Saturday, September 22, 2007

The Left's New Nadir in New York City

Combs Spouts Off has an excellent post on why it is dead wrong to allow Ahmadinejad into the U.S., and how easily it could have been stopped. The cavalier behavior of Mayor Bloomberg and his cohorts in crime are giving Rudy Giuliani a real leg up in the Republican campaign for President.

Mr. Combs uses Dr. Sanity’s essay from last year to make his point. What she said then applies even more forcefully now, on the eve of the visit of the state-appointed Butcher of Iran:
- - - - - - - - -

Repeatedly over the years (but especially more recently), the world has said to America, “We will give you the honor and privilege of fixing our problems for us; and in return, we get to spit in your face; denounce you as immoral; and generally denigrate your culture, your leaders, and your people.”

The UN’s perverse anti-Americanism is well documented. No other country gives more to this organization than the U.S.; and no other country is on the receiving end of its absurd and childish criticisms more.

When it comes to taking the risks and absorbing the costs--financial and human-- for almost any project, the United States is automatically expected to shoulder the financial responsibilities; stop the megalomaniacal madmen; and protect everyone else.

And what do they get in return? Public scorn and derision.


For too long, the world has staked a moral claim on America--the most productive, most free country on the face of the planet. This moral claim has shackled the benevolent American spirit--repeatedly exploiting its goodwill and the generous heart of its people; while deliberately undermining and denigrating that spirit; reveling in America’s setbacks and failures; yet always demanding more. Nothing we do is ever good enough, smart enough, perfect enough--or, even enough for the looters of the world.

Only by withdrawing the “sanction of the victim,” --i.e., refusing to be manipulated in this manner--refusing to give aid where there is scorn and not even grudging gratitude; refusing to shoulder the burden of all as they beat us upon the back and tell us to go faster, do it better, and jump higher; refusing to pay their debts; fix their problems; or protect them from their own, deliberate, suicidal behavior--only then will the looters and the parasites be forced to recognize reality.

Combs reminds us that previous American presidents and governors denied entry to heads of state who carried out murderous programs .

But the left continues its downward spiral: the arrogant New York Times is having a lunch in Ahmadinejad’s honor on Monday. This deliberate slap-in-the-face, knee-in-the-groin to all the Iranians who have fled here, to all those who have been stoned, hung, and tortured by this butcher is callous beyond saying. As Atlas Shrugs says, it’s like inviting Hitler to lunch (though I think that Hitler, as insane as he was, never approached the level of delusion Ahmadinejad has).

Mr. Combs has also provided a link to the petition to the president of Columbia University, requesting that he act honorably and refuse to allow this scum to speak. He has the ability to do this and failure to do so is, as Dr. Sanity puts it, a sanction by the victim. You can sign online, add your voice to the chorus here.

Do Columbia or the Times think that Ahmadinejad plans to exempt them when the Twelfth Imam arrives, or do they think humoring this murderer is a form of “dialogue”? Then they truly are fools who fail to perceive their own victimization. They think they are more clever than the rest of us and will be spared any fate that awaits America as a result of their actions. Fools and moral midgets, that's what they are.

For those who live in New York, Atlas has listings of the various demonstrations that will be taking place at the UN, Columbia, Ground Zero, etc.


History Snark said...

What good will it do to protest to Columbia? The prez there won't listen.

It all goes back to a great term used by a commenter here a couple months back: Moral Vanity. If we don't support this "dialogue" it proves that we are closed minded and thus inferior to people like university presidents.

Because universities are a forum for open discussion of ideas, right?

(Unless you're Ann Coulter, David Horowitz or any other conservative)

Dymphna said...

Ah, well...what good does it do to keep up this blog?

In the end, whatever gestures one can make toward this problem, it behooves one to do.

What harm can it do to sign a petition? Even one-handed it took me less than three minutes.

After all, it was a petition that was the beginning of the end of President Nichol at William and Mary...see "The College Puts President Nichols Out to Pasture," which I posted last night. Bugger got what he deserved.

History Snark said...

Ah, but you aren't as cynical as I. In this instance, the NYT would seem to be on the side of the University. As for W&M, I certainly defer to your knowledge of the School, but it seems that a school with a religious background is going to attract students from a more conservative family. Thus, attacking their religion is going to be less popular.

In the case of Columbia, on the surface having this guy appear there seems like a good idea- after all, the guy *is* the president of Iran, and universities are all about "ideas". So any argument against his appearance will come from an "anti-free speech" place (at least on the surface).

I think we can presume two things: First, that the students will be more polite to him that they would be to Coulter, Bush, Cheney, Horowitz, Malkin, etc. And secondly, he'll be well-behaved. The guy is not, I believe, as crazy as he acts- it's a role. Further, by going there and speaking rationally and calmly about "shared values", "freedom",etc, he will make BusHitler look bad- "why is Bush saying such terrible things about this person, when he's really all about peace and stability? Bush really is the biggest threat to world peace."

It's been said that Iran has been given a once-in-a-millenium opportunity to take control of Iraq and secure their western border. They're not stupid, and if they can inflict political damage on Bush, it increases the likelihood of winning the "game", which is completely political here (remember your Clausewitz?).

Sorry. I do go on sometimes.

Ibn Karandash said...

Shoes should rain down on his walnut-sized brain. No one has the guts to do this, I realise, but I can dream, can't I?