Trailblazers
They say that where Europe is today, America will be twenty or thirty years from now. Given the massive turn to the left we’re in the process of making, starting in 2006 and culminating this November, that axiom certainly seems to be panning out.
One would also surmise that if we’re following along in Europe’s cultural and political wake, we would be following even more closely in Great Britain’s footsteps. Again, politically, that looks to be shaping up, as the Brits are in their twelfth consecutive year of Labor Party rule, and we’re entering a minimum sixteen-year Donk swerve at the presidential level and a like congressional hegemony that could well outlast the previous sixty-year dynasty.
However, if our cultural destiny is similarly linked, we are in desperate, desperate peril:
The Bishop of Stafford, Gordon Mursell, said that by failing to face up to the truth about climate change, we were - like Josef Fritzl - denying our children a future.
He stressed that he was not accusing those who do nothing about global warming of being child abusers, but said that shocking analogies were needed to force people to face up to the threat to the future of mankind.
In a pastoral letter distributed in parish magazines throughout the Diocese of Lichfield, the Bishop wrote: ‘Josef Fritzl represents merely the most extreme form of a very common philosophy of life: I will do what makes me happy, and if that causes others to suffer, hard luck.
‘In fact you could argue that, by our refusal to face the truth about climate change, we are as guilty as he is - we are in effect locking our children and grandchildren into a world with no future and throwing away the key.”
Oh, yes, he WAS accusing those who refuse to be browbeaten into meek acceptance of the Sovietization of the First World economy via mythological pagan apocalypticism of being child-abusers. The global warming hoaxers long ago dropped any pretense of scientific validity, or they wouldn’t resort to hysterical pseudointellectual thuggery. They’ve lost the argument on substance, so now they resort to rhetorical terrorism to bludgeon their opponents into silence and submission.
But, I hear you asking, how is that measurably worse than An Inconvenient Truth’s depiction of “the oil industry, represented by a decrepit old man in a George Bush [mask? costume?], forcing baby Gaia to bear his incest babies in a dungeon“? I’ll see you that one, and raise you a dhimmi:
The preachers, both ministers in Birmingham, were handing out leaflets on Alum Rock Road in February when they started talking to four Asian youths.
A police community support officer (PCSO) interrupted the conversation and began questioning the ministers about their beliefs.
They said when the officer realised they were American, although both have lived in Britain for many years, he launched a tirade against President Bush and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan…
“He said we were in a Muslim area and were not allowed to spread our Christian message. He said we were committing a hate crime by telling the youths to leave Islam and said that he was going to take us to the police station.”…
West Midlands Police, who refused to apologise, said the incident had been “fully investigated” and the officer would be given training in understanding hate crime and communication. [emphases added]
Compare that to the long-established traits of dhimmitude:
Institutionalized apartheid. In Shari’a law, there are official discriminations against the Dhimmi, such as the poll-tax or jizya.
No legal rights. Jews may not testify in court against a Muslim and have no legal right to dispute or challenge anything done to them by Muslims. There is no such thing as a Muslim raping a Jewish woman; there is no such thing as a Muslim murdering a Jew (at most, it can be manslaughter). In contrast, a Jew who strikes a Muslim is killed.
Humiliation and vulnerability. Jews and Christians had to walk around with badges or veils identifying them as Jews or Christians. The yellow star that Jews had wear in Nazi Germany did not originate in Europe. It was borrowed from the Muslim world where it was part of the apartheid system of Dhimmitude.
Conditional protection. The protection of the Dhimmi is withdrawn if the Dhimmi rebels against Islamic law, gives allegiance to non-Muslim power (such as Israel), refuses to pay the poll-tax, entices a Muslim from his faith, or harms a Muslim or his property. If the protection is lifted, jihad resumes. For example, Islamists in Egypt who pillage and kill the Copts do so because they no longer pay their poll-tax and therefore are no longer protected.
Has the British city of Birmingham been placed under sharia rule? Sure sounds like it’s headed in that direction. And we’re about to elect as the next president of the United States a man who won the endorsement of Hamas.
It almost makes me sad that I’m probably going to live long enough to see the demise into which my country is headlong flinging itself. But at least I’ll die (at least somewhat) old, and die a martyr.
[cross-posted at 
]
June 6th, 2008 at 9:54 am
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 06/06/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
June 7th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
[…] starting in 2006 and culminating this November, that axiom certainly seems to be panning out. Onhttp://headingright.com/2008/06/04/trailblazers/La Scala to stage opera of ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ Independent It began life as a slide show before […]
June 7th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Department of Education to Re-open Case Against UC-Irvine
Below is a news release from Zionist Organization of America (ZOA)
Also thanks to Jonathan Constantine and Reut Cohen at Red County blog.
Department of Education Reopens Case Against UC Irvine
Posted by: Jonathan Constantine | 06/06/2008 3:27 PM
ZOA has the details:
June 6, 2008
Contact Morton A. Klein at: 917-974-8795 or 212-481-1500
Attn: NEWS EDITOR
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INITIATES NEW INVESTIGATION INTO
UC IRVINE’S RESPONSE TO CAMPUS ANTI-SEMITISM
By letter to the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) dated April 25, 2008, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has indicated that it will be investigating several incidents of alleged anti-Semitic harassment, intimidation and discrimination that occurred in May 2007, at the University of California, Irvine (UCI). The ZOA had brought these incidents to OCR’s attention almost one year ago, asserting that the incidents show that UCI has continued to respond ineffectively to campus anti-Semitism, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI). Title VI requires that recipients of federal funding (like UCI) ensure that their programs and activities are free discrimination based on “race, color, or national origin.” If the recipient is found to have violated Title VI, it can lose its federal funding.
The ZOA first brought UCI’s alleged violation of Title VI to OCR’s attention in October 2004, when the ZOA filed a Title VI complaint on behalf of Jewish students with OCR, the federal agency responsible for enforcing the law. The ZOA’s complaint alleged that Jewish students had been facing a longstanding pattern of anti-Semitic harassment and hostility on the campus, and that UCI had failed to respond effectively to the problem, in violation of its obligations under Title VI. After reviewing the ZOA’s allegations, OCR decided that an investigation into UCI’s conduct was warranted.
In the course of that investigation, the ZOA furnished OCR with evidence about several incidents of harassment that had occurred at UCI as late as May 2007. The ZOA repeatedly urged OCR to interview witnesses with pertinent information about these incidents. Even though these incidents were relevant to the allegations of the ZOA’s October 2004 complaint asserting a pattern or practice of anti-Semitic discrimination at UCI, OCR refused to investigate the incidents or to interview crucial witnesses.
OCR typically resolves Title VI complaints within 180 days after they are filed. It took OCR more than three years to issue a decision on the ZOA’s October 2004 complaint. In November 2007, when OCR finally issued its decision, it absolved UCI of wrongdoing. It was plain from the decision that OCR had applied a narrower interpretation of Title VI than the one that OCR had said it would enforce when it issued two policy statements in the fall of 2004. At that time, OCR had made it clear that consistent with federal precedent recognizing that Jews were a racial or national origin group for purposes of affording civil rights protections, OCR would likewise protect Jewish students from anti-Semitic harassment under Title VI. Later, under new leadership at OCR, that policy was whittled down, so that Jewish students would no longer be afforded the protections of Title VI as a racial or national origin group.
OCR’s decision in November 2007 engendered deep concern from Members of both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, which was expressed in powerful letters to U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings. In the letter from U.S. Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA), Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Sam Brownback (R-KS) - all three of whom are Members of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary - they questioned the decision that OCR reached in the ZOA’s case against UCI, and the interpretation of Title VI that OCR had applied in the case. According to the Senators, OCR’s conclusion in the ZOA’s case “is inconsistent with its prior policy statements.” The Senators asked probing questions of Secretary Spellings, including why there were witnesses “that the ZOA proffered . . . whom OCR did not interview.”
The letter from Members of the House also raised troubling concerns about OCR’s decision in the ZOA’s case, and demanded answers from Secretary Spellings about whether OCR’s policy for enforcing Title VI was affording Jewish students the protections they need. U.S. Representatives Brad Sherman (D-CA), Linda Sanchez (D-CA), Steven Rothman (D-NJ), Allyson Schwartz (D-PA), Robert Wexler (D-FL) and Shelley Berkley (D-NV) emphasized that OCR’s conclusion in the ZOA’s case “reversed OCR policy, as clarified in 2004, of protecting Jews against anti-Semitism.”
The leadership of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the umbrella group for more than 50 national Jewish organizations across the religious and political spectrums, also criticized OCR’s decision in the ZOA’s case against UCI. In a letter to Stephanie Monroe, the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education, the Presidents’ Conference urged OCR to reconsider its decision in the ZOA’s case. The decision “will affect Jewish students not only at UCI, but also at other colleges and universities across the United States. At a time when reports of anti-Semitic harassment and intimidation on college campuses is [sic] increasing, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), whose mission is to redress racial and ethnic discrimination, should be seeking to expand the protections of the law.”
When, in the April 25, 2008 letter, OCR notified the ZOA about the new investigation of incidents that occurred at UCI in May 2007, OCR indicated that it had determined that several of the ZOA’s allegations “are appropriate for investigation under the laws enforced by OCR. . . . We will contact you soon to discuss the allegations and complaint resolution process.”
Morton A. Klein, the ZOA’s National President, and Susan B. Tuchman, Esq., the Director of the ZOA’s Center for Law and Justice, said, “We are pleased to know that the Office for Civil Rights is finally looking into incidents that the ZOA brought to OCR’s attention almost one year ago. The witnesses who were ready and willing to come forward at that time are just as eager to furnish information to OCR now. As we did during OCR’s first investigation, we stand ready to assist the agency in every way possible.
“Since the time that OCR issued its decision in November 2007, OCR has gotten the clear message from Members of the House and the Senate, and from the Presidents’ Conference, that OCR’s narrower interpretation of Title VI is of deep concern. We hope that OCR will rethink that more restrictive policy. When it conducts this new investigation, we urge OCR to keep an open mind and apply the policy it clarified in 2004 - that OCR would protect Jewish students from anti-Semitic harassment under Title VI. As the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights recognized in April 2006, Jewish students are entitled to the protections of Title VI, and the Office for Civil Rights should be vigorously enforcing the law to ensure that they are protected.”
Fousesquawk comment: This is certainly good news. Hopefully, they will also go into 2008.
gary fouse
fousesquawk