Chick-fil-A conservatism won't cut it

by Kevin DeAnna
18 August, 2012

Christian America no longer exists.

America may have a Christian majority. The country’s heritage and institutions may be inseparable from Christianity. Many of the leading figures in our public life may even profess to be followers of Christ. None of this changes the fact that Christian Americans are losing the long struggle to define the country. More importantly, they will continue to lose as long as they pretend the country is still theirs.

Conservatives celebrated prematurely after the huge turnout of Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day. The “guilty as charged” Christian chain may have set sales records and homosexual protests may have fizzled, but this was only a tactical victory in a long struggle. Leftists and their supporters are already winning more strategic victories.

The first sign of things to come was the decision by Davidson College to suspend Chick-fil-A from operating on campus. The school stressed that there was no final decision but that they wanted more “student input” about building an “inclusive community.”

As a veteran college activist on controversial issues, take it from me that conservatives are outgunned on campus. At many colleges and universities, the only right-of-center group is the College Republicans, which of course is primarily interested in electing anyone who has an “R” next to his name. Leftists have a wide variety of ideological and political groups to utilize, as well as a vast network of nominally “apolitical” multicultural and sexual groups that receive large amounts of funding and official campus support.

Even the other right-of-center groups that do exist are not going to touch this issue. As reported in a recent story in the New York Times, campus conservatives mostly ignore social issues, while some libertarian groups even define homosexuality as central to their cause. While some of this is out of belief, much more is out of fear. There is a well-funded campus infrastructure in place to support progressive social beliefs, and there is nothing in support of social conservatives. It’s far easier – and safer – to limit activism to harmless quibbling about free trade.

The leftist counter-offensive will not be limited to Davidson. At least 30 other colleges have had petitions started to drive Chick-fil-A off campus. It has nothing to do with what the majority wants or even freedom of speech. The fact remains that the progressive left generally has a structural advantage in campus battles, and the campus right is generally interested in economic issues. A militant minority always triumphs against an apathetic majority, and I would not be surprised to see Chick-fil-A successfully purged from most campuses within the next year.

Even off campus, conservatives face structural disadvantages. Mitt Romney was notably silent about the issue, preferring to talk about the economy. This is probably because many of his most prominent financial backers are also backing referendums to legalize homosexual marriage in several states. Nor is this some kind of an exception – the most important group in intimidating the Republican legislature in New York into passing gay marriage were the rich Republican donors straight out of an Occupy parody about the 1 percent.

Conservatives and libertarians can take solace in rhetoric about “limited government” and “freedom of speech,” but the truth is more complicated. The hard reality is that what is and is not acceptable to say is a product of power, not free choice. Culture is a product as much as any plastic toy, the outcome of conflict and dialogue among educational, media, social and religious institutions. What Lenin called the “Commanding Heights of the Economy” are not nearly as important as the “Commanding Heights of the Culture,” and Christians and traditionalists need to realize they are all in enemy hands, especially on the campuses. The beliefs of a society don’t just develop organically – they are imposed.

This is why the left doesn’t win through open debate in the marketplace of ideas. It wins by cutting off access, funding and legitimacy from any groups or individuals that defy the egalitarian zeitgeist.

This is why, tactically, they are right to oppose Chick-fil-A and drive it off campuses. This is why they were correct to pressure business into dropping support for the American Legislative Exchange Council following the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman controversy. This is why conservatives ignore corporations like Wal-Mart, Facebook, Home Depot and News Corp. (parent company of Fox News) donating to the likes of Al Sharpton at their peril. This is why no matter how many referendums, primaries or general elections conservatives win, it never seems to change anything.

Unfortunately, progressives are right. By driving Chick-fil-A off campuses, by denying funds to pro-family groups, by making where you go to lunch a political decision, they are shaping the culture (and electorate) of the future. It’s uncomfortable to admit, but the personal is political, and whether it’s controlled by the government or not has little to do with it.

It’s bigger than the battle over marriage. Politics is about who, not what, and remaining neutral simply means that others will determine the kind of world you and your children will live in.

It doesn’t matter if the majority of Americans are Christians or conservatives or patriots – the people in charge are not.

The game is rigged. Flip over the table.

Arab Spring run amok: 'Brotherhood' starts crucifixions

by Michael Carl
18 April, 2012

Opponents of Egypt's Muslim president executed 'naked on trees'

The Arab Spring takeover of Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood has run amok, with reports from several different media agencies that the radical Muslims have begun crucifying opponents of newly installed President Mohammed Morsi.

Middle East media confirm that during a recent rampage, Muslim Brotherhood operatives “crucified those opposing Egyptian President Muhammad Morsi naked on trees in front of the presidential palace while abusing others.”

Raymond Ibrahim, a fellow with the Middle East Forum and the Investigative Project on Terrorism, said the crucifixions are the product of who the Middle Eastern media call “partisans.”

“Arabic media call them ‘supporters,’ ‘followers’ and ‘partisans’ of the Muslim Brotherhood,” Ibraham said.

Ibrahim also says the victims can be anyone, including Egyptian Christians.

“It’s anyone who is resisting the new government,” Ibrahim said. “In this particular case, the people attacked and crucified were secular protesters upset because of Morsi’s hostile campaign against the media, especially of Tawfik Okasha, who was constantly exposing him on his station, until Morsi shut him down.”

Ibrahim said extra brutality is reserved for Christians, but the crucifixions are because of Islamic doctrine and are required by the Quran. The time and other details about the crucifixions were not readily available.

“Mideast Beast: The Scriptural Case for an Islamic Antichrist” sorts out what this clash of civilizations is all about

Center for Security Policy Senior Fellow Clare Lopez cited chapter and verse from the Quran to explain that crucifixions are not simply normal for Islam, they’re demanded.

“Crucifixion is a hadd punishment, stipulated in the Quran, Sura 5:33, and therefore an obligatory part of Shariah,” Lopez said. “It’s been a traditional punishment within Islam since the beginning, even though it’s not exclusively Islamic. The Romans used it too.

“So, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood haven’t the option to not include crucifixion within their legal code. It’s obligatory to comply with Shariah. And yes, it’s for shock value also to be sure,” Lopez said.

Lopez includes a warning for Egypt’s Christians and compares the coming treatment of the Christians to the Jews in Germany.

“The Copts must get out of Egypt as soon as possible – for the many millions who will not be able to get out, I expect things will continue to deteriorate – just as they did for Germany’s and Europe’s Jews from the 1930s onward,” Lopez said.

“The warnings were there long before the ghettos and round-ups and one-way train trips to the concentration camps began in the 1940s,” she said.

If you think this is just an Egyptian problem, you’re wrong. Dead wrong. Read “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America”

Author Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs, an analyst of the Middle East and Islam, fully agrees and also cites the Quran.

“The Christians are in serious trouble, because the Quran in Sura 9:29 commands Muslims to wage war against them and subjugate them, and they’re also identified with the hated West and the U.S.,” Geller said.

Geller also turned to Sura 5:33.

Islamic hardliners

“These are Islamic hardliners who do everything by the Quran. The Quran says, ‘Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land,” Geller said.

International Christian Concern’s Middle East analyst Aidan Clay believes there is a relationship between the recent attacks on the regime’s enemies, a recent Sinai military skirmish and Morsi’s moves against the ranking generals.

The “Sinai skirmish” involved suspected Hamas guerrillas trying to cross into Gaza from Egypt. The Israeli Defense Force and intelligence learned of the attempted crossing in advance and stopped the incursion. Sixteen Egyptian border guards were killed in the attempted Rafah border crossing incident.

“It’s hard to believe that President Morsi could have dismissed Field Marshall Mohammed Tantawi without the help of lower-ranking military officers. The military’s sense of prestige, which millions of Egyptians still take great pride in, took a battering following the militant attack in Sinai that killed 16 soldiers,” Clay said.

“The military should have been prepared for the attack. Israel was. And the blame has largely been placed on Tantawi for his negligence and for embarrassing the military establishment,” he said.

Lopez agrees that Israel’s preparedness is a slap against the Egyptian army.

“That border skirmish that resulted in deaths of Egyptian border guards was known ahead of time by Israeli intelligence, which warned their Egyptian military counterparts,” Lopez said.

She notes that Israeli intelligence avoided contact with the Muslim Brotherhood in the incident because the attacks were a Hamas plot.

Lopez added that even after notification, the Egyptian army didn’t act.

“The Egyptian military did nothing, even as Israel expected. Thus the attack was carried out, Israel was totally prepared and responded and the result was Egyptian military deaths,” Lopez said.

Responding to ‘crisis’

She added that Morsi wasted no time in responding to the “crisis.”

“Morsi jumped on the incident as the perfect reason to purge the top ranks of the Egyptian military, install his own MB-sympathizers in positions across the top, chief of staff and intel chief,” she said. “Some call it an internal coup d’etat – and I agree. It put Morsi in sole control of the legislative branch (there is no parliament right now) and in control of the political power in Egypt. The new defense minister is a Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer. Things are moving very fast.”

Clay said there are mixed feelings among the military top brass in Egypt. He said some still support Tantawi; some have called for change.

“While many senior military officers maintained their support for Tantawi, his reputation took a dive among many younger officers who saw the need for a replacement. It wasn’t just the attack in Sinai that led to this, but the military’s reputation has been on the decline since a few months following the country’s uprising early last year,” Clay said.

“For some, the Sinai attack was the final straw and Morsi may have viewed it as an opportune time to remove Tantawi and other high-ranking officers from key positions,” Clay said.

He noted that Morsi, not the military, took the lead in responding to the Sinai attacks.

“In doing so, while also forcing Tantawi out of his cabinet, Morsi has set a precedent that it is he who decides who runs the army,” Clay said.

“While the generals will still advise Morsi, he can decide whether or not to listen to them. It’s apparent that Morsi is quickly becoming Egypt’s sole leader which means control of the country will be in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood,” he said.

However, Geller believes Morsi had a second motive for his action.

Reign of terror

“I suspect that Morsi’s action was timed in part to forestall any further military action against the jihadis,” Geller said, adding that the results will make Egypt’s government more monolithic than it already was.

“Morsi is instituting a reign of terror to consolidate his power,” Geller said.

American Enterprise Institute Middle East analyst Michael Rubin agreed: Morsi is after the power.

“Morsi certainly wants absolute control. The Egyptian army have never been saints, but Morsi will broker no checks to his power as the Muslim Brotherhood writes a constitution and imposes its dream of an Islamic state on Egypt,” Rubin said.

Lopez says this all means that Morsi is shedding his “moderate” veneer.

“The point I would make is that Morsi is not bothering to play ‘moderate’ anymore. He’s moving very aggressively to consolidate power for the Muslim Brotherhood,” Lopez said.

She added that Morsi is now free to act without any concern for public opinion.

“He doesn’t seem to care who thinks what anymore. He knows he’s got the USG and president in his corner no matter what he does. He doesn’t have to pretend, no need for ‘plausible deniability.’ He also knows he’s got the majority of the Egyptian people behind him,” Lopez said.

Rubin believes, however, that Morsi will still try to play the “moderate” to continue to gain U.S. support.

Playing the moderate?

“Morsi is going to play the moderate and the mediator for the world media, all the while complaining that he can’t take more forceful action against the extremists because the radical fringe won’t allow him to do more,” Rubin said.

“It’s nonsense, of course, but still an explanation that will satisfy American diplomats, safe behind the walls of their compound,” Rubin said.

Lopez added to Rubin’s explanation, but points to the White House as the main cheerleader for Morsi and the Brotherhood.

“This is exactly what many of us expected him to do (consolidate power) and I think the White House knew, too, and not only expected but wanted Morsi and the Brotherhood to take over Egypt,” Lopez said.

“As far as I know, the White House invitation for Morsi in September still stands – nor have I heard the slightest hint of criticism from any top U.S. government leadership figure about Morsi’s coup. He knows he’s on solid ground with this administration,” Lopez said.

At last, somebody has spoken out against the obscene amounts of money paid to eurocrats

By Mary Ellen Synon
10 August 2012

I will just refresh your memory before giving details of the attack the leader of the Dutch Party for Freedom plans on the bloated pay levels at the European Commission.

I can tell you already that Herman Van Rompuy, the unelected, eurofanatic president of the European Council, isn't going to like it.

Here is part of what I wrote in the blog last September 23, after staff at the European Commission threatened to strike if they were forced to work a full 40 hour week:

'...I’m only amazed that the British taxpayers, who are the second-biggest contributors to the cost of keeping the eurocrats in their fabulous pay and perks, are surprised. Have the British not been paying attention to the years of reports on what an utterly-protected, highly-paid life these people lead?

The Mail for years has listed the perks. They include 42 days a year holiday, plus another 24 days off if the eurocrat does some extra flexitime shifts.

Any eurocrat in Brussels who is not a native of Belgium can get an expat allowance of an extra 16 percent of salary, and for his entire working life.

Then there are all the lush pensions, the free air travel at Christmas, the free meals, the school fees paid for the children of eurocrats. And on it goes...'

Of all the insincere complaining David Cameron makes about the EU, he and his fellow Tories say nothing about the bloated, untouchable earnings of the Brussels Mandarin class. Maybe their history of bent expenses keeps the Conservatives quiet. But that discretion is as fake as Cameron's 'euroscepticism.' What the eurocrats suck up from the taxpayers of the EU countries is beyond anything the most greedy Westminster MP could claim.

So now Geert Wilders, heading into an election next month as leader of the third largest party in The Netherlands -- the party which wants The Netherlands out of the single currency -- has set up a website on which the Dutch people, and anyone else, can express their objections to the salaries the eurocrats are paid.

Some specifics, as listed by Wilders on his website stopeuprofiteers.com. (I've converted the euro sums into sterling).

A European Commissioner earns £21,490 a month.

A resigned commissioner earns a retirement allowance of £6,450 a month during three years; without ever having o pay a single pension premium, a retired commissioner gets a pension of £3,710 a month.

Newly-appointed young EU civil servants receive £3,677 a month, though as Wilders points out: 'their net salary is higher than their gross salary thanks to all the generous perks.'

A member of the European Parliament gets a total of £10,617 a month, and Wilders adds: 'It is very shocking that a large number of MEPs earn additional incomes' -- a recent report on Flemish television gave £78,000 as an example of extra earnings.

Results from the website will be presented to Van Rompuy before the next European Council meeting -- the so-called 'summit' -- on October 18.

Not, of course, that the unelected Van Rompuy or any of the other unelected euro-elite care at all what the taxpayers of the EU think. Still, it's worth it if only for the embarrassment Wilders can cause by pointing out how much the eurocrats earn at the same time they inflict fiscal misery on the suffering eurozone countries of the Med...something for the 17m unemployed workers in the eurozone to think about.

---

From the comments section:

They could also mention the obscene amounts of money paid for the olympics, and the current promise of still paying. Foreign aid could get a mention too. If our government looked after itself first, rather than looking after mutlitudes of others, we wouldn't be in a recession.

- Saryne, Hereford UK, 13/8/2012