The Mean Girl Faces of Islamo-Fascism

Today I received "An Urgent Message From the Desk of David Horowitz" in my email in-box. Although I receive "An Urgent Message From the Desk of David Horowitz" almost every week, this one seemed urgenter than the others.

"Even before our Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week began, we were being attacked by radical leftists," it began. "The entire political left, from the Revolutionary Communist Party to the Young Democrats, is up in arms against us," he continued. Horowitz is Jewish and Jews are not known for being paranoid that everybody is against them so this certainly did seem very worrisome. And if the entire political left is joining with Islamo-Fascists to support the subjugation of women, the execution of gays, the annihilation of the Jews and the installment of theocratic governments and Sharia law, then things are truly dire. You might think that liberals would be against these these things, too, but apparently the Left has decided it would rather be on the side of the Islamo-Fascists rather than on David Horowitz's side for some reason so we have to treat them as the enemy. Horowitz declared this week National Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week in order to fight what he calls "the unholy alliance between American leftists and our enemies in the war on terror." Among the goodwill ambassadors he has sent to speak on campuses around the country is Ann Coulter, who believes that Horowitz is an unperfected Jew, though she has apparently set her perfectionist feelings aside to make something of an unholy alliance herself with Horowitz.

Unfortunately, goading the radical leftists and the hordes of radical Muslims overrunning our campuses is very expensive and Horowitz was writing to tell me he needs money to pay for security guards. It seems to me the last "Urgent Message From the Desk of David Horowitz" I received also begged for money and the one before that, too. I always thought Jews, despite their imperfections, were very good with money so I am surprised that his organization always seems to be in dire financial straits.

Luckily, Horowitz didn't need security guards when he spoke at the University of Wisconsin. According to radical leftist Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive Horowitz's attempt to goad the left into attacking him by accusing them of being too stupid to understand what he was saying (apparently a common tactic at the University of Wisconsin) did not have the desired effect because students were so bored by his soporific style that they all fell asleep. The only exception was a 9/11 Truther, though from the looks of these Truthers, they apparently never sleep, other than to take short naps fully clothed in steel, nonflammable bunkers while another 9/11 Truther stands guard on the look-out for any "controlled explosions" in the vicinity.

Unfortunately, Nonie Darwish was not so lucky. Darwish is a former Muslim whose father was assassinated by the Israelis, which really broke her up at the time, though she now believes that he probably deserved it and has embraced Israel. (The anti-Communist Horowitz's parents were Communists. I'm not sure if they have the same therapist.) Speaking at Wellesley College Darwish faced the newest weapon in the terrorist arsenal, one that is so chilling my hands shake as I type this. A number of Muslim women in headscarves showed up to hear her speak. As Darwish recounted to Pajamas Media's Phyllis Chesler (who I certainly wouldn't want to meet in a dark alley judging by her picture), "the female students in head-scarves did the following: As she spoke, they made exaggerated, 'mean girl' faces at her. They rolled their eyes, practiced 'disbelieving' facial expressions -- did everything but stick out their tongues."

I knew Muslims were bad but I never thought they would stoop to the level of making "mean girl faces," which I believe may be against the rules of the Geneva Convention. Is Western Civilization prepared to fight an army of Muslim Heathers? I guess we can be thankful they still had some humanity left. If they had stuck out their tongues, Darwish might not have lived to tell the tale. But that's not all. The Muslim women then got up one by one to go to the bathroom -- right in the middle of Darwish's speech! And where did these Muslim girls, whom Darwish describes as "gangsters," learn these cruel and, not to mince words, really quite rude tactics? "They are Hamas-trained," said Darwish.

The other students reacted as you might expect: with sheer terror. Darwish told Chesler, "'the Jewish students cringed and cowered, so afraid that they might have hurt Muslim feelings.' (Or rather, that the Muslims might physically hurt them afterwards. According to Darwish, one Jewish student told her that 'she "was locking her door. I am scared.'")" For some reason, fascism, whether Islamo or Nazi, seems to bring out cringing and cowering in Jews, which is something that Jews might want to work on. Even though I am a former (that is, perfected) Jew, I don't think that I will ever again be able to pass a headscarved Muslim girl in the street again without panicking that she might make a "mean girl face" at me.

I certainly appreciate the intent behind Horowitz's Islamo-Fascism Week. It is important that we all be aware of the truth behind Islamo-Fascism, though I'm not completely convinced "that awareness about Islamo-Fascism means the end of their homicidal enterprise," as he claims. But can we handle the truth? I am more terrified now than I have ever been before and it just makes it worse to know that the entire left-wing is on their side. What if Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton get Hamas training and learn how to make "mean girl faces" of their own? There might be nothing we can do to stop them.

Update: Thers informs me that Phyllis Chesler is concerned that some people are not taking the danger of "mean girl faces" seriously enough. Apparently, she has done "research" connecting mean girl behavior to "female-female slander, gossip, ostracism . . . female honor killings, dowry burnings, acid-attacks, and female genital mutilation practices." Unfortunately, many of us men are just not going to "get it." It's a girl thing; you wouldn't understand.

Share This Post



Jon Swift, David Horowitz, Islamo-Fascism, Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, Ann Coulter, Islam, Politics
Carnivals: Christian Carnival CXCVI, Carnival of the Vanities

What Loaded Questions Should We Ask About Barack Obama?

Many people are tired of the media's focus in recent Presidential elections on petty personal attacks. They want to hear substantive personal attacks on the candidates. They don't want to hear irrelevant trivialities about the men and women running for President; they want to hear about trivialities that affect their lives. That is why the coverage of Barack Obama, who just announced that he is forming a Presidential exploratory committee, thus far has been so inspiring.

The media's job is to raise important questions about the candidates not provide simplistic answers. The American people can provide the simplistic answers on their own. So far the media has raised a lot of important questions about Barack Obama. Who is Barack Obama? Why is his middle name Hussein? Is he secretly a Muslim? Does he smoke? Does he work out? What is he wearing? If he were a tree, what kind of a tree would he be?

No one knows very much about Barack Obama. He has written only two books, which no one has ever read, and given very few interviews. Newsweek's Howard Fineman, in his remarkably insightful column comparing the Presidential race to a high school election, calls him the Mysterious Newcomer. "Presidential elections are high school writ large," says Fineman (his use of the word "writ" cluing you in to the seriousness of his metaphor; Pulitzer Prize judges, take note). As everyone knows about high school elections, the candidates with the least amount of gossip about them wins.

The fact that we know so little about Obama is very suspicious. Ever since the docudrama The Manchurian Candidate was released in 1962, presidential candidates have had to go through rigorous screening to prevent our enemies from slipping someone into the presidency and taking over the country. In the 1968 Presidential election, the first Manchurian Candidate, George Romney, accidentally revealed himself when he remarked that he had been "brainwashed" about the Vietnam War and subsequently turned against the war. Luckily, he was drummed out of the race. But this year there are several potential Manchurian Candidates. There is Romney's son Mitt, who may be trying to carry on the legacy of his father. Apparently, he was "brainwashed" about gay rights. Then there is John McCain, who lost his last Presidential race when patriotic Vietnam War veterans accused him of being brainwashed when he was a POW because he led efforts to make peace with Vietnam. He has since undergone some sort of treatment and is now a patriotic American again, but there are still some who have doubts. The most likely Manchurian Candidate, however, is Barack Obama.

Debbie Schlussel, who fights Muslims with the same passion she brings to her battles against unauthorized use of the airbrushed photo she uses on her website, has publicly accused Barack Obama of being a Muslim Manchurian Candidate. "Is a man who Muslims think is a Muslim, who feels some sort of psychological need to prove himself to his absent Muslim father, and who is now moving in the direction of his father's heritage, a man we want as President when we are fighting the war of our lives against Islam? Where will his loyalties be?"

Although some of Schlussel's critics say that she is not the expert on Islam she claims to be and may, in fact, be mentally unstable, at least when she is not taking her medication, a chain email circulating around the Internet confirms her conclusions. Although Obama says he is a Christian and that his father was not even a practicing Muslim, the email reveals that "Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim while admitting that he was once a Muslim…. Since it is politically expedient to be a Christian when you are seeking political office in the United States, Obama joined the United Church of Christ to help purge any notion that he is still a Muslim, which, ideologically, he remains today." Although Obama denies that he once admitted that he was Muslim or that he is one today, most people are more likely to trust an email than a Presidential candidate.

The mainstream media, which increasingly is taking cues from bloggers and chain emails, has begun to jump on the story of Obama's secret Muslim identity. Insight Magazine, which is owned by Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church, a religion that is not trying to take over the United States, as far as we know, has raised more suspicions that Obama is secretly a Muslim and attended a madrassa when he was young. It has also accused Hillary Clinton's campaign of trying to plant those rumors by quoting unnamed campaign "sources," which as any journalist knows are the most reliable sources of all. With this story Insight cleverly made two candidates look bad, Obama and Clinton, without having to actually prove anything.

Unfortunately, many members of the mainstream media are still operating under the old rules of journalism, which requires two unnamed sources with axes to grind before a story can be printed. So they have had to rely on insinuating that Obama is not one of us by bending facts that are known. Many have pointed out that Obama's middle name is Hussein, which just begs the question, What kind of a person would let his parents name him Hussein? Most of our early Presidents didn't even have middle names. It has only been in the last century that most of our Presidents had middle names, but most of these were good American-sounding middle names like Gamaliel, Delano, Fitzgerald, Baines and Milhous. Two of our Presidents just had the middle initial S, which didn't stand for anything controversial at all.

CNN's Jeff Greenfield expanded on suspicions about Obama by pointing out that he often wears a jacket without a tie, which is the same uniform Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wears. Greenfield then claimed it was a "joke," which makes sense because Greenfield was an alumnus of Harvard Lampoon during the time when it stopped being funny. By making his "joke" about Obama, Greenfield was able to get out the information about Obama's possibly being traitor without having to say it. CNN was following a similar strategy when it "accidentally" mixed up Obama's name with Osama Bin Laden's.

Of course, CNN is not the only mainstream media outfit trying to spread important innuendo about Obama. Fox News, which quickly picked up the Insight story and ran with it, recently asked, "Would you vote for a smoker as President?" It turns out that Obama is also secretly a cigarette smoker though he has never been photographed publicly with a cigarette just as Franklin Roosevelt was never photographed in his wheelchair. Both liberals and conservatives agree that smoking is un-American, which is why we are trying to drive smokers out of their offices and homes. It is no coincidence that countries with the highest number of smokers just happen to be countries that are our enemies.

In the coming months I am sure there will be many other important questions raised about Obama. Do we really want a President who has lived in another country, or even traveled to one, especially a Muslim country? Is Obama too pretty to be President? Does being black make Obama too angry to be President? What negative information is there about his wife? What kind of underwear does he wear? If the hard-hitting reporting we have already had on Barack Obama is any indication, the 2008 Presidential election is shaping up to be the most substantive and rigorous examination of candidates yet.

Share This Post


Rate This Post on BlogoWogo

Jon Swift, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Manchurian Candidate, Islam, Christianity, Howard Fineman, CNN, Fox News, Debbie Schlussel, Jeff Greenfield, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Smoking, Journalism, Politics, Pundits, Foreign Policy

Breaking News: Michael Ledeen Is Dead

Exclusive: Must credit Jon Swift
According to a confidential source, Michael Ledeen, Pajamas Media's supreme pundit, is dead. Apparently he was not well for some time. I have not been able to get any independent confirmation of what my source is telling me, but I have decided to go ahead with this story anyway because, after all, that is what Ledeen would have wanted me to do.

Sadly, Ledeen did not live to see his greatest scoop vindicated: his report that the Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was dead. Or if he hadn't actually died, was dying. If not right at the moment, then eventually. Iran denied the report, dismissing it as "Internet rumors," and even Michelle Malkin, who is a bit of a stickler for verifying rumors before she prints them, said, "This is either going to be a two-ton feather in Pajamas's cap or a major embarrassment." Even after pictures surfaced of Khamenei (which may have been of an imposter! Or Photoshopped!) making an appearance in public, Ledeen stuck to his guns. His last post on January 10 reported the death of Carlo Ponti, who is, in fact, dead.

Despite his untimely death, Michael Ledeen will continue to live on through the influence his ideas will have on American foreign policy for years to come. Ledeen often advised and Karl Rove on foreign policy and Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz were among his admirers. If it is true that we have declared double-secret war on Iran, you can thank Ledeen, who was a tireless advocate for regime change Iran. Ledeen is a longtime expert on Iran whose expertise on the country goes back to his stint as an advisor to Robert MacFarlane in the Reagan Administration when he helped negotiate the deal that would later be known as Iran-Contra, just one the many successful foreign policy initiatives Ledeen was involved in. In fact, Ledeen was more than a pundit, which elicited grudging admiration even from critics like Matthew Yglesias, who wrote after his name surfaced in relation to the forged documents about yellowcake from Niger (which he denied any involvement with), "I used to find Ledeen's habit of popping up in these contexts to be a bit shady. Nowadays, I think it's sort of admirable. My life as a trained professional political pundit is pretty dull. Lots of time looking at computer screens and the occassional conversation. My other friends in this game are all the same way. But Ledeen does wet work! It's just so cool and makes me look pretty lame by comparison."

But our upcoming (or ongoing) war with Iran is not the only legacy Ledeen leaves behind. Ledeen warned in 2003 that France and Germany may have made an alliance with Islamic terrorists to bring down the United States. "They dreaded the establishment of an American empire, and they sought for a way to bring it down," he wrote. "So the French and the Germans struck a deal with radical Islam and with radical Arabs: You go after the United States, and we'll do everything we can to protect you, and we will do everything we can to weaken the Americans." Eventually, it looks like we may have to go after our "allies," Ledeen said: "If this is correct, we will have to pursue the war against terror far beyond the boundaries of the Middle East, into the heart of Western Europe." When we invade France and Germany, we'll have Ledeen to thank. I think we can all sleep better at night knowing that he was giving this kind of advice to the Bush Administration.

There is no question Ledeen's foreign policy advice will be greatly missed. Ledeen supplied the principal rationale for going to war with Iraq, which his friend Jonah Goldberg called the "Ledeen Doctrine." According to Goldberg, Ledeen once said, "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business." Although he modestly claimed later to have nothing to do with the decision to invade Iraq, and, in fact, told Vanity Fair, "I opposed the military invasion of Iraq before it took place," it was typical of the man not to seek out credit for his ideas. Some critics would go so far as to accuse Ledeen of lying about his support for the war, but they just didn't understand the subtle, sophisticated way he had of expressing himself. For example, when he told an interviewer that we should invade Iraq "yesterday," what he was actually saying was that we shouldn't invade Iraq because everyone knows it would be impossible to do something yesterday unless you had a time machine. And just because he criticized those who opposed the war, it doesn't mean he supported the war. He was highly critical, for example, of Brent Scowcroft who said that, "I think we could have an explosion in the Middle East. It could turn the whole region into a caldron and destroy the War on Terror." To Ledeen, that was a good thing. "One can only hope that we turn the region into a cauldron, and faster, please. If ever there were a region that richly deserved being cauldronized, it is the Middle East today," Ledeen wrote.

Ledeen claimed that he actually wanted to go after Iran before we went after Iraq. But even if he did believe that Iraq was the wrong crappy country to throw against the wall at the wrong time, as he now claims, he predicted that the American people would welcome the War in Iraq with flowers, no matter how many people were killed. "I think the level of casualties is secondary," he said. "I mean, it may sound like an odd thing to say, but all the great scholars who have studied American character have come to the conclusion that we are a warlike people and that we love war.... What we hate is not casualties but losing." If it is true that the American people love war, then Ledeen may have been the most American person of all.

Ledeen's unique perspective grew out of his interest in Italian fascism, which he studied while earning a PhD. at the University of Wisconsin and then in Rome, where he went after being rejected for tenure at the Washington University in St. Louis. (Faculty members said he was rejected for plagiarism and the "quality of his scholarship" but it was no doubt in reality because of his iconoclastic conservative views.) Ledeen believed that despite the bad name Mussolini gave to fascism, there were plenty of good fascist ideas that were worth salvaging. His theory of "Creative Destruction," which holds that sweeping away the old order through violence is the only way for society to progress, was one of the black-shirted babies Ledeen saved from Mussolini's bathwater. "Change -- above all violent change -- is the essence of human history," he wrote in his book, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership. Ledeen's many protégés in the Bush Administration who subscribed to his ideas about "creative destruction" would no doubt be surprised to learn that American foreign policy of the last few years owes a tip of the hat to ol' Benito Mussolini.

To know Ledeen was to love him. He leaves behind a beautiful family who will continue his important work: his wife Barbara, a former aide to Sen. Rick Santorum; his daughter Simone who nabbed a job working for the Civilian Provisional Authority in Iraq and did such a bang-up job getting the Iraq economy on its feet by driving around bags of cash in the trunk of her car; and his sons Gabriel, a Marine, who spent a lot of time drinking designer coffee in Iraq, and Daniel, a student at Rice University, who once asked Michael Moore how he felt about Hezbollah distributing his film Fahrenheit 9/11, but was unfairly cut off before he could ask his follow-up question, "When did you stop beating your wife?" Let us remember them all in our prayers.

Share This Post


Rate This Post on BlogoWogo

Jon Swift, Iraq, Michael Ledeen, Iran, Khamenei, Michelle Malkin, Pajamas Media, War on Terror, Terrorism, Bush, Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Journalism, Politics, Pundits, Foreign Policy