It would be unkind to compare Sheik Saud Al-Shuraim to Mr. Yves Leterme, so let’s begin. One is working hard to extinguish free speech on the subject most important to him by moving our Constitutional fences. The other is employing freedom of speech to overstimulate a political debate. One is the imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, the other premier of the Flemish region of Belgium.
Mr. Leterme, reflecting on his nation’s division between the Dutch-speaking people of Flanders and the two million French-speaking Belgians, said that the Belgian nation was an “accident of history” with “no intrinsic value.” According to the Saturday Daily Telegraph, Leterme added that the Belgian nation amounted to nothing more than the “king, the national football team and certain brands of beer.” Not wanting to be misunderstood in his disregard for the French-speaking Belgians living in Flanders, Leterme said they were “lacking the mental capacity to learn Dutch.”
Anyone familiar with the least important member of the Axis of Cheese will tell you that French is easier to learn than Dutch, and that the Belgians are — in the words of a retired Air Force officer who shall remain nameless — “French wannabes. Can you imagine such a low form of life?”p>That aside, Mr. Leterme — perhaps overstating the insignificance of his nation — was engaged in things we still enjoy, at least so far: freedom of speech, and political debate. What brings us to the imam is his sermon delivered last Friday. According to the Saudi-government sponsored daily, Arab News , Sheik al-Shuraim br> /p>
urged the Muslim faithful to protect their identity without being subservient to foreign forces….He said that as long as Muslims remain weak, their resistance to defend their occupied territories, braving destructive weapons, would be labeled as terrorism…br> And he was not alone. According to the same report, Sheik Hussein Al-Sheikh, imam of the Prophet’s Mosque in Medina, “condemned the statements linking Islam with terrorism and fascism. He was referring to a recent statement made by US president George W. Bush who referred to Muslim extremists as ‘Islamic fascists.’” That subject came up last Thursday in a debate I had with CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper on CNBC’s Kudlow & Company . What’s interesting is that Hooper — like the imams — is doing his level best to use the accusation of racism to preclude debate. (There’s an excerpt from the transcript published in Larry Kudlow’s blog .)
“The allegation that Muslims are terrorists is a big lie,” he said, adding that the enemy wanted to cover its obnoxious crimes by pasting such labels.
There were only two salient points in this debate. I said that the president’s use of the term “Islamic fascists” was correct as history defines fascism. I also said that, given the facts of the terrorist attacks in this country and in the Middle East, and in the UK airline bomb plot the Brits broke up, it’s not a violation of anyone’s civil rights to include Muslim males between 17 and 45 years of age in a higher-risk group that would be screened more closely than others at airports. Hooper’s only response was to call me a racist.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?