Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Muslim thugs and liberal hypocrisy

Barry Farber

Don't misunderstand. I have no hope of healing the liberalism that propels you to oppose the drone-missile rub-out of Anwar al-Awlaki and associates. I've already wasted too much energy trying to pierce the pride of the American liberal who elevates the rights of terrorists over their victims – even terrorists who avow they want to kill us, and who try to kill us and sometimes succeed. I know how great your stance makes you feel about yourselves, your "courage" and your willingness to stand in the "principled minority."

I do maintain a tiny flicker of hope that spotlighting your possibly unfelt hypocrisy may shame some of you down from your exaggerated moral perch.

Ron Paul denounced the take-out of Awlaki as an "assassination of an American citizen without due process." Undeniable, as far as it goes. It just doesn't go far beyond the parking lot. Nonetheless, the ACLU and many others agree.

In the mid-1970s, the argument over whether or not Nazis should be allowed to march in Skokie, Ill., zoomed clear up to the U. S. Supreme Court. Skokie was home to large numbers of Holocaust survivors. The Nazis figured the swastika would make a good fit there.

I wish we had one Arab democracy for every 10 Jewish lawyers who grabbed their briefcases and flew out to fight for the "rights of the Nazis." Oh, the sheer moral altitude of all that causes sheer moral nose-bleeds. My position: I wanted the Nazis arrested as enemy prisoners of war and detained in refurbished POW camps. Why not? The Nazi movement was international. There were Nazis of many nationalities. If an unsubdued Nazi soldier had been captured, the day after Germany surrendered a mile away from the surrender site, he'd have been treated as a POW. Same thing if he'd been captured a week or a month later a hundred miles away. So Skokie was 32 years later and 4,000 miles away. So what?
The Supreme Court saw it differently and gave Hitler's spiritual heirs the right to march. There was much and just anguish lately about William Petit, the surviving father in a Connecticut home invasion in which his wife and daughters were murdered, attending the trial of the ringleader's accomplices. Some of those Supremes might have considered the effect on concentration camp survivors watching swastika-bedecked "storm troopers" marching in front of their homes. (Having won, the Nazis didn't march!)

Nobody in Skokie was in danger. The Nazi defenders and their adversaries were in no danger of attack. America was in no danger of Nazi takeover. What if it had been different?

What if a huge Nazi uprising were raging all over America; swastika-toting mobs on the streets, massive rioting, the Nazi flag waving atop homes and factories; synagogues burning, assassinations and violence against Jews, mass resignations of public officials at every level pleading they had to consider "their families"; beer-hall putsches at every saloon? Would those lawyers have been just as eager to give the Nazis mouth-to-mouth resuscitation? Would their mothers have still said, "Good luck, Marvin. Take a sweater!"? Would the righteous river of attorneys have continued to flow as the body-count continued to rise?

Am I changing the game on you too abruptly? I don't think so.

The news service CBN just released a late-breaking report on the "Islamization of Paris" showing the Muslim mobs breaking the law by blocking as many streets as they please with their outdoor Friday prayer services. Police orders: Don't interfere! The Muslim claim that they don't have enough mosques is pathetic. A gutsy Frenchman who goes under the alias of Maxime Lepante documents cars from other parts of Paris, exposing the attempt to "show they can conquer French territory." Until now, the French public has shown less resistance than they showed to the German takeover in 1940.

I can name two European politicians brave enough to stand up to this Muslim invasion. I'll bet you Harvard Ph.D.s can't name more than a dozen! Cheers, please, for France's UMP party's Jean-Francois Copé and the indomitable Dutchman Geert Wilders. Others are welcome!

There's a wildly popular novel out now with the title (in English) "The Mosque of Notre Dame: 2048." It paints a bleak picture of an Islamic France so far gone to Islam that the Notre Dame Cathedral becomes a mosque. Interesting note: The novel is a huge hit in RUSSIA! It's totally ignored in France!

The French publishers fear to touch it. Would you, if you were a French publisher? Don't forget, these aren't 1977 Nazis outnumbered by police eight-to-one. These are Muslims who force Monsieur Lepante to use a phony name. They play rough.

I say, it's cowardly to support them when they're weak if you know you're going to be running and hiding from them when they're strong. If their aims are malevolent, oppose them while they're weak, and to hell with your moral exultations.

You're free to say, "There's nothing wrong with opposing Nazis and Islamists when they're no threat and keeping my mouth shut when they are. My morality is no suicide pact."

Thank you. Neither is the Constitution of the United States of America.