More on Ayaan Hirshi Ali

We’ve profiled Ms. Ali before. She has also appeared as a guest on Glenn Back. So here is another enlightening piece on what happens when you question Islam.

NEW YORK–Ayaan Hirsi Ali is untrammeled and unrepentant: “I am supposed to apologize for saying the prophet is a pervert and a tyrant,” she declares. “But that is apologizing for the truth.”

Statements such as these have brought Ms. Hirsi Ali to world-wide attention. Though she recently left her adopted country, Holland–where her friend and intellectual collaborator Theo van Gogh was murdered by a Muslim extremist in 2004–she is still accompanied by armed guards wherever she travels.

Ms. Hirsi Ali was born in 1969 in Mogadishu–into, as she puts it, “the Islamic civilization, as far as you can call it a civilization.” In 1992, at age 22, her family gave her hand to a distant relative; had the marriage ensued, she says, it would have been “an arranged rape.” But as she was shipped to the appointment via Europe, she fled, obtaining asylum in Holland. There, “through observation, through experience, through reading,” she acquainted herself with a different world. “The culture that I came to and I live in now is not perfect,” Ms. Hirsi Ali says. “But this culture, the West, the product of the Enlightenment, is the best humanity has ever achieved.”

Unease over Muslim immigration had been rising in the Low Countries for some time. For instance, when the gay right-wing politician Pim Fortuyn–“I am in favor of a cold war with Islam,” he said, and believed the borders should be closed to Muslims–was gunned down in 2002, it was widely assumed his killer was an Islamist. There was a strange sense of relief when he turned out to be a mere animal-rights activist. Ms. Hirsi Ali brought integration issues to further attention, exposing domestic abuse and even honor killings in the Dutch-Muslim “dish cities.”

In 2003, she won a seat in the parliament as a member of the center-right VVD Party, for People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy. The next year, she wrote the script for a short film called “Submission.” It investigated passages from the Quran that Ms. Hirsi Ali contends authorize violence against women, and did so by projecting those passages onto naked female bodies. In retrospect, she deeply regrets the outcome: “I don’t think the film was worth the human life.”

The life in question was that of Van Gogh, a prominent controversialist and the film’s director. At the end of 2004, an Islamist named Mohammed Buyeri shot him as he was bicycling to work in downtown Amsterdam, then almost decapitated him with a curved sword. He left a manifesto impaled to the body: “I know for sure that you, Oh Hirsi Ali, will go down,” was its incantation. “I know for sure that you, Oh unbelieving fundamentalist, will go down.”

The shock was palpable. Holland–which has the second largest per capita population of Muslims in the EU, after France–had always prided itself on its pluralism, in which all groups would be tolerated but not integrated. The killing made clear just how apart its groups were. “Immediately after the murder,” Ms. Hirsi Ali says, “we learned Theo’s killer had access to education, he had learned the language, he had taken welfare. He made it very clear he knew what democracy meant, he knew what liberalism was, and he consciously rejected it. . . . He said, ‘I have an alternative framework. It’s Islam. It’s the Quran.’ ”

At his sentencing, Mohammed Buyeri said he would have killed his own brother, had he made “Submission” or otherwise insulted the One True Faith. “And why?” Ms. Hirsi Ali asks. “Because he said his god ordered him to do it. . . . We need to see,” she continues, “that this isn’t something that’s caused by special offense, the right, Jews, poverty. It’s religion

Ms. Hirsi Ali was forced into living underground; a hard-line VVD minister named Rita Verdonk, cracking down on immigration, canceled her citizenship for misstatements made on her asylum application–which Ms. Hirsi Ali had admitted years before and justified as a means to win quicker admission at a time of great personal vulnerability. The resulting controversy led to the collapse of Holland’s coalition government. Ms. Hirsi Ali has since decamped for America–in effect a political refugee from Western Europe–to take up a position with the American Enterprise Institute. But the crisis, she says, is “still simmering underneath and it might erupt–somewhere, anywhere.”

That partly explains why Ms. Hirsi Ali’s new autobiography, “Infidel,” is already a best seller. It may also have something to do with the way she scrambles our expectations. In person, she is modest, graceful, enthralling. Intellectually, she is fierce, even predatory: “We know exactly what it is about but we don’t have the guts to say it out loud,” she says. “We are too weak to take up our role. The West is falling apart. The open society is coming undone.”

Many liberals loathe her for disrupting an imagined “diversity” consensus: It is absurd, she argues, to pretend that cultures are all equal, or all equally desirable. But conservatives, and others, might be reasonably unnerved by her dim view of religion. She does not believe that Islam has been “hijacked” by fanatics, but that fanaticism is intrinsic in Islam itself: “Islam, even Islam in its nonviolent form, is dangerous.”

The Muslim faith has many variations, but Ms. Hirsi Ali contends that the unities are of greater significance. “Islam has a very consistent doctrine,” she says, “and I define Islam as I was taught to define it: submission to the will of Allah. His will is written in the Quran, and in the hadith and Sunna. What we are all taught is that when you want to make a distinction between right and wrong, you follow the prophet. Muhammad is the model guide for every Muslim through time, throughout history.”

This supposition justifies, in her view, a withering critique of Islam’s most holy human messenger. “You start by scrutinizing the morality of the prophet,” and then ask: “Are you prepared to follow the morality of the prophet in a society such as this one?” She draws a connection between Mohammed’s taking of child brides and modern sexual oppressions–what she calls “this imprisonment of women.” She decries the murder of adulteresses and rape victims, the wearing of the veil, arranged marriages, domestic violence, genital mutilation and other contraventions of “the most basic freedoms.”

These sufferings, she maintains, are traceable to theological imperatives. “People say it is a bad strategy,” Ms. Hirsi Ali says forcefully. “I think it is the best strategy. . . . Muslims must choose to follow their rational capacities as humans and to follow reason instead of Quranic commands. At that point Islam will be reformed.”

This worldview has led certain critics to dismiss Ms. Hirsi Ali as a secular extremist. “I have my ideas and my views,” she says, “and I want to argue them. It is our obligation to look at things critically.” As to the charges that she is an “Enlightenment fundamentalist,” she points out, rightly, that people who live in democratic societies are not supposed to settle their disagreements by killing one another.

And yet contemporary democracies, she says, accommodate the incitement of such behavior: “The multiculturalism theology, like all theologies, is cruel, is wrongheaded, and is unarguable because it is an utter dogmatism. . . . Minorities are exempted from the obligations of the rest of society, so they don’t improve. . . . With this theory you limit them, you freeze their culture, you keep them in place.”

The most grievous failing of the West is self-congratulatory passivity: We face “an external enemy that to a degree has become an internal enemy, that has infiltrated the system and wants to destroy it.” She believes a more drastic reaction is required: “It’s easy,” she says, “to weigh liberties against the damage that can be done to society and decide to deny liberties. As it should be. A free society should be prepared to recognize the patterns in front of it, and do something about them.”

She says the West must begin to think long term about its relationship with Islam–because the Islamists are. Ms. Hirsi Ali notes Muslim birth rates are vastly outstripping those elsewhere (particularly in Western Europe) and believes this is a conscious attempt to extend the faith. Muslims, she says, treat women as “these baby-machines, these son-factories. . . . We need to compete with this,” she goes on. “It is a totalitarian method. The Nazis tried it using women as incubators, literally to give birth to soldiers. Islam is now doing it. . . . It is a very effective and very frightening way of dealing with human beings.”

All of this is profoundly politically incorrect. But for this remarkable woman, ideas are not abstractions. She forces us back to first principles, and she punctures complacencies. These ought to be seen as virtues, even by those who find some of Ms. Hirsi Ali’s ideas disturbing or objectionable. Society, after all, sometimes needs to be roused from its slumbers by agitators who go too far so that others will go far enough.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009771

The Real Story: Border Agent Betrayal

And the hits just keep on coming…Let’s see if I can get another warning for “Racial Comments” on various other forums by simply pointing out the deplorable state of our border security. Corruption is rampant with respect to our boder policy with Mexico, one of the most corrupt governments on the planet. And as plans to expand N.A.F.T.A. like the superhighway and permits for Mexican trucking companies are rolled out, the payola and corruption will only increase while our government is asleep at the proverbial wheel. 

The Real Story: Border Agent Betrayal

Meanwhile, it’s not just businesses that are selling us out, it’s also our own government. Later this week, I’m going to tell you the story of a former U.S. border agent who was convicted of using excessive force against an illegal alien, only to later be acquitted at a retrial after evidence surface that the prosecutors gave the alien a social security card, witness fees, travel expenses, and border crossing permits in exchange for his testimony.

If that case sounds eerily familiar it’s because of the continuing saga of two other border agents who are now serving 11 and 12 year prison terms for allegedly covering up the shooting of an illegal alien Mexican drug smuggler.

You and I both know that story has never smelled right and today we learn even more evidence that these two guys were railroaded by their own government. The Real Story is that a key Department of Homeland Security memo, a memo that casts serious doubt on the entire case, was apparently never given to defense attorneys.

Now let me tell you why that’s so important. All along, the government has based its entire prosecution on the supposed cover-up; that the agents destroyed evidence and failed to report the shooting to their supervisors. But here’s the problem…the DHS memo — the one that was withheld from the attorneys — says that nine OTHER agents, including two supervisors were, “at the location of the shooting incident, assisted in destroying evidence of the shooting, and/or knew or heard about the shooting.”

Wait; that doesn’t add up. If supervisors were THERE and KNEW about it, how could there be a cover-up?? Exactly. And if you add in the fact that three of those agents cited in the memo were then given immunity in exchange for their testimony and things really start to look like a set-up.

If you’re still sitting there thinking that none of this really matters anyway, then consider this. After the trial, jurors told the defense they didn’t believe the drug smuggler’s story at all; they said the only reason they convicted the agents was because they didn’t report the shooting to their supervisors. If that’s true — and I hate to use a bad pun, but this DHS memo is literally smoking gun evidence and these guys deserve a new trial.

I am not stupid; the American people are not stupid — we see exactly what’s going on. Yesterday it was Dog The Bounty Hunter and today it’s the border agents but the lies and cover ups and sweetheart deals can’t be hidden anymore because we demand answers; we demand and deserve the truth.

The Real Story: Follow the Money Trail

Glenn Beck is my God Damn Hero!!! This is the first in whole series about illegal immigration. And you’re going to get every damn one of them. And thats right, we going to call it what it is, Illegal Immigration!!! (ie.-Foreign nationals violating US sovereignty). We won’t be calling them ‘undocumented’ or ‘guest workers’ or ‘temporary’. We’ll call a spade a spade. Wake up America!!

The Real Story: Follow the Money Trail

So the NFL refused to run an ad for the U.S. border patrol in their Super Bowl program because it’s too controversial; Miller Brewing gave $30,000 to sponsor a pro-illegal immigrant demonstration and avoid boycotts of their beer, and Bank of America expanded a program for people without social security numbers to open checking accounts and obtain credit cards.

What do they all have in common? MONEY. These companies want the Hispanic market; they’re afraid of Hispanic boycotts and –worst of all– they know you won’t do anything about it.

But, quite honestly, stories like these are just the very tip of the iceberg…so this week I’m going to show you the whole thing — or, if you want to appeal to the Hispanic market, the whole enchilada. On Friday, I told you that I had planned to start naming the companies that are selling us out but as I thought about it this weekend I realized that a better first step would be to explain WHY that’s so important. The Real Story tonight is that companies don’t just benefit from SELLING products to illegal immigrants; they also benefit by using them to CREATE products as well. Cheap labor means large profits and, once again, Money Trumps Everything.

But how do these companies get away with it? After all, If you take away the crack dealers then there’s no more crack and eventually people stop coming to your street corner to buy drugs. So why aren’t we just shutting down the companies that supply the crack (these jobs) to illegals?

Well, the answer is that the very people who we’re counting on to STOP this problem — our politicians — are actually a major part OF the problem. About 8 years ago, the government actually decided to get tough on businesses hiring illegal workers and they performed two major raids. In the first one they targeted farm workers in Georgia and found over 4,000 illegal immigrants. In the second one they raided meatpacking plants in three states and found almost 4,500 more suspected illegal workers.

Guess what happened next? Onion crops went unpicked and meatpacking plants started to shut down. The farmers, sitting on a $90 million crop, used their political power with their Representatives, who in turn pressured Georgia’s Senators, who then complained to the INS. The raids quickly stopped.

In Nebraska, which was one of the targeted meatpacking states, Congress was all for the raids at first. Until the plants started shutting down.
Then, according to a former INS official, quote, “all hell broke lose.” Lobbyists were hired, the governor formed a task force and Senator Chuck Hagel complained to the Justice Department. The raids — which were so successful they were about to expand nationally — once again, quickly stopped.

In 1999, the government initiated fines against 417 companies for employing illegal immigrants. In 2004, they initiated three. You heard me right: three. The reason is pretty clear…Companies buy Congressmen, Congressmen have power and power controls policy. Cut out all the middle men and it’s simple: Companies control policy.

Meanwhile, Bank of America is hoping that this whole controversy goes away, but their silence and, frankly, their arrogance, is only making things worse. One prominent anti-illegal immigration group is now organizing a nationwide event called “Operation Bankrupt” that will hopefully send a very strong message to Bank of America management that people are not going to remain in their seats, they are going to fight back. You can find more information about that event by going to http://bankrupt.firecoalition.com/

It’s really too bad that I have to resort to telling you about boycotts to respond to companies like Bank of America, but their silence really leaves me no choice and, unfortunately for them — Americans are not going away, and neither am I.

Petition to Free Kareem!

We posted this man’s story yesterday…Below is the link to a site where you can sign a petition and get more info.

The original post is here

This has been posted to Digg. I’m a little disappointed and pissed that I had to subscribe and post it to get it on there. One would have thought that of all the folks on Digg, someone would have posted it already. Regardless, Digg It!. You moreit is dugg the higher in the rankings it will be, the more people will see it, the more people will SIGN!.

You can sign the petition at the link below.

Free Kareem!

See No Evil…Unless!

Almost two weeks ago, I published a social commentary piece as it related to the Anna Nicole Smith coverage here at The Chase. Since then, conservative talkers like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Michael Savage have followed suit with similar “what does it say about our society” monologues. And now this fine piece on media influence from American Spectator. Never let it be said that we here at The Chase aren’t one step of the competition. Rush often says he’s show prep for the MSM. I guess we must be show prep for Rush. Hey Rush, can I get a hook up on that 24/7 subscription as a little ‘Thank You”?

It’s been fifteen years since the cultural elite ridiculed Dan Quayle mercilessly for criticizing the glamorization of unwed motherhood in sitcoms like Murphy Brown. Through innumerable press accounts and Hollywood asides, the message was clear: Only someone irremediably stupid would actually confuse a television program with reality!

A decade and a half later, however, the press is finally admitting that television role models may indeed have an impact on real-life behavior. Not surprisingly, however, the concern is highly selective. For most of the cultural elite, television’s influence seems relevant only when it comes to violence — and never when it comes to sex.

In recent days, the press has taken aim at 24 — the one massively popular television program known to be written and produced by people who hold conservative views. According to accounts in the New Yorker, the Associated Press, the Los Angeles Times and elsewhere, Human Rights First — a left-wing “human rights” group — is seeking to prove that the torture scenes depicted in 24 are affecting the behavior of American soldiers.

The audacity of the claim is remarkable. To charge that soldiers will ignore their training, risk criminal prosecution and jettison basic notions of morality based only on the influence of a single television show far exceeds any claim that Dan Quayle ever made about the power of television. What’s more, it plays into a stereotype — beloved by too many on the left — of soldiers as stupid, easily manipulated, and/or barbaric. Nevertheless, the coverage of the allegations has been widespread.

Now contrast that with the rampant glamorization of teenage sexuality — not in one program — but routinely. While the press focuses on the depiction of torture in a single prime-time television program, it’s worth noting that a 2005 Kaiser Family Foundation study found that 77% of the programs aired in prime time on the major broadcast networks contain sexual content; those that do include such content feature more of it than ever before. What’s more, the programs most popular with teenagers have an even higher number of scenes with sexual content than television programs generally. Fully 45% of the programs most frequently watched by teens include some portrayal of sexual behavior, according to the Kaiser study.

Even so, the press and the cultural elite remain conspicuously silent about this phenomenon. That’s a shame, given the damage to young lives (both of parents and unwanted children) that giving too much, too soon can cause — not to mention the daunting social costs associated with unwed and youthful motherhood.

If the media believes that a single program can incite disciplined, adult soldiers to acts of savagery, surely the onslaught of sex on television can influence the behavior of teens — who lack much of the training and life experience that can serve as a bulwark against bad decision-making. So why the media reticence? After all, the creators of 24 make every effort to demonstrate the toll that Jack Bauer’s behavior takes on him. Shouldn’t the creators of television’s sex-laden fare be held to the same standard?

Carol Platt Liebau is an attorney, political analyst and radio talk-show host. Her blog is at www.carolliebau.blogspot.com.