The malfunctioning media is compounding its always objective reporting with breathless adjectives—“huge,” “stunning,” “shocking” and “peroxide-haired politician”—all to express “subtle” dismay at the election victory of Dutch populist Geert Wilders. My mother, a loyal Wilders supporter, alerted me to this “huge” good-news story:
Wilders yesterday stunned the Netherlands by coming third in general elections – a historic vote that could see him enter a coalition government.
Best known for his strident attacks on Islam, Mr Wilders’ electoral triumph sent shock waves through the country’s large immigrant communities and sounded the death knell for the image of the Netherlands as a bastion of tolerance.
The shock-factor was all the greater as the peroxide-haired politician had appeared sidelined during the election campaign, as the mainstream parties focused on how to deal with the nation’s economic woes and immigration slipped down the political agenda.
Yet Mr Wilders made the strongest gains in Wednesday’s election, doubling the number of seats for his Freedom Party to 24. The pro-business VDD party – which Mr Wilders left to set up on his own – won 31 of the 150 seats up for grabs, pipping the Labour Party of former Amsterdam Mayor Job Cohen by a single seat in the narrowest ever electoral victory.
Cohen’s platform, I believe, is in the tradition of the Judenräte.
The far-right Freedom Party, led by Geert Wilders, grew from nine to 24 seats in the 150-seat parliament following Wednesday’s vote. Wilders wants to ban Muslim face veils and the building of new mosques in the country of 16.6 million with a Muslim population of 1 million.
Paul Ames, GlobalPost’s Belgium-based regional correspondent, said Wilders built on people’s fears about the influence of Islam on the Netherlands.
“‘One of the worst human rights violations in the world today’—this is how Nelson Mandela has characterized Israel’s naval blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza, and the defensive actions the Jewish state’s soldiers were forced to take on board a Gaza-bound ship. The Mavi Marmari was one in a flotilla of six ostensible aid ships headed to Gaza in contravention of the naval blockade.
And I know this how? Norman Finkelstein, another of Hamas’ effective spokesmen—left-liberal, Jewish academics often are—has galvanized Mandela for moral suasion in condemning Israel’s actions.
The fact that Mandela made the condemnation in his capacity as a member of the UN’s ‘Committee of Elders’ was supposed to further bolster Finkelstein’s position (made on ‘Russian TV’). According to Finkelstein, this particular coven includes another international holy man, Desmond Tutu (in my upcoming book, “Into The Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post Apartheid South Africa,” I tell of the time I took afternoon tea with Tutu himself).
This is important, why? Because, even more than the Dalai Lama, Mandela is considered the moral compass of the world by the philosopher kings of this country— beauty pageant contestants, contemporary conservative and liberal pundits (ranked here from most to least intelligent).
Look, I too condemn the Israeli commandos—for sliding one-by-one into a snake pit seething with poisonous reptiles. …
The Second Edition features bonus material and reviews. Get your copy(or copies) now!
UPDATE (June 4): A more impassioned defense of Israel as Glenn Beck’s I have not heard since Alan Keyes’ magnificent display of outrage,on MSNBC, at the reality in the human heart a suicide bombing bespeaks (Keyes was fired shortly thereafter).
Glenn’s Israel narrative of June 3 (here) arises deep from within a pure Puritanical heart exquisitely attune to the historical “Hebraic bond,” and to morality.
“‘One of the worst human rights violations in the world today’—this is how Nelson Mandela has characterized Israel’s naval blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza, and the defensive actions the Jewish state’s soldiers were forced to take on board a Gaza-bound ship. The Mavi Marmari was one in a flotilla of six ostensible aid ships headed to Gaza in contravention of the naval blockade.
And I know this how? Norman Finkelstein, another of Hamas’ effective spokesmen—left-liberal, Jewish academics often are—has galvanized Mandela for moral suasion in condemning Israel’s actions.
The fact that Mandela made the condemnation in his capacity as a member of the UN’s ‘Committee of Elders’ was supposed to further bolster Finkelstein’s position (made on ‘Russian TV’). According to Finkelstein, this particular coven includes another international holy man, Desmond Tutu (in my upcoming book, “Into The Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post Apartheid South Africa,” I tell of the time I took afternoon tea with Tutu himself).
This is important, why? Because, even more than the Dalai Lama, Mandela is considered the moral compass of the world by the philosopher kings of this country— beauty pageant contestants, contemporary conservative and liberal pundits (ranked here from most to least intelligent).
Look, I too condemn the Israeli commandos—for sliding one-by-one into a snake pit seething with poisonous reptiles. …
The Second Edition features bonus material and reviews. Get your copy(or copies) now!
UPDATE (June 4): A more impassioned defense of Israel as Glenn Beck’s I have not heard since Alan Keyes’ magnificent display of outrage,on MSNBC, at the reality in the human heart a suicide bombing bespeaks (Keyes was fired shortly thereafter).
Glenn’s Israel narrative of June 3 (here) arises deep from within a pure Puritanical heart exquisitely attune to the historical “Hebraic bond,” and to morality.
If democracy means anything, it is the right of localities to a measure of autonomy over how and with whom they live their lives. How wrong were the residents of Arizona to imagine that they would be granted that luxury. Polls show Arizonians do not want the crime and lawlessness associated with hordes of illegal immigrants streaming into their state. Her constituents support “Gov. Jan Brewer signing of a bill that requires police to question people about their immigration status – including asking for identification – if they suspect someone is in the country illegally.”
The murder last month of Arizona Rancher Robert Krentz—he had raised cattle in the area of Cochise County for decades—by one peaceable, illegal invader shook that community.
Another overreacting, overreaching law-enforcement activist, Russell Pearce’s motives are suspect, hints the NYT, because “his son, a Maricopa County sheriff’s deputy, was shot and wounded in 2004 by an illegal immigrant and Mr. Pearce, a former sheriff’s deputy, was shot and wounded while arresting gang members 20 years ago.”
Only the Times would construe the sobering effects of experience as a bias. What will we do when the Pearce kind of patriot; tough old-timers, die out?
What won’t die out any time soon are the powerhouse advocates for illegals immigrants converging on the Grand Canyon State. They won’t be dying out as long as they can use the political machine to bilk the politically powerless (you and me) for the benefit of their clientele. sadly, Arizona will be tied up in the courts by the proxies for the powerful (open-border advocates).
The Arizona law, SB1070, resembles the law the federal branch of government has chosen to flout. SB1070 is a species of negative law that takes back from the federales the right to accept or repel invaders. By default, the Bush/Obama-run federal government had decreed that the states ought not be permitted to repel invaders and must assume the costs in blood and treasure of the invasion. The central government did so by way of ignoring laws only it was permitted to enforce.
Arizona has repossessed its sovereign right to determine if it wants unfettered immigration with Mexico and the rest of Latin America.
State sovereignty? Naturally, our illiberal president would take the most severe tone with such notions, supplemented by stern actions to curtail this show of independence from his outlying territories.
Earlier Friday, President Obama called the Arizona bill “misguided” and instructed the Justice Department to examine it to see if it’s legal. He also said the federal government must enact immigration reform at the national level — or leave the door open to “irresponsibility by others.”
“That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe,” Obama said.
Update I (April 25): David Smith (see Comments Section) points out another instance in which Glenn Beck has gone wrong in exhorting a sitting-duck pacifism. Via WikiAnswer:
“… taken from a letter Jefferson wrote to William Smith in 1787 in reference to an uprising in Massachusetts after the American Revolution. A more full quote:
“Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s [sic] motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. And what country can preserve its liberties, if it’s [sic] rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
Jefferson is referring, specifically, to the Shays’ Rebellion. If you look at the context of the quote, it appears that Jefferson actually believed the men who took arms were essentially wrong about the facts, but he still considered them patriotic for making their voices heard. Jefferson felt it was important that the government be kept in check, even if those keeping them in check were not necessarily in the right. It wasn’t being in the “right” that kept the people free, but rather the fact that they had a voice and used it.
Update II (April 26): “You run into civil-rights issues whenever you try to enforce any law,” says Tucker Carlson. “That’s just the nature of enforcing laws.” Too true. And, “This Bill asks law enforcement officials to enforce the law. If by so doing you undermine basic notions of fairness, as the president alleged, let’s just give up on enforcing any law. It’s an absurd thing to say.”
Update III: The god-awful Chris Matthews, who makes no pretense at objectivity any longer, pummeleda mild-mannered John Huppenthal, a senator from Arizona. The Republican state senator explained that since the get-tough-on-illegals policies were implemented the murder rate in Arizona went from 250 in 2006 to 125 (the following year?). Half.
But what’s a hundred or so lives among liberals?
Matthews then went from bombastic to farcical. After being told that his guest has documented an association between illegality and crime, he demanded to know how did stopping a person because you think he is here illegally reduce crime. Patiently, Huppenthal explained that given the causal connection just mentioned, deporting a person caught in the act tends to do the trick.
Poor Huppenthal, clearly a good fellow working to make his community more tolerable, was then insulted andcalled. … a racist.
Is there anything more repulsive than a liberal man?
“…Al Sharpton threatens to go to Phoenix and march in the streets against the new Arizona law. Let him go.
Let us see how many African-Americans, who are today frozen out of the 8 million jobs held by illegal aliens that might otherwise go to them or their children, will march to defend an invasion for which they are themselves paying the heaviest price.
Last year, while Americans were losing a net of 5 million jobs, the U.S. government – Bush and Obama both – issued 1,131,000 green cards to legal immigrants to come and take the jobs that did open up, a flood of immigrants equaled in only four other years in our history.
What are we doing to our own people?
Whose country is this, anyway?
America today has an establishment that, because it does not like the immigration laws, countenances and condones wholesale violation of those laws.
Nevertheless, under those laws, the U.S. government is obligated to deport illegal aliens and punish businesses that knowingly hire them.
This is not an option. It is an obligation.
Can anyone say Barack Obama is meeting that obligation?”
Update V (April 27): BROTHER BUSH. Jeb “Bush … opposes the Arizona immigration bill, too.” WaPo: “Right after his not-so-secretly preferred U.S. Senate candidate Marco Rubio comes out against Arizona’s new immigration reform law [and for amnesty, or as it’s called in political locution: comprehensive immigration reform], Jeb Bush lends his name to an under-the-radar conservative campaign for federal immigration reform this year.”
One of our readers prefers that I remain mum about the Republican treason lobby. Sorry. Truth will out. With my help.
Update VI: AZ State Senator Frank Antenori fighting for his community. “What about my constituents,” he asks. He was responding to the CNN Woman’s idiotic question: “There are a lot of people who are very angry, very upset [a life threatening condition, clearly] that if they drive into Arizona [read, enter it illegally], they will be pulled over. How do you convince them not to be worried?” Apparently, laws in defense of life and private property must be tailored to suit the trespassers.
Antenori: “What about my constituents whose homes are ransacked? What about the ranchers who’re shot at while patrolling their fence lines; whose cattle are being slaughtered; there’s millions of dollars of economic damages… what about them? What about their civil right?
I have one correction to Sen. Antenori (a veteran): the rights he is trying to protect are not civil rights; they are the right to life, liberty and property. In defense of Suzanne Malveaux, she let it rest there, rather than give more time to the opponents, or try and humiliate the man, as is the habit of the hacks at MSNBC. [Look at how this dogmatic dodo insists on getting her opinion in.]
