Monday, May 21, 2007

Accusers show their own bigotry

By STEVE CABLE (President, Center for American Cultural Renewal)

Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

Hate: intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury.

Intolerant: 1: unable or unwilling to endure. 2: unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters.

Slander: to harm the reputation of by libel or slander.

In Bill Lofy's shrill and distorted response to "The O'Reilly Factor"'s impromptu interview of Bill Lippert, he accuses both of his targets — Bill O'Reilly and local conservative radio host Paul Beaudry — of hate, intolerance, slander and bigotry without a shred of evidence ("O'Reilly's bigotry has no place in Vermont", commentary, May 17). Ironically, his own statements are a perfect template for all four repugnant behaviors. Alas, he is not alone.

Lofy's accusations are loaded with highly charged terms like "gay-bashing," "anti-gay vitriol," "hateful and threatening rhetoric," "anti-gay agenda," and "homophobia," even labeling Beaudry's show a "veritable hate-fest," yet Lofy offers no verifiable quote to substantiate his claims (this is slander). Lofy hypocritically accuses O'Reilly and Beaudry of "hate" speech, yet closes his attack with demands that O'Reilly "take Paul Beaudry and his gay-bashing bigots with you" (this is hate and intolerance). Pretty strong stuff from one who identifies himself as a "communications consultant" for the "leadership of the Vermont House and Senate."

Why the intolerant protest of O'Reilly and Beaudry? Simply put, they dare to ask questions and state facts the left simply cannot tolerate. The typical response? Bigotry, plain and simple.

Such deliberate twisting of the terms of debate has been prominent since civil unions were first publicly discussed. Rather than engage in civil, truthful dialogue with the majority who disapprove of homosexual behavior, homosexual advocates eagerly resorted to character assassination, employing terms and tactics identical to Mr. Lofy's. Such tactics intentionally silence rational debate and obliterate real freedom of speech: It is easier to dismiss someone as "hateful" than to listen to their reasoned arguments.

Lofy and Lippert wallow in the fact that Lippert has received ugly hate mail, and shamelessly characterize all of their opposition by the reprehensible behavior of a few truly hateful people — behavior which Lofy actually suggests O'Reilly invites. This behavior is hardly limited to those opposed to special homosexual rights. At the height of the civil unions debate, our organization was the object of a targeted attack by pro-homosexual militants. Examples include being repeatedly targeted by a man with a high-powered rifle, phone calls from people claiming that they were "coming to f—-ing kill" us, and feces and used condoms mailed to us with a note saying "I hope you die of AIDS." One of our female employees so feared for her life that she kept a can of Mace ready at all times. These acts necessitated police protection from people who eagerly labeled us as "intolerant bigots."

Emulating Lofy and Lippert by characterizing all pro-homosexual advocates by such behavior would be immoral and irresponsible. Honest criticism of O'Reilly's tactics and Beaudry's statements are fair game, but such yellow journalism is beneath the standards of even the Rutland Herald. Shame on Mr. Lofy for such underhanded tactics, and shame on the Rutland Herald for being a willing partner to such unsubstantiated slander. One must wonder how the Vermont Democratic leadership feels justified in retaining the services of a "communications consultant" so inclined to real hate speech.



"Dear Robert, Brigette and Paul (Williams),

"Were any of you threatened in any way, specifically for carrying the Islamberg story?" asked a blogger, who copied Canada Free Press (CFP) last night. Robert is Robert Spencer, the director of Jihad Watch, a project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and author of two New York Times bestsellers on Islamic Jihad. Brigette is Brigette Gabriel, a Lebanese Christian and Middle East correspondent, who is Director of American Congress.

Paul Williams, prolific writer and author of the newly released Day of Islam, wrote a CFP cover story published May 11, detailing a radical Muslim paramilitary compound that flourishes in upper New York State. The story, posted by Michael Savage and carried by dozens of blogs, including, was virtually ignored by the mainstream media.

Someone didn't like the story and that someone threatened the life of U.S. war veteran and blogger Scott Grayban. Grayban publishes in Spokane, Washington. CFP receives thousands of emails from readers. The one from Grayban's blogger friend caught our immediate attention. The blogger, whose name is being withheld by CFP, hoped flagging the Internet might protect Grayban's physical safety if someone publicized the two threats made on his life over the telephone. That is the reason for this story.

Grayban received two phone calls on Sunday night from a foreigner, threatening his life. "The caller used a hacked phone (or internet line) to disguise the location from which he was calling. (Please see jpeg of record/caller ID attached at bottom of page). "The caller told Scott the precise street on which he lives, that he lives across from an auto shop, that he has a solar panel in his apartment window and the make of the car he drove to the mall on Saturday." As the blogger pointed out, "These aren't details anyone could obtain from Google Earth."

Someone is following Scott Grayban in Washington State. Yet the local FBI office told him to call the police. The local police told him to call the FBI and his phone carrier (Vonage) said there's no way to trace the call. There might be a way to trace the call with a court order, but it's unlikely that Grayban could ever get one. Cold comfort for a man who's being stalked and threatened.

The blogger made the decision to "publicize this threat has occurred" and sent out an email to ask if anyone else who carried this story has also been threatened. No one at CFP, who originally ran the Williams' story, has been threatened. The writer of this article was unable to reach Paul Williams at his Pennsylvania home at press time and is convinced that she would have heard from the author if he had been threatened.

Williams and Northeast Intelligence Director and private investigator Doug Hagmann, scouted out a Jihadist camp dubbed Islamberg, at the foothills of the Catskill Mountains on the outskirts of Hancock, New York, last summer. "Islamberg is not an ideal place for a summer vacation unless, of course, you are an exponent of the Jihad or a fan of Osama bin Laden," Williams wrote in CFP on May 11, 2007.

Very few visitors come to Islamberg, where a sentry post has been established at the base of the hill. "Islamberg is a branch of Muslims of the Americas Inc., a tax-exempt organization formed in 1980 by Pakistani cleric Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani, who refers to himself as "the sixth Sultan Ul Faqr". Gilani has been directly linked by court documents to Jamaat u-Fuqra or "community of the impoverished", an organization that seeks to "purify" Islam through violence.

"Islamberg is not as benign as a Buddhist monastery or a Carmelite convent. Nearly every weekend, neighbors hear sounds of gunfire. Some, including a combat veteran of the Vietnam War, have heard the bang of small explosives. None of the neighbors wished to be identified for fear of "retaliation". "We don't even dare to slow down when we drive by", one resident said. "They own the mountain and they know it and there is nothing we can do about it but move, and we can't even do that. Who wants to buy a property near that?"

"Even though Jamaat ul-Fuqra has been involved in terror attacks and sundry criminal activities, recruited thousands of members from federal and state penal systems, and appears to be operating paramilitary facilities for militant Muslims, it remains to be placed on the official US Terror Watch List. On the contrary, it continues to operate, flourish and expand as a legitimate nonprofit, tax-deductible charity."

It seems that Williams and company raised a hornet's nest in their visit to Islamberg and some of the hornets went buzzing all the way to Spokane, Washington. Meanwhile the blogger who tipped off CFP about the threats to Scott Grayban, emailed to say a report was finally taken by Spokane Washington police. The SPD report number is 07-132-368. Let's hope that Grayban remains safe from harm.



There’s been much made recently about the vaunted Cuban medical system since propagandist Michael Moore traveled to Havana with 9/11 heroes in tow searching for "free" health care. It’s Mr. Moore’s idea of a clever way to criticize America and the capitalist system he exploits so brilliantly. Of course, it never actually occurred to him that while he was "free" to film in Cuba there were political prisons suffering in Castro’s gulags simply for doing exactly what Moore thinks is his sole universal right; speaking out. A big mouth coupled with a small mind is a dangerous combination.

That Moore would use his craft to spew the Castro party line isn’t surprising when you consider they are both geniuses at hypocrisy and self-promotion. Castro supposedly wanted power in order to depose a dictator and re-establish the "power of the people," but nearly five decades later without an election, he has become one of history’s most despicable tyrants, the full indictment of whom won’t be known until the inevitable fall of his particularly vehement brand of communism in Havana. Moore, for his part, pretends to care about social issues so long as he makes bundles of cash; only pathologically anti-American leftists don’t seem to notice or care.

Unfortunately for Moore, the totalitarian regime’s misinformation machinery doesn’t work quite as efficiently as it did when Castro was at the helm. So Thursday morning, in the middle of Moore’s defiant defense of Castro and his "accomplishments," Raul, perhaps in one of his notorious drunken stupors, ordered the detention of Gorki Aguila. For those unfamiliar with the Cuban punk rock scene, which would mean just about everyone, Mr. Aguila is the outspoken lead singer of "Porno for Ricardo," a punk rock band profiled recently by CNN. (That CNN would air any internal criticism of Castro is in itself incredible).

Gorki, an unlikely threat to the state, had the gumption to criticize the Cuban system so longingly worshipped by Michael Moore. Yet unlike Moore, who gets to challenge a former senator and likely presidential candidate to debate, Gorki gets a prison term. I guess the US system isn’t quite so terrible after all, Mr. Moore.

So now that Mr. Moore has decided to immerse himself into Cuban politics debate, when will he and the rest of the activist American left begin calling for the release of Gorki Aguila? The short answer is "never." Our elitist protesters are nothing more than self-serving narcissists who can only dream of having the courage of a Gorki Aguila.

Speaking out against America is cheap and easy but is far from courageous. America doesn’t have a secret police or nasty little military to anchor a leader’s repression regardless of the disturbed claims from an unhinged left to the contrary. Courage means facing consequences; real consequences not simply a dip in the popularity scale.

So despite the self-aggrandizing calls from a George Clooney to "keep making courageous films," these faux activists are cowards. While Clooney may ask for help in Darfur, he doesn’t dare criticize the biggest accomplice to the tragedy, China. He understands fully that the consequences of criticizing the Chinese government might mean a ban on his movies; so he walks a fine line instead calling on President Bush to "stop the genocide" as if the US had any control. But such is the modus operandi of the "courageous" Clooney who has always been outspoken and quick to criticize the US, where, of course, there are no consequences. So will George Clooney speak out for the release of Gorki Aguila and other political prisoners in Castro’s prisons? Not likely, at least not unless Raul cozies up to the wicked "big oil" cabal and its cohort, the CIA. Until then, the brave Clooney will take a "courageous" stand and rid the world of the evils of the ruthless paparazzi. Good luck with that, Captain Courage.

Perhaps Dixie Chick Natalie Maines will step up and demand for Gorki Aguila the same freedom she enjoys. Surely she must appreciate that criticizing your government is a fundamental right, if not for every citizen, at the very least for artists like her. There but for the grace of God go you, Natalie. His lyrics of protest are not much different than your own. Gorki is in prison merely for suggesting to others not to choose communism (as if Cuba had "chosen" communism). Luckily, or predictably, your nemesis was an American president and not the Castro brothers who would not have taken it well had Gorki made a similar suggestion of "shame" for their leader. Weak record sales and low attendance figures are the least of his worries.

Code Pinkster Cindy Sheehan won’t dare criticize Castro and his minions for incarcerating Gorki for simply speaking his mind. Cindy apparently believes it’s okay for her to stage very long, very public protests outside an elected official’s home and call for his execution but a Cuban resident, somehow her inferior, must shut his mouth or have it shut for him. What is even more hypocritically appalling is that Cindy must think that her loss of a son is much more tragic than the losses of "The Ladies in White" who she refused to meet with or even acknowledge on her recent publicity stunt to the island prison instead choosing to embrace the man responsible for the murder and imprisonment of their loved ones. Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink have a greater solidarity to a heartless repressor of human rights than to the mothers of his victims. So don’t wait for Cindy or the "elitist communists" of Code Pink to denounce Gorki’s imprisonment and call for his release, he and his opinions like the many lives of the relatives of the "Ladies in White" mean nothing in their political end game.

Regrettably, we will not hear a single American "activist" call for the release of Gorki Aguila or any other Cuban political prisoner for that matter. Regrettable because Gorki Aguila is just like them; an activist artist. Yet, unlike our Hollywood elite, Gorki faces real consequences. There is no courage without consequences and Gorki Aguila has shown more courage in a single interview than Michael Moore, George Clooney, Natalie Maines and Cindy Sheehan have shown in a lifetime.

Gorki Aguila is courageous; they are cowards.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For times when is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.


No comments: