Thursday, February 02, 2012

Bell's curve flatlined

A Jihad Watch reader wrote recently:

The battle against Islam in the U.S. will be won or lost in the Congress, which needs to declare a moratorium on Muslim immigration, and pass the Winslow Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "Congress shall have the power to make laws restricting the free exercise of religions other than Christianity and Judaism, including but not limited to Islam.

And Eric Allen Bell -- the flaming Leftist who claims he's not a Leftist who recently published a smattering of essays announcing he had just woken up from his Rip Van Winkle Nap to realize that Islam is not hunky dory, but is in fact a dangerous, unjust and (most importantly of all) anti-liberal belief system -- responded:

It's bad ideas like that which give too much power to the government, which will abuse the power and/or be incompetent with it, that only fuel the perception that the anti-jihad movement is "fascist". "Our way or the highway" is not how America works. American citizens have the right to have bad ideas, ridiculous beliefs and there cannot be any preference shown toward one religion over another. The execution of the plan you outlined above will destroy our liberties in the process and introduce more of a totalitarian element to the US Government. We don't need more of that.

Well, so much for the great splash Bell made when he defected overboard from the Good Ship Lollipop of the Left, anchors aweigh and champagne all around for suddenly discovering the Uncommon Sense that was under his nose all along (even if his awakening from his Deep Delta Wave Sleep over a decade after 911 is like realizing a month after the levees broke that Katrina was a problem). If it hasn't become clear by now that Bell's Great Awakening was just a spasm of sleep apnea in mid-slumber, a twitch or two of his sea legs of some dream of the terra firma of reality, as he lapsed back into the watery, liberal coma he never really left, it never will.

Unfortunately, too many Jihad Watchers continue to think he's of value or -- worse yet -- actually more or less agree with his handwringing worries about what the West "might do" if it defended itself robustly from one of the most dangerous enemies it has ever had. Indeed, that reader whom Bell rebuked actually espouses ideas and policies too limpwristed for the danger we face.

Thus, a typical Jihad Watcher chimes in with the schizophrenia that seems to typify them, and is perhaps inculcated at the Jihad Watch community (such as it is).

One "Teri Adams"

I am not for shipping out all Muslims, but I do think it makes sense to limit immigration from Muslim countries to ex-Muslims and persecuted non-Muslims only. Even though a Muslim is a person, not an ideology, he is a person with "Islam inside" (kind of like "Intel inside").

If the latter half of her statement is correct, the first half is pathetically short of addressing the very same danger the latter half correctly assesses -- unless "Teri Adams" just hasn't really been paying attention to, and really digesting, the mountain of grotesquely ghoulish horrors of the words and deeds of Muslims around the world as reported incessantly on Jihad Watch over the days, weeks, months, and years. Apparently, for "Teri Adams", the danger level of that "Islam inside" and its potential, don't suffice to require any serious policies to prevent it in order to protect our societies from it.

At any rate, Bell's swan song of a clarion call goes out on a note flatter than an old-fashioned pre-911 alarm clock blithely unheeded by the snoring, snot-plugged sleeper who will be terribly late for work -- even as its rhetorically leading questions fall abysmally short of bringing the patient back to life:

The demonization of any person so deeply indoctrinated as to imagine themselves to be a Muslim is unfair, cruel, discriminatory and lacking in humanity. The parallels with Nazi Germany start to get creepy. Equally, to be so "open-minded" and "liberal" that one exercises no caution whatsoever and imagines all Muslims to be "moderate" until proven otherwise is clearly a hazardous and potentially dangerous position to take in a world where this tyrannical religious system and brutal political system is becoming more popular and more radicalized with each passing day. So, what is the right approach? What actions can we take without violating another person's civil rights or their dignity, within the law, maintaining the moral high ground without abandoning the good common sense? Is there a nonviolent resolution? Is it possible to promote caution without promoting hate?

Which typical Jihad Watching somnambulists echo, with sentiments such as:

I am an American Syrian ex muslim women … I have been reading and fallowing your posts in this tread …I have to tell you I like how you think … in fact I like your mind . Your last post is excellent example of your clear and balanced thinking … I agree with you with your last post … too bad I will never have expressed it, as eloquent as you have done. I think your question is the million dollar question these days…


I have actually started writing a book that specifically addresses the "hate card" issue, since, again, that's really all the other side has. The reality is that a person who has the most heart-felt sympathy for the truly suffering, if informed, is going to be on our side. Not out of hate for Muslims but out of love for humanity, including Muslims.

Further Reading:

For What the Bell Tolls

School's not out yet

No comments: