A Recipe for Defeat: Europe is Pelosi’s America – The gays take every opportunity to dress up. Consequently Halloween has become a gay festival in LA. The first people I met when leaving the hotel were a group of men dressed up as ballerinas. This is Pelosi Land. – Americans can already see what their country’s future will be if they vote for Pelosi and her band. They only need to watch Europe. That is what America will be like 20 years from now if the Liberals succeed in turning the U.S. into a European-style welfare state.

A Recipe for Defeat: Europe is Pelosi’s America

I am in Los Angeles at the moment, and do not have the opportunity to write about events in Europe as much as I would like to. I will not be back in Brussels until 12 November. Over here in the U.S. all attention is focused on the upcoming elections. There is a possibility that the Democrats will become the majority in the House of Representatives and that Nancy Pelosi, the California Liberal, will become the next Speaker of the House. I was in West Hollywood on Halloween. A friend described this area as one third retiree, one third Russian and one third gay. Sounds a bit like Europe to me.

The gays take every opportunity to dress up. Consequently Halloween has become a gay festival in LA. The first people I met when leaving the hotel were a group of men dressed up as ballerinas. This is Pelosi Land.

Americans can already see what their country’s future will be if they vote for Pelosi and her band. They only need to watch Europe. That is what America will be like 20 years from now if the Liberals succeed in turning the U.S. into a European-style welfare state. The latter is the cause of all Europe’s problems. It has led to secularization, because people who are catered for from the cradle to the grave no longer need God. It has led to the immigration debacle, because Europe has attracted welfare immigrants who only come for the benefits and not to contribute to the host country’s wealth creation. It has led to the loss of the citizens’ ability to care for themselves, because they expect everything from the state.

However, the current American elections are relevant for Europe, too. If they lead to the American withdrawal from Iraq, Europe will face a widespread intifada. The withdrawal will be perceived as a defeat of the West and the Muslim “youths” in Europe’s cities will become even more arrogant. They utterly despise the Europeans, whom they perceive (not entirely without reason) to be men dressed up as ballerinas, and they hate America because it fights back. In a world ruled by men who only understand the language of power it is better to be hated than despised. If America withdraws the Islamist fanatics will despise America for it. They will take this as a sign that the West has been defeated and that the world is theirs.

In this scenario Europe has more to lose than America. That makes it all the more surprising that Europe’s politicians refuse to support America. They seem to be hoping that the Muslims, although they despise the Europeans, will leave them alone so they can carry on paying the taxes that the immigrants live off. I fear it will not turn out this way. Moreover, the funds are running dry because the welfare state hampers wealth creation.

I have ambivalent feelings about the war in Iraq, but once a country has decided to go to war it has got to make sure it wins. Europe no longer knows this, which also goes to explain why it does not want to help America win the war and why, on a micro level, the situation in France is deteriorating day by day. Last year the French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy decided to reestablish law and order in the French immigrant suburbs which have become territorial pockets ruled by thugs and Islamists. Instead of fighting this battle with all available means the French authorities are waging a half-hearted war which has led to the current debacle in France’s no-go areas. Last year “youths” developed a habit of setting parked (and empty) cars on fire, but this year policemen and firefighters are being attacked in paramilitary raids and crowded buses are being hijacked and arsoned. Still the French Republic refuses to crack down on the Islamic hooligans.

Yesterday Le Figaro reported that the police in Roubaix, a town in the North of France, had been ordered not to search the house of a suspected drug trafficker because he lived in a no-go part of town. Police officers reported in an official but confidential document that “the Prefect [the Governor] of the Nord Department [Province] currently does not authorize police actions in that sector for reasons concerning public order.” The house of the suspected drug dealer was situated in “a sensitive area.” Here the thugs can do as they please.

Following the publication of the confidential police report both the French Interior Ministry and the Defence Ministry have denied its content, saying that the police officers misunderstood the orders given to them. The suspected drug trafficker was not arrested, they say, because the police had to wait for reinforcements. Meanwhile the authorities have announced an official investigation into the leaking of the document. This attitude is a recipe for defeat.

Fear the Terrorists, Not President Bush — On the left, my former party of choice, feels that the biggest issues confronting America are corporate greed, “the culture of corruption” (as if this does not occur on both sides), Wal-Mart, “big business,” churchgoing Christians, global warming and an assault on the civil liberties of us and terrorists. To deny this would be scandalously untrue — The “Drive-by” big city media feels the need to rant about how we “torture” terrorists, keep “secret prisons,” check phone records of suspected terrorists, regress back to Katrina whining, yada, yada and yada. The ACLU, “peace organizations,” the legal world, academia and Hollywood, not surprisingly, fall for this flawed, inane logic too. History has always proved these acrimonious fools wrong, and will again this time… if we’re not killed first by our enemies because of their devious behaviors.

Fear the Terrorists, Not President Bush
October 31st, 2006

Next Tuesday is midterm election day. When you cast your vote – if you choose to partake in this most honorable American tradition – please remember what is at stake.

On the left, my former party of choice, feels that the biggest issues confronting America are corporate greed, “the culture of corruption” (as if this does not occur on both sides), Wal-Mart, “big business,” churchgoing Christians, global warming and an assault on the civil liberties of us and terrorists. To deny this would be scandalously untrue.

On the right, my current “fearmongering” party of choice feels the biggest issue (singular) is to eliminating and freeing the world of Islamo-fascist Nazis. There is no denying this, and the sooner we, as in all other world wars, are free to do this, the better. My party wants to save the non-Muslim world, America, Israel and especially “liberal values” like sexual and gender freedoms (not just libertinism, but the freedom of women) freedom of religion, speech and of the press.

Unfortunately, aside from Radical Muslims, we have many domestic factors working against us:

The “Drive-by” big city media feels the need to rant about how we “torture” terrorists, keep “secret prisons,” check phone records of suspected terrorists, regress back to Katrina whining, yada, yada and yada. The ACLU, “peace organizations,” the legal world, academia and Hollywood, not surprisingly, fall for this flawed, inane logic too. History has always proved these acrimonious fools wrong, and will again this time… if we’re not killed first by our enemies because of their devious behaviors.

President Bush, sadly as of late, has fallen prey to dangerous political correctness and multi-cultural balderdash as he tries to unite this country. He has attempted to make good on his promise to be the great uniter, and the man has undeniably been more liberal than conservative the past year.

There is no need to do this, Mr. President.

This country was divided long before President Bush took office, and he has done his best to unite it. But many who hypocritically seek “redistribution of wealth” spend their weekends picking up wheatgrass at Whole Foods on their way to Nantucket, do not want to be united with Americans who attend church on Sunday, wave the flag, and enjoy Nascar, Applebee’s and saving money at Wal-Mart. Too bad for them. These arrogant, misguided folks have chosen to regressively look back, to sacrifice their platform to go after Mr. Bush (who is not up for re-election, by the way).

Fatuous liberals like Paul Krugman — who saw nothing wrong with comparing the backlash against the Dixie Chicks to the rise of Nazism — or the countless jabberers who have over the years denounced William F. Buckley Jr., Barry Goldwater, Sean Hannity et al. as fascists are difficult to respect, much less take seriously. As Jonah Goldberg wrote in September,

“One gets the sense that today’s liberals — beyond their phobia of offending the coalition of the oppressed (in this case, the Muslims of CAIR) — are reluctant to let Bush use “Islamic fascism” because they don’t want to give up their monopoly on the F-word.”

George Bush needs to stop trying so hard to make “peace” with those who despise us within our nation and are more concerned with meaningless impeachment than saving our world. His efforts have never been appreciated, but someday, like Reagan and those before him, perhaps they will. 

Thankfully, by the grace of G-d, the patriotic men and women of the military will save this nation as they always have. They will not get thanks from the coastal elites, but this is expected.

It’s not just that the wrong party could take power, but this party’s leaders, some of those who would be in charge of essential committees like Ways and Means, the Judiciary, Commerce, etc, are variously on record as not supporting Israel (and being proud of it!), raising taxes, ending free trade, drilling in ANWR (animals are more important than people, usually) and naturally, impeaching Bush. That will surely take our attention away from the Islamic Nazis, North Koreans and by October of next year, as opposed to fraudulent filmmakers who dream of Bush being dead, we all could be in severe peril. I’d personally put it at 50/50.

I hope that most Americans will take a deep breath, realize Bush had noble, correct intentions for freeing tens of millions from a madman and then remember that unemployment is the lowest in five years; the Dow is over 12,000 points. Inflation is 2.1 percent, the deficit is being dramatically reduced, and gas prices are falling. Let’s just hope that if the GOP maintains control, we don’t waste time, effort and money on Democrat protests and recounts. Which state this time? Indiana? Missouri? Do I hear Maryland?

Vote accordingly, and consider whether you want to tell your grandchildren you defeated carbon dioxide emissions or Islamo Nazi Fascists who threatened the free world.

Ari Kaufman is a freelance writer in Indianapolis, regularly contributing to the Indianapois Star and the Jewish Post and Opinion. He’s also the co-author of an upcoming book on educational reform. His archived work can be accessed here.

Ari Kaufman

U of Nebraska’s Political Litmus Test From now on, your annual evaluations will include being graded on the extent to which you have contributed (or not) to a climate of “inclusiveness” and the extent to which you have participated in “campus programs to improve climate …”

U of Nebraska’s Political Litmus Test
By Dwayne Ball and Gerard Harbison
Daily Nebraskan | October 24, 2006

University of Nebraska-Lincoln faculty members need to read and comment on the proposed UNL Strategic Plan for Diversity [pdf] by Halloween. The timing is utterly appropriate. Here is what should frighten you:

1. From now on, your annual evaluations will include being graded on the extent to which you have contributed (or not) to a climate of “inclusiveness” and the extent to which you have participated in “campus programs to improve climate …”

“Inclusiveness” is not defined in the document, nor is the nature of these programs specified. Thus, these words can mean whatever your department chairperson or others in the administration want them to mean – and can’t we all guess?

Does anyone doubt that all this constitutes a politically based litmus test for continued employment? Simply expressing disagreement with affirmative action, or with UNL’s implementation of it, could easily be cast as contributing to a “non-inclusive climate.” Having the “wrong” book on your bookshelf or the “wrong” cartoon on your office door could be judged “non-inclusive.”

This vague standard violates your rights under the First Amendment and your rights as a public employee. It also violates the spirit and the letter of academic freedom, both as generally understood and as codified in the University of Nebraska Regents’ bylaws, section 4.2. If you think you are immune because you hold the “correct” opinions, you might want to take a close reading of the document and imagine how it could be used against you by a hostile department chairperson.

2. All potential new hires must be grilled on their willingness and ability to “contribute positively” to the “campus climate.”

As a candidate, if you slip up during an interview and reveal that you think the diversity emperor has no clothes, you’ve lost your chance at a UNL job – based on your political opinions.

Let no one think this doesn’t happen. At other institutions, faculty candidates have been asked if they’d read books such as “America in Black in White” (critical of affirmative action) or “The Bell Curve” (deemed racist). Simply admitting to have read such a book has cost them a job.

3. All academic units will have “diversity curricula” and an assessment of their effectiveness. This asserts administrative hegemony over one of the very few areas over which faculty members still maintain some control: curriculum. This is a direct violation of the academic freedom of faculty members.

4. There are to be recruitment “targets” for female and minority faculty. Deans and department chairpersons will be graded on their ability to meet those targets. The administration will thus force lower and mid-level administrators and faculty search committees into illegal reverse discrimination.

If you plan to join a search committee, keep in mind that you may therefore be called upon to display “non-inclusive” behavior. That is, you may be required or “encouraged” to exclude non-Hispanic white male applicants. Thus, you will be in violation of the other parts of the plan that require you to be “inclusive.”

In the High-Orwellian Newspeak of diversity, exclusivity is inclusive! Naturally, the authors of the plan will protest they meant no such thing as unconstitutional hiring and employment practices nor violations of free speech and academic freedom.

If so, why have they left critical terms open to interpretation? Why have they provided no explicit protections for free expression of ideas even if those ideas imply some sort of “non-inclusiveness?” Why have they not explicitly protected faculty members and employees who will say out loud that “diversity” has become a pathetic caricature? Why is “diversity of ideas” unprotected?

Precisely, perhaps, because the authors intend harm to people based on their political viewpoints. For shame.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.