amazon book reviewer and author of Author of “Mission,” an African novel set in Kenya:
One of my favorite quotes comes from a debate between Dinesh D’Souza and the late atheist Christopher Hitchens:
✦ Atheists regimes killed more people in a week than the inquisition could kill in three-centuries
And another reviewer:
A great video by a fellow arm-chair apologists is a good introduction to the topic:
Lesbian is one thing, dressing like a man in a pageant is another!
Libertarian Republican makes a great point on the decline of common sense due to political correctness:
….Pageant officials are looking to give a complete make-over to the pageant, once based primarily on good looks. Now, it’s almost all about being politically correct.
From the L.A. Times, Jan. 7:
the state pageant “will emphasize individuality and push the envelope even further,” Keith Lewis, co-executive of the contest, said in a statement. “This year’s event will be bigger and reflect the progressive attitudes of the contestants.”
Take note that she wore a TUXEDO during the EVENING GOWN portion of the competition.
Here is a photo of the swimsuit portion of the competition:
And here is a picture of the evening gown portion of the event: