BUMPED: Since I've now been deemed worthy of no fewer than three posts on his website by the lying, thieving Demo-dirtbag, I figured I'd celebrate by bumping this to the top of the page.

Some weeks ago, I wrote a post in which I used a term that I probably shouldn't have use. I'm told that it is a racist term, though I have always understood it to be a label based upon illegal conduct. After much discussion on another blog, weeks after the fact, I became convinced that my understanding was wrong, admitted as much, and offered an apology. I even included a disclaimer on the post, as I don't believe in sending things down the "memory hole" when they are inconvenient.

That apprarently was not good enough for one moonbat moral midget. He stole a family photo from my site and infringed upon my copyright by having it hosted on no fewer than three separate image-hosting services claiming that he held copyright to the image (and then entered into an illegal agreement with another local Democrat blogger to host the image on her server under her account). I directed him to quit violating my copyright and suggested that he remove defamatory statements about me. I'm taking steps -- not including legal action, which I never intended or threatened -- to deal with him.

He has decided that I threatened a lawsuit or violence against him, and so he decided to "expose" me as a "disgusting racist." He even quotes me from a number of posts -- quotes which are in some cases taken out of context, in other cases legitimate policy or social positions, and in others cases of satire on a level far beyond his comprehension.

Oh, yeah, one more thing. He has also decided I have no right to blog under a pseudonym -- which I have done out of a professional obligation to make sure that there is never any question of my trying to indoctrinate my students with my political opinions -- and posted my name on his site and in a couple of other locations. As such, I won't be linking back to him, for I still intend to maintain as much of my anonymity as I can.

So let's look at the offensive quotes.

The first thing he objects to besides the offensive term is found here.

He then goes on to accuse Councilwoman Ada Edwards of "scrambling for a few more Hispanic votes like they were crack rocks."

As the councilwoman is black, he clearly means to imply that I was using racist stereotypes to attack a black woman. But let's look at the whole quote in context.

"I apologize to the Johnson family today for one of our colleagues attempted to pimp the death and tragedy of Officer Johnson for their political career," said Councilmember Ada Edwards.

Edwards, of course, was whoring herself out to those who support the violation of American law and American sovereignty, scrambling for a few more Hispanic votes like they were crack rocks, just to advance her own career.

So as most folks of any degree of intelligence would recognize, I was playing on Edwards' own invocation of pimping, extending her own metaphor. I guess that escaped his understanding, even though I explained it elsewhere when he objected.

And then he goes on listing other excerpts from posts on my site, claiming "there is obviously no context in which these hateful remarks are acceptable." In doing so, of course, he gives himself license to take the quotes out of context.

I'll let you decide -- both if they are acceptable, and if he is honest in his characterization of what was said in these ofhter posts.

1) He objects to this.

"That's one more dead terrorist in Hell with Allah."

Of course, that statement comes from a post making fun of a jihadi suicide bomber who blew himself up early while riding a bicycle to his target. He believed he was going to spend eternity in Allah's abode, and I presume he knows best -- and since he was on a mission of murder and mayhem, I can only presume that his final destination was Hell. I see nothing to apologize for -- but if my Democrat friend chooses to be an apologist for terrorists, he is welcome to that role and should fit right in with Sheehan, Murtha, and Lamont.

2) He is also troubled by this excerpt.

"In return, we will ship the Arab Muslims in the United States -- regardless of their citizenship -- back to the Middle East...They and their relatives back in their homelands have shown their utter inablility to live at peace with neighbors who are different from themselves....After all, if the Jews are not a good fit in the Middle East, why should the unassimilable Muslims be welcome in America?"

I might almost agree with his assessment -- were it not for the fact that he raped the context to post it. You see, the entire piece was a satirical response to an editorial in a Jordanian paper advocating the expulsion of all Jews from the Holy Land. And my conclusion? Try this on for size.

And if my proposed solution -- excluding people from America based upon religion and ethnicity -- is unacceptable, upon what basis can anyone support the expulsion of Israel's Jews from the land given them by the international community in the 1940s and which they have defended time and again over the last six decades? The only possible answer is a rank, festering anti-Semitism which abides in the blackened souls of the opponents of Israel.

I'm not sure if this moonbat is an anti-Semite or simply never read "A Modest Proposal" in 12th Grade English -- or the entire post from which he quoted.

3) Now this quote might appear hard to defend at first.

"Where are the peacemakers from the Religion of Peace? All I see are jihadi swine."

But then again, it was a story about one more group of would-be terrorists -- and my excerpt from the story once again made it clear I was talking about Islamic extremists being a threat. However I, like many Americans (indeed, like many people worldwide), am waiting to hear more forthright, non-nuanced denunciations of terrorism and unambiguous moves to expel the extremists from their midst or to marginalize them within the Islamic faith. Or is it that my liberal friend is offended that I would hurt the feelings of jihadi terrorists by calling them so vile a name as "pigs"?

4) I'll concede I might have done better on this one, and further thought and reflection might have led me not to phrase this quite the way I did.

"Sorry, no respect for any ethnicity or religion with this scumbag...Just following the example of Muhammad, I guess. I recall that he liked sex with little girls, too. Would somebody please remind me what is there in Islam that is good and noble?"

But then again, I refuse to offer a lick of respect for someone who decides that his religion and culture dictate that he violate a court order regarding custody, take his child to another country beyond the reach of the courts that awarded custody, all with the intent of having his 12-year-old daughter marry a guy in his mid-20s. If it is the position of my esteemed opponent that I should respect such behavior, that is fine -- but then I want to know what principled objection he could possibly offer to the Mark Foley "talk dirty to me" IMs? Or does he object to my stating the historical fact, acknowledged in Muslim religious works, that the "Prophet" married a girl at age 6 and had sex with her at age 9 to cement an alliance with her father? Maybe he just likes the idea of sex between older men and young children. I just don't know.

5) This one looks bad.

"Israel has the capability to nuke your camel-humping ass."

Of course, the quote does come in the context of a commentary on news that Iran is buying subs capable of launching nuclear missles -- shortly after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Israel should be wiped off the map and at a time when his nation is working to develop nukes. Now I suppose members of the Ahmadinejad Fan Club might take exception to my insulting the genocidal Holocaust-denier who is the leader of Iran, but I don't -- especially since he was one of the folks who took Americans hostage at our embassy in 1979. I hope that my critic doesn't find my anti-Fidel quotes, either -- after all, if he likes Ahmadinejad, he must love Castro.

6) You decide on this one.

"In other words, fundamental human rights are anathema to Islam."

This was commentary about a case involving a woman who has been baptized and seeks to be recognized as a Christian. She has been told by Malaysia's civil courts that it is a matter for the Muslim religious courts, and the Muslim religious courts have indicated the she will be imprisoned until she recants her apostasy. I guess that this leftard doesn't find that sort of theocratic infringement on human rights to be offensive -- only Christians in America being allowed to vote and have their policy preferences make it into the law.

7) You could argue that this one is bad.

Under no circumstances should any alien not yet legally admitted to the United States be held to have any rights beyond the right to continue breathing.

I think the remark stands on its own -- but if you wish to shill for those who violate our nation's immigration laws, go right ahead. I will add that I believe such folks do have one other right -- the right to immediate deportation, with the associated costs deducted from the foreign aid appropriated for their homeland.

I was simply pissed-off when I wrote this -- but he does a creative editorial job to make it appear I am saying something else entirely. Here is his version.

"Why are we sending one thin dime to a backwater, Third World hell-hole like New Orleans?"

Then there is the complete sentence (note to moonbat -- when you edit, make sure you punctuate it so that is evident).

Why are we sending one thin dime to a backwater, Third World hell-hole like New Orleans -- especially as long as this jackass is in charge?

Oh -- it was actually a commentary on Ray Nagin, who had just described Ground Zero as "a hole in the ground" that New Yorkers have been unable to get fixed. Given the conduct of our "guests" from New Orleans over the last year (hey, folks, thanks for the soaring homicide rate!), I see nothing to repent or apologize for -- and as far as Mayor Ray "Chocolate City" Nagin is concerned, I described him in significantly more polite terms than the average lefty moonbat uses for our president in daily conversation.

9) Not only is my critic a supporter of illegal immigration, but he objects to criticism of other criminals as well -- even when their actions causs the suspension of search-and-rescue efforts in the aftermath of a major natural disaster. After all, this is viewed as hateful.

"What needs to happen is that those caught looting especially those armed thugs we have all been hearing about simply need to be shot on sight."

Here comes what I actually said, and you will see that the context is everything.

First, the priority is wrong. Search-and-rescue needs to be the primary mission, not property protection. What needs to happen is that those caught looting (especially those armed thugs we have all been hearing about) simply need to be shot on sight.

Yes, I have sympathy for those who have been getting food, diapers, and other necessities. However, the situation is so out of control that order needs to be restored ruthlessly. I don't believe there are many recipes that call for a boom-box, a 32-inch flat-screen television or ten pairs of designer jeans.

I think you see where there is serious dishonesty at work. But if he wants to oppose the imposition of law and order so that people can be rescued from the riseing waters of a hurricane, let him defend that position.

10) Oh, and he objects as well to this, though he doesn't bother to provide more than a snippet.

A reader emails to tell me that [he] is still at it, and yesterday called Islam "the religion of barbarism."

Well, yeah -- but I think you need to consider exactly what was written.

Italian journalist who converted to Islam kidnapped by jihadis in Afghanistan – who demand the return of an Afghan convert to Christianity for application of the sharia penalty for apostasy (which is, of course, death). Am I the only one who smells a set-up here? Better idea – the civilized world will keep the Christian and the followers of the Religion of Barbarism can keep their co-religionist.

Hey -- I'd argue that anyone who doesn't find the actions committed in the name of Islam by these folks to be barbaric has the problem, not me. I guess we see what some Democrats really stand for.

Now I considered closing this blog in response to this controversy. I'm not going to do so. This attack means that my blog has become important in a way I never expected and never dreamed -- and never wanted.

The Left is afraid of ME.

This is an attempt to embarrass me and silence me -- and there have also been email and online threats to try to get me fired from my teaching job (I guess you have to be a left-wing academic fraud and faux-ethnic like Ward Churchill to qualify for free speech in the academy). But I look around at folks I admire -- Sean Hannity, Bill Bennett, Michelle Malkin, Dr. Mike Adams -- and I recognize my beliefs as mainstream. Yes, my rhetoric is Coulteresque, but it certainly is more elevated than what is found on "mainstream" leftwing sites like Kos or Democrat Underground.

So here I stand; to do otherwise is to betray the First Amendment and my own beliefs.

And to quote a bunch of liberals whose politics I despise, "I'm not ready to make nice, I'm not ready to back down."

Posted by: Greg at 12:57 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2428 words, total size 15 kb.