posted October 30, 2007 01:55 PM            

But in the real world it's leftists who are the very group who deny anyone the right to speak...who disagrees with them. These morons will use any device to silence those they don't want heard...including violence.

So, let no more be heard from these shriekers, howlers, whiners and pants wetters about free speech.

Free speech is an all or nothing proposition. Something the shriekers of the far radical left need to get through their dense heads.

So, here are college students...and political leftist activists applauding the President of Iran. The very man who is attempting to create and keep going a civil war in Iraq. As well as providing munitions like IEDs and other bombs to kill American service men and women in Iraq. Not to mention sending Iranian military personnel and intelligence agents there as well.

Beyond that, applauding the enemy, giving aid and comfort to America's enemy or enemies is just contemptible. Of course, I don't expect that to penetrate the thick heads of brain dead leftist morons. There are always that 10% who are intellectually incapable of getting it.

Too bad this 10%, the far radical left, is the tail..I prefer the as$es..who are wagging the donkey called the Democrat Party.

HAVE YOU HUGGED AN ISLAMO-FASCIST TODAY?
October 24, 2007

Ann Coulter

College liberals are in a fit of pique because various speakers are coming to their campuses this week as part of David Horowitz's Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week -- not to be confused with Islamo-Fascism Appreciation Week, which I believe is in April.

Apparently liberals support Islamo-fascism.

The Democratic leadership might want to have a powwow with their base because I believe their public position is to pretend to oppose Islamic fascism.

Elected Democrats at least make empty rhetorical gestures about opposing Islamic fascism. Of course, amidst their nonspecific condemnations of Islamic terrorism, they make very specific demands that we genuflect before Islam and perform exotic fetishes on the fascists.

Liberals believe in burning the American flag, urinating on crucifixes, and passing out birth control pills to 11-year-olds without telling their parents -- but God forbid an infidel touch a Quran at Guantanamo.

College campuses across the nation are installing foot baths to accommodate Muslims' daily bathing ritual, while surgically removing the Ten Commandments from every public space in America. Maybe the Ten Commandments could be printed on towels and kept next to the foot baths.

The National Council for Social Studies recommended a lesson plan after 9/11 that included a story titled "My Name Is Osama" about a nasty little white boy, "Todd," who taunts a fine upstanding Iraqi immigrant named "Osama." Go ahead, laugh it up -- we'll see who's laughing when "My Name Is Osama" ends up on ABC's prime-time lineup next year.

This story was proposed in response to an event in which Muslims with names like "Osama" committed the most massive hate crime in U.S. history against 3,000 innocent civilians with names like "Todd."

Still and all, Democrats who seek the votes of their fellow Americans continue to claim in a vague, meaningless way to oppose Islamo-fascism.

And then when speakers like Cyrus Nowrasteh, the writer and producer of the ABC miniseries "The Path to 9/11," and Nonie Darwish, whose father founded the Fedayeen, show up on college campuses to criticize Islamic terrorism, the Democratic base threatens to riot. The only thing that makes the cut-and-run crowd mad enough to fight is the idea that someone, somewhere might be criticizing radical Islam.

Consequently, the speakers for Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week require the sort of security phalanx one would expect for someone more like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Oh wait -- no. Ahmadinejad was cheered by college students a few weeks ago -- at least until he expressed reservations about sodomy. (On the basis of Ahmadinejad's claims, instead of looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, how about we start looking for gays in Iran?)

Even American intellectuals like Dennis Prager and Michael Medved who are speaking during Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week are denounced by liberals as if they were David Duke. One pro-Islamo-fascism Web site indicts Medved on the grounds that he "has claimed that Islam has a 'special violence problem.'" It doesn't get much more diplomatic than that.

Conservative speakers are constantly being physically attacked on college campuses -- including Bill Kristol, Pat Buchanan, David Horowitz and me, among others. Fortunately the attackers are Democrats, so they throw like girls and generally end up with their noses bloodied by pretty college coeds. But that doesn't make it right.

Michael Moore can waddle anywhere he wants in America without fear of violence from Republicans. But we still have to hear about every testy e-mail Paul Krugman ever receives as if liberals are living in the black night of fascism. Any time Krugman wants to get into a "Most Vicious Hate Mail" contest, just say the word. You don't hear me sniffling.

Congressional Democrats are constantly calling for conservative private citizens to be silenced. Even Democratic candidates for president and their wives are getting in on the act.

A few weeks ago, in the midst of Senate Democrats' demand that Rush Limbaugh's microphone be silenced, Lizzie Edwards distracted herself from the latest National Enquirer by announcing on Air America that Limbaugh's draft deferment was phony.

I was pretty shocked. Who knew Air America was still on the air?

I know every time Democrats call for me to be silenced, I feel a delicious surge of martyrdom. For a brief moment, I understand the thrill the left gets by going around claiming to be victimized all the time.

I could almost imagine a poem:

First they came for Rush Limbaugh, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't Rush Limbaugh;

And then they came for Ann Coulter, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't Ann Coulter;

And then they came for David Horowitz, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't David Horowitz;

And then ... they came for me ... And by that time there was no one left to speak up.

Liberals claim to be terrified that the Religious Right is going to take over the culture in a country where more than a million babies are exterminated every year, kindergarteners can be expelled from school for mentioning God, and Islamic fascists are welcomed on college campuses while speakers opposed to Islamic fascism are met with angry protests.

If liberals want to face real fascism, try showing up on a college campus and denouncing fascism.

posted October 30, 2007 05:28 PM            

quote:

---

Oh wait -- no. Ahmadinejad was cheered by college students a few weeks ago -- at least until he expressed reservations about sodomy. (On the basis of Ahmadinejad's claims, instead of looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, how about we start looking for gays in Iran?)

---

Actually, he wasn't welcome, he was barely tolerated, treated rudely, and even mocked. You can hear more about it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfBfvOIWYYI

More:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkRmGmMD5QQ

and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg95jXLOrj4
And read more about it here:
http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=73900

quote:

---

kindergarteners can be expelled from school for mentioning God

---

Btw, can you list one kindergartener that was expelled, or even suspended, for mentioning God? Or even a high schooler? I've heard of kids suspended for wearing pentagrams, having books on Wicca, even for casting spells and such (and also for anti-war shirts, too), but never for that.

ETA:

quote:

---

First they came for Rush Limbaugh, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't Rush Limbaugh

---

posted October 30, 2007 06:31 PM            

So I am guessing Hardline Christians are Free religious practioners? LOL!

Oh the absurdities of this world never fail to humor me.

BTW: There is no denying the problem with political correctness and freedom of speech but you Jwhop sem to mix up your definaitons with something else Lol! Ahmadinejad becomes a facist just for denying the holocaust?! LOL!

Should I define fasism for you as well :

quote:

---

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the interests of the state. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to economic and political liberalism.

---

Oh the agony Jwhop! Lol! Maybe its about time you looked up upon your own views and actually figure out what the heck are ya supporting Lol!

posted November 01, 2007 01:43 PM            

Get out of town. This little moron was cheered by the students. He was first given an introduction by the President who had some sharp comments but he was very well received by those students who were present.

posted November 01, 2007 09:25 PM            

Here's a little where he's shown as welcome, but those welcoming him (or at least thinking it was right to let him attend anyway) seem to be in the minority:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPIFjFg75v4

The only part where anyone clapped was at the end of the speech where it's generally seen as the polite (and thus automatic) thing to do.

posted November 03, 2007 09:56 AM            

quote:

---

Oh mAnn Coulter...show us your adam's apple.

---

LMMFAO.

posted November 03, 2007 12:11 PM            

quote:

---

that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the interests of the state....Xodian

---

Exactly Xodian, in this case an Islamic religious state.

That anyone...an American...would cheer the leader of a nation which is providing bombs and weapons to kill American military personnel...as well as training and funding those terrorists engaged in the practice...that is simply contemptible and it cannot be excused. Play the video for yourselves.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=27195_Columbia_Students_Applaud_and_Cheer_Ahmadinejad&only

posted November 03, 2007 12:50 PM            

Ann Coulter

Democrats should run Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for president. He's more coherent than Dennis Kucinich, he dresses like their base, he's more macho than John Edwards, and he's willing to show up at a forum where he might get one hostile question -- unlike the current Democratic candidates for president who won't debate on Fox News Channel. He's not married to an impeached president, and the name "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" is surely no more frightening than "B. Hussein Obama."

And liberals agree with Ahmadinejad on the issues! We know that because he was invited by an American university to speak on campus.

Contrary to all the blather about "free speech" surrounding Ahmadinejad's appearance at Columbia, universities in America do not invite speakers who do not perfectly mirror the political views of their America-hating faculties. Rather, they aggressively censor differing viewpoints and permit only a narrow category of speech on their campuses. Ask Larry Summers.

If a university invites someone to speak, you know the faculty agrees with the speaker. Maybe not the entire faculty. Some Columbia professors probably consider Ahmadinejad too moderate on Israel.

Columbia president Lee Bollinger claimed the Ahmadinejad invitation is in keeping with "Columbia's long-standing tradition of serving as a major forum for robust debate."

Except Columbia doesn't have that tradition. This is worse than saying "the dog ate my homework." It's like saying "the dog ate my homework" when you're Michael Vick and everyone knows you've killed your dog.

Columbia's "tradition" is to shut down any speakers who fall outside the teeny, tiny seditious perspective of its professors.

When Minutemen leader Jim Gilchrist and his black colleague Marvin Stewart were invited by the College Republicans to speak at Columbia last year, the tolerant, free-speech-loving Columbia students violently attacked them, shutting down the speech.

Imbued with Bollinger's commitment to free speech, Columbia junior Ryan Fukumori said of the Minutemen: "They have no right to be able to speak here."

Needless to say -- unlike Ahmadinejad -- the university had not invited the Minutemen. Most colleges and universities wouldn't buy a cup of coffee for a conservative speaker.

Fees for speakers who do not hate America are raised from College Republican fundraisers and contributions from patriotic alumni and locals who think students ought to hear at least one alternative viewpoint in four years of college.

And then college administrators turn a blind eye when liberal apple-polishers and suck-ups shut down the speech or physically attack the speaker.

Bollinger refused to punish the students who stormed the stage and violently ended the Minutemen's speech.

So the one thing we know absolutely is that Bollinger did not allow Ahmadinejad to speak out of respect for "free speech" because Bollinger does not respect free speech.

Only because normal, patriotic Americans were appalled by Columbia's invitation of Ahmadinejad to speak was Bollinger forced into the ridiculous position of denouncing Ahmadinejad when introducing him.

Then why did you invite him?

And by the way, I'll take a denunciation if college presidents would show up at my speeches and drone on for 10 minutes about "free speech" before I begin.

At Syracuse University last year, when liberal hecklers tried to shut down a speech by a popular conservative author of (almost!) six books, College Republicans began to remove the hecklers. But Dean of Students Roy Baker blocked them from removing students disrupting the speech on the grounds that removing students screaming during a speech would violate the hecklers' "free speech." They had a "free speech" right to prevent anyone from hearing a conservative's free speech.

That's what colleges mean by "free speech." (And by the way, my fingers are getting exhausted from making air quotes every time I use the expression "free speech" in relation to a college campus.)

"Tolerance of opposing views" means we have to listen to their anti-American views, but they don't have to hear our pro-American views. (In Washington, they call this "the Fairness Doctrine.")

Liberals are never called upon to tolerate anything they don't already adore, such as treason, pornography and heresy. In fact, those will often get you course credit.

At Ahmadinejad's speech, every vicious anti-Western civilization remark was cheered wildly. It was like watching an episode of HBO'S "Real Time With Bill Maher."

Ahmadinejad complained that the U.S. and a few other "monopolistic powers, selfish powers" were trying to deny Iranians their "right" to develop nukes.

Wild applause.

Ahmadinejad repeatedly refused to answer whether he seeks the destruction of the state of Israel.

Wild applause.

He accused the U.S. of supporting terrorism.

Wild applause.

Only when Ahmadinejad failed to endorse sodomy did he receive the single incident of booing throughout his speech.

Responding to a question about Iran's execution of homosexuals, Ahmadinejad said there are no homosexuals in Iran: "In Iran we don't have homosexuals, like in your country. In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have it."

posted November 04, 2007 05:31 PM            

Welllll... I am trying to remember back to pre-WW2 era and when the German Socialist party came into power and how Chruchill and other European leaders met up with Hitler and his crazy despots Lol! But then one cannot call his views just Anti-Jewish Fasisim Lol! Its just Fasisim; That is all. No Islamo-whatever. As to his invitation to the University, I really think there are more pressing matter then his visit frankly.

Have a look at this:
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58426

quote:

---

A mandatory University of Delaware program requires residence hall students to acknowledge that "all whites are racist" and offers them "treatment" for any incorrect attitudes regarding class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality they might hold upon entering the school, according to a civil rights group.

---

Frankly, I find that more disturbing.

posted November 05, 2007 07:54 AM            

I hear the excuse that saying things against "whites" isn't racist. Which is a pretty racist thing to say. But few people with that particular racist attitude accept that. It's always the well-if-you-don't-understand yada yada sad excuse for a valid reason. Because there is no valid reason. Blaming someone for things their parents or grandparents or great-grandparents did is stupid. Even if there are unfair situations or circumstances today that stem from that past, the "white" people living today aren't the ones who made it so and often they are not the ones propagating anything. It's the monster known as "the system". But somehow, all white people today are to blame for the past and it is their responsibility to fix things and act meek and feel inferior about their racial heritage. The jokes and stereotypes against whites "aren't" racist but if whites said half those same things about "minorities" then ... wait, nevermind, they already are racist. Because, you know, their skin is white.

Sorry. /rant off

Have you seen some of the things that make their way into college/university curriculums? I think sometimes people take a good idea (women's rights) and run with it until they turn it into something negative (women are superior). Then people are afraid of speaking against that blatant bias because, of course, they are portrayed as being evil (anti-women).

posted November 05, 2007 12:45 PM            

You will excuse me for using the very information you posted to make my point that Aberdinernut and the rest of the Islamic religious statists are in fact fascists.

quote:

---

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the interests of the state.

---

Perfect description of the Islamo-fascists.

Since that's true, the term Islamo-fascists is appropriate.

The fact you don't find their actions disturbing but rather find naming them for what they are...disturbing is amusing.
Also strange is your attempt to relegate the topic to the bin marked...unimportant...because there are...in your opinion...more important things happening in the world.

So Exodian, are you also into relativism?

I notice you attempt to offset an article about Islamo-Fascism with an article about brain dead leftist morons at the University of Delaware attempting thought control.

Oh yeah, that and attempting to integrate "Hardline Christians" into the mix as well. I daresay you don't know nearly enough about the subject to form a "rational" opinion.

Just so there's no excuse for further error on your part, Winston Churchill railed against Hitler from the beginning of the establishment of his socialist regime.

posted November 06, 2007 09:54 AM            

Here's an interesting article I stumbled upon by accident while the Four year Italian student in me was trying to find the correct spelling of "Facism" on google (I recall that it was only spelled with a C but I keep seeing 1838217 different spellings on this thread alone ) Anyways, I only come bearing food for thought as I thought this article was relevant to the discussion.

"Islamo-Facism: A Dumb Idea [term]"

Like David Horowitz, CC ’59, I believe that we could end most of America’s problems if we simply repeated the word Islamo-fascism enough times, preferably from some sort of stage. We diverge on the exact methodology, however. He believes in victory through categorizing things, whereas I believe that the whole idea of Islamo-fascism deserves nothing but the utmost derision from everyone who ever encounters it. If we mock it enough, I think we might find problems that exist, as opposed to those invented by frenzied reactionaries.

One argument that really gets Horowitz’s goat is that Islamo-fascism is racist, or at the very least anti-Islamic, since it seems to demonize all Muslims. Horowitz and company deny this, arguing that it’s a simplistic understanding of the word. Apparently the “o” injects some kind of subtlety, because otherwise the word literally consists of “Islam” combined with “fascism”. You can see how some people, such as everyone, might be confused.

The conundrum doesn’t stop there, however, since Islamo-fascism seems to be neither fascist nor characteristically Islamic. Ahmadinejad might be a fascist, although he probably doesn’t have enough power, but you can’t call Al Qaeda fascist—terrorism is by definition anarchic, which is kind of like the opposite of fascism. Mussolini didn’t make the trains run on time by allowing lunatic zealots blow up the stations. Other problems in the Islamic world, like genital mutilation in Africa or “honor killings” in South Asia, don’t seem to have much to do with fascism at all, other than being bad things. You might as well call American gun violence fascistic, since, you know, fascists liked to shoot guns and stuff.

Not only that, but anyone paying attention to Iraq has probably noticed that violent Islamic organizations don’t seem to like each other all that much. I know it’s kind of nice to envision America’s enemy as one monolithic force, like the USSR, or Lex Luthor, but the problematic sects of Muslims can’t even get organized in Iraq. These guys can’t resolve an ancient dispute about the caliphate, much less band together to make some kind of evil League of Nations. It’s like Horowitz is secretly hoping to get a job writing for Saturday morning cartoons.

Even if all the Muslims in the world did have a secret plot against America, I’m not sure how using a nonsensical term would help us to thwart it. Let’s say we all agree that the real problem is not some complicated geopolitical hokum, but rather Islam (got it in two syllables, boys). Then what? Does he plan to infiltrate Islamo-fascist club meetings and ask disruptive questions? (Can Allah make a rock so big he can’t lift it?) America has a decent history of fighting fascists, but we kind of suck at fighting Muslims (killing civilians doesn’t count). In fact, everyone sucks at fighting Muslims. Other than some wins for Britain, the West has a losing record in the Middle East at least since the Crusades.

In part, this is because we don’t know what we’re talking about. While making Princeton aware of Islamo-fascism, Horowitz said of Islam, “I don’t think there has been another religion that has made saints out of murderers.” I can think of one: Christianity. It’s an easy answer because, unlike Islam, Christianity actually has saints. Two of my favorites are Saint Louis, who killed Muslims while losing the second Crusade, and Saint George, a Roman soldier who is now the patron saint, literally, of knights, cavalry and butchers. I don’t think anyone expects Horowitz to cite Catholic arcana, but it might be nice if he knew some basic facts about religion, like, “Islam isn’t just Christianity with different words,” or “People in many religions have done bad things”.

Since Islamo-fascism so successfully merges racism, ignorance, and impotence, we may need a new term. I propose that we have a Repubofascism Awareness Week, dedicated to understanding the ways that Republicans are fascists. Unlike Horowitz, I would like to point out that I am explicitly yoking the American Republican Party to fascism. As justification, I would like to cite an explanation of Islamo-fascism written by Christopher Hitchens for Slate, one that Horowitz himself has endorsed.

As Hitchens puts it, fascists endorse violence and hate “the life of the mind,” so they might, say, start wars and oppose the theory of evolution. Both dislike “modernity” and are nostalgic for “lost glories,” like, for instance, the Reagan years. Both obsess over past humiliations and are “thirsty for revenge,” so that they might endlessly reference Sept. 11, 2001 or invade Iraq. Both are paranoid (Hitchens says paranoid of Jews, but I think fear of “Islamo-fascism” is a good parallel). Both practice “leader worship,” which could lead to expanding executive power, and both believe in “the power of one great book,” like the Bible (to be fair, God wrote it). Both are sexually repressive, especially of “deviance,” like the gays with their marriage hoohah. Hitchens says both despise art and literature, too, but I think I would characterize Bush and company as simply indifferent to all that.

That’s just one definition of fascism, of course, but it’s surprising how many definitions you find would apply pretty well to the Bush administration. I’ve also noticed that many problems, such as the drought in the American Southeast, homophobia, and the War in Iraq happen in places where there are a lot of Republicans, indicating an undeniable causal link. What I can’t understand is why the right-wingers refuse to say the word Repubofascism. It can’t be because it sounds stupid, means nothing, and is offensive and pointless. They must be scared of it.

Compared to Islamo-fascism, Repubofascism is both real and logically plausible. Unlike the billion Muslims across the world, the Republicans really are working together, and they really are doing something that at least vaguely resembles fascism. Fortunately, like any problem, we can stop it now. All we have to do is raise awareness.

J.D. Porter is a Columbia College senior majoring in English.
The Lion’s Roar runs alternate Fridays.

http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/27717

posted November 06, 2007 12:21 PM            

Xodian, Iran is the foremost supporter, funder, trainer and supplier of terrorists in the world. Aberdinernut is the President of Iran, a nation ruled over by religious Islamic fanatics bent on establishing Islamic rule over the entire earth

I notice you cannot stay focused on the subject and wish to suggest I'm naming all Islamic leaders and perhaps followers of Islam as Islamo-fascists. Simply not true.

What is true is that many of the leaders of Islamic states were in support of Hitler's socialist Nazi regime in WWII.

Get a grip.

To mention Churchill in the same sentence at those who met with and negotiated with and signed agreements with Hitler prior to WWII is to discard logic, common sense and history.

Let's see Xodian, are you singling out the so called "christian socialists" as the "hard core" christians you mentioned earlier in this thread? For some reason, I thought you were talking about more contempory times...as in the present.

posted November 06, 2007 06:14 PM            

If anything, one can question your actions as being facist in reference to the defination I put up.

Quote:

quote:

---

Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to economic and political liberalism.

---

posted November 07, 2007 12:23 PM            

This is the 3rd time I've asked you for what would be understood as a definition for the words you used..."hard core christians". So far, zip, nada, zilch. Surly you must have had some contemporary group in mind unless you were just engaged in bloviating.

Lastly Xodian, the individual singled out...the one who was the focus of Coulter's article and my comments is the President of Iran. No other national leader was named as an Islamo-fascist.

Shame on you Xodian. Attempting to link me as a supporter of these political/economic views is simply absurd.

statism, militarism, totalitarianism, corporatism, populism, collectivism.

When people start reaching, it's usually desperation time.

posted November 07, 2007 01:29 PM            

Its ironic that one would jump out singling out hate-related doctorine singled out on an entire religion just based upon the belief system of one individual yet at the same time refuse to acknowladge the fact that christianity itself has been used as a front for quite a lot of violent and hateful acts. Wouldn't one call that Hypocritical? Lol!

posted November 08, 2007 01:31 PM            

The comments were directed at one and only one Islamic religious fanatic who happens to be President of Iran, who happens to be the leader of the leading terrorist supporting nation on earth, who happens to be engaged in supporting terrorists in Iraq, who happens to be sending explosive devices, arms, intelligence agents, military arms and ammunition into Iraq, who happens to be fomenting a civil war in Iraq, who happens to be supplying funding and arms to both Sunni and Shia terrorist groups in Iraq....all with the intent to kill American military personnel...and Iraq civilians. The very person who fulfills most of the requirments you listed to achieve the status of "fascist".

Can you hear me now Xodian?

posted November 08, 2007 01:39 PM            

Fascism:

Extremist people and their views are the societal norm.

Extremism:

Those people are outside the norm.

Do you get the point now? I do hope so. Thus the term Islamo-Fascism can't be applied.