Private Speech and Public Opinion

Recently, Harry Reid made headlines with some controversial remarks, concerning what kind of Blacks would make the best candidate.

Personally, for all the resentment I harbor at Dingy Harry for the backdoor and sweetheart votebuying that he's done for the healthcare debaucle, I don't give a crap about what he said! Private comments are what they are-private.

Here's a commentary piece I found on my favorite news site, WND. It's written by Dennis Prager.

I think that Harry Reid is a left-wing ideologue who is doing serious harm to a great country.

I think that Harry Reid would charge any Republican colleague with racism and ask for that person's resignation if he or she said what Reid is reported to have said about Barack Obama's color and accent.

I think that every liberal Democrat deserves to be hoisted on his own petard and stung by the race card that liberals invented and have used for decades against Republican conservatives. Given what Democrats and their allies in the media did to Sens. Trent Lott and George Allen – taking innocuous comments and declaring them racist – Republicans have every right to demand that Mr. Reid resign as Senate majority leader.

But to the extent that truth still matters in America, what Reid is reputed to have said is not racist, let alone renders him a racist. It seems to be nothing more than a private opinion about what type of black American had the best chance to be elected president.

But all this is not the issue. Here are the issues that matter:

• the belief that the public has a right to know what people say privately;
• the belief that one knows the "true nature" of people if one knows what they said in private;
• the utter inability of Americans to speak with any honesty about anything to do with race.

Let's deal with each.

The unearthing of the private lives and thoughts of public figures has become so normal as to be expected. What the media have done, however, is to render private conversations of anyone in public life almost as guarded as those of citizens in Communist countries. The news media have become a nonviolent form of the East German Stasi or the Soviet KGB. Just as citizens in those former totalitarian states needed to guard their speech in private, lest secret police informers snitch on them and ruin their lives, so, too, American public figures – from politics to entertainment – now need to guard their most private moments, lest a member of the media snitch on them and ruin their lives.

As Rhett Butler finally said to Scarlett O'Hara, I say to the media about the private speech of public figures, "Frankly, I don't give a damn."

Which brings us to the second point – the belief among many Americans that one knows "the real person" (public or private) if one knows what the person says in private, and therefore, we should know as much as possible about the private conversations of public figures.

This is as dangerous as it is nonsensical.

There is no truth to this belief.

We all say all sorts of things in private that reveal nothing about our true selves. The very nature of private speech is that it enables us to be free to say anything. It is what we do that tells the world who we are. And as regards the speech of public figures, it is what public figures say of significance in public that matters.

It is, to my mind, another of the many examples of the lack of wisdom in the liberal world that liberals think that private speech reveals who people are, and that we therefore have a right, even a duty, to know as much about it as possible. Thus, liberals repeatedly speak of Richard Nixon's private anti-Jewish remarks to make their case that the former president was an anti-Semite. Of course, this "anti-Semite" appointed the first Jewish secretary of state and saved Israel's life during the Yom Kippur War. But to the foolish who believe that private speech is the real thing, little of that matters in assessing Nixon's character insofar as it related to Jews.

To sharpen this point, contrast Nixon with another recent president, Jimmy Carter. I would be willing to wager that Mr. Carter has never said anything in private as derogatory about Jews as Nixon did. But to the vast majority of Jews and non-Jews who understand that the security of the Jewish state is the most pressing Jewish issue, Mr. Carter has been the Jews' problem, not Mr. Nixon. Likewise, Harry Truman sometimes used the term "kike" in private conversation, but it was he who went against the advice of his entire State Department and recognized Israel's existence as soon as Israel was declared a state.

Finally, we again come to the falsehood that Democrats and liberals regularly offer when they ask Americans to have honest dialogue on the race issue. Thanks to liberals, one can sooner swear in public or declare the world is flat than say the most innocuously valid things about racial matters. One cannot even oppose race-based affirmative action without liberals labeling the person "racist."

Because I prize private speech and truth more than I prize humiliating Harry Reid – who, again, would not be nearly so decent to any Republican – I find the revelation of his private speech and especially the attention paid to it as if it signifies anything important about him to reflect only one more example of a downward moral spiral in my beloved country.

What do you think about Harry Reid's comments?

tamtam

PC and Islam

I know, I've all but abandoned this page :(. School has been taking up all my time!

So much has happened so far. First, Barry won the Nobel Peace Prize for...being black! He's done absolutely nothing to merit such an award!

Then, terrorists struck again-this time at Ft. Hood Army Base in TX. But what made this place special was that the terrorist was an Army Major, a devout Moslem named Nidal Malik Hasan. Unfortunately, the scumbag lived. But the story didn't stop there. According to certain reports, Hasan had been involved in some pretty seedy stuff. He attended the same mosque as the 9/11 terrorists, and gave a lecture to fellow doctors at the infamous Walter Reed Medical Center about how "infidels" should be killed and desecrated.

With that kind of history, why didn't anyone report this guy?! Well, the answer to that is PC, a shorthand version of "political correctness". The London Telegraph reported that several of Hasan's colleagues at the lecture were frightened by his comments, but they would not report him for fear of being labeled as racist or "islamophobic".

PC has taught us to fear Islam.

Because we fear Islam, our people are dying.

Below is an article about PC and Islam. It's a bit lengthy, but it's very good nonetheless. It was written by David Kupelian.

What's behind America's politically correct 'love' of Islam?

The second they heard about the Fort Hood massacre, millions of thinking Americans wondered in their gut: "Oh God, is this another crazy Muslim terrorist carrying out a one-man jihad, as has happened so many times before?"

Then, when the alleged perpetrator's name and religion were made public (Nidal Malik Hasan, a lifelong Muslim) along with eyewitness reports he had

shouted the obligatory pre-terror-attack proclamation, "Allahu akbar" ("Allah is greatest") before commencing his orgy of slaughter, their suspicions were confirmed: This was surely a major attack on the American homeland by a Muslim terrorist.

Further evidence quickly rolled in: Hasan had reportedly

refused to fight fellow Muslims, called the war on terror a "war on Islam," told a co-worker Muslims had a right to rise up and attack Americans, and reportedly had posted online his astoundingly twisted belief that an Islamic suicide bomber was morally equivalent to a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save the lives of his comrades.

In other words, although the

Army had many warnings Hasan was a certifiable, America-hating, jihadist "ticking time bomb" waiting to go off, it did nothing to avert last week's terror attack. Why?

And why, after the truth about Hasan became undeniable following his mass slaughter, does the government, as well as its mouthpiece the establishment press, agonize in their usual pathetic manner over what could possibly have motivated the Army psychiatrist to coldly, methodically murder 13 and wound 38 others?

Shortly after the attack, right on schedule, the FBI announced it wasn't terror-related.

Time magazine moronically blamed posttraumatic stress disorder – even though Hasan has never been deployed in a war zone.

The shooter's relatives insisted he had been the

victim of religious harassment because of his faith, which must have made him snap.

According to the Washington Post, the problem was that Hasan was lonely. That's right, the newspaper's report, titled

"The lonely life of alleged Fort Hood shooter," was subtitled: "'He was mistreated. He didn't have nobody. He was all alone,' says neighbor."

Meanwhile, President Obama warned Americans against "jumping to conclusions" about what might have motivated the shooter.

Why, after a Muslim commits a terrorist act, do authorities always announce almost instantaneously – before they could possibly know – that the attack was not terror-related?

Why do the news media always torture themselves and their readers with the most wildly improbable explanations in their attempts to avoid the obvious truth?

Before we answer these questions, lest you think I overstate the case, take a quick trip with me down jihad memory lane.

Remember the beltway snipers? In October 2002, Muslim convert John Muhammad along with 17-year-old Lee Boyd "John" Malvo paralyzed the Washington metropolitan area for three bloody weeks, killing 10 and critically injuring three others. But after their capture, most in the media were loath to focus seriously on Islamic jihad as a motive, despite the fact that Muhammad had praised the Sept. 11 hijackers and had threatened to commit major terrorist acts within the U.S.

Like alcoholics uncomfortable with facing the painful truth, the media retreated into comfortable denial. Their standard analysis of what made Muhammad tick included anything and everything except jihad. Thus, the Los Angeles Times offered up no less than six possible motives for Muhammad's killing spree, according to Daniel Pipes, an expert on militant Islam. They included "his 'stormy relationship' with his family, his 'stark realization' of loss and regret, his perceived sense of abuse as an American Muslim post-9/11, his desire to 'exert control' over others, his relationship with Malvo, and his trying to make a quick buck," said Pipes – "but did not mention jihad."

"Likewise," he adds, "a Boston Globe article found 'there must have been something in his social interaction – in his marriage or his military career – that pulled the trigger.'"

This see-no-jihad, hear-no-jihad, speak-no-jihad mindset has become standard operating procedure for the establishment press.

On July 4, 2002, a cab driver named Hesham Hadayet walked into the Los Angeles International Airport and shot two people to death before being shot and killed by a security guard. Despite the fact that Hadayet was Egyptian and that he had chosen the Israeli El Al ticket counter as the site for venting his rage, any suggestion that Hadayet was carrying out his own personal jihad was immediately dismissed.

"Investigators … believe that Hadayet was simply an overstressed man who snapped," reported the Los Angeles Times. "He was known as a quiet, observant Muslim," added the Times, which explained away the killer's virulent anti-Semitism by saying, "While Hadayet occasionally mentioned a hatred for Israel, [one former employee] saw it more as a cultural perspective on Mideast politics than an emotion that would fuel violence."

One of the worst air disasters in modern history, Egypt Air Flight 990 crashed into the Atlantic shortly after takeoff from New York in October 1999, killing 217.

Two and a half years later, the National Transportation Safety Board finally reached the same conclusion that virtually everyone else had immediately after the crash – that the plane's Egyptian copilot, Gameel El-Batouty, had cut power to the engines and intentionally sent the plane plummeting into the ocean, killing all aboard.

But the government panel declined to suggest a motive, except to speculate that El-Batouty might have "committed suicide."

Suicide? Pardon my French, but I think "mass murder" or "terrorism" would much better describe the wanton annihilation of hundreds of innocent people. Yet, despite the fact the copilot had calmly repeated over and over the Arabic phrase "Tawkalt" ("I rely on Allah") for almost a minute and a half during his deed – and that such behavior, according to the report, "is not consistent with the reaction that would be expected from a pilot who is encountering an unexpected or uncommanded flight condition" – federal investigators steered clear of suggesting jihad as a motive.

The U.S. government, not wanting to offend Muslim sensitivities, rarely mentions "Muslim" or "Islamic" when describing Islamic terrorism. For example, when a massive jihad plot to blow up 10 airliners over the Atlantic and kill thousands was foiled in 2006, then–Homeland Security chief Michael

Chertoff briefed his agency using only the word "extremists" to describe the plotters – no mention of Islam. All of the two dozen would-be terrorists were Muslims.

This syndrome has just gotten worse since the ascension to the presidency of Barack Obama, who takes every opportunity to criticize America and fawn over Islam – even

calling America "one of the largest Muslim countries in the world" and bowing obsequiously before the Muslim king of Saudi Arabia.

So, why do we have this stubborn inability to come to grips with Islam?
Everyone attributes it to "political correctness," but I think it's time to move beyond that shallow, passé, near-meaningless phrase.

Do we dare admit what is really at play here? The truth is actually very simple.

We are afraid of Islam.

We are intimidated by Islam.

And because we are afraid of and intimidated by Islam, Islam is changing us – in two distinct and profound ways.

First, as is appallingly obvious, we're afraid to criticize Islam openly, for fear of having our head cut off or

having a fatwa put out on us like the director of the new "2012" film, or we're afraid of being sued by some of the very litigious Islamic organizations like CAIR, or we're afraid of being called a racist, extremist, hater or "Islamophobe" thanks to the tyranny of political correctness, or we're afraid of offending those in power and thereby risking our position, stature or other advantage. This reaction, while perhaps selfish and cowardly, is more-or-less conscious and strategic.

However, for some it goes much deeper: Being intimidated by Islam (or by anything, for that matter) actually causes some of us to mysteriously grow sympathetic toward it, to defend it, to side with it, even to convert to it. This unconscious shift in attitude, in response to fear of being hurt, is called the Stockholm syndrome, named after the 1973 Swedish bank robbery during which the four terrorized hostages sided with their criminal captors while disparaging the police risking their lives trying to save them.

We need to understand that a certain percentage of us, when we're intimidated and upset, start to emotionally gravitate toward and agree with whatever is intimidating us. Not just superficially, as a temporary tactic of placating a bully so he won't hurt us, but more profoundly, deep down in the inner sanctum of our being where our thoughts and feelings germinate and our loyalties bloom.
Intimidation – that is, causing others to react with upset and fear – is a fundamental principle of mind control, fully capable of causing the victim's loyalties to shift toward the intimidator, whether a schoolyard bully, gang leader, child molester, hostage-taking bank robber or Islamic radical.

"Political correctness" – which is basically a low-grade Stockholm syndrome playing out on a broad societal stage – is actually a subtle form of brainwashing. Even establishment mouthpiece Newsweek, in its famous Dec. 24, 1990, cover story on the then-new phenomenon of political correctness on college campuses (titled "Thought Police") conceded this truth when it reported: "PC is, strictly speaking, a totalitarian philosophy."

Bottom line: We're intimidated, bullied, threatened, terrorized – and so we capitulate, not just in word and deed, but in thought. Get it?

Most of the time, of course, this occurs below the radar of our own consciousness. We don't understand what's really happening. So we interpret our growing sympathy and affinity for whatever intimidated us as evidence of our loving, open-minded, enlightened nature. In reality, it's the result of craven weakness on our part.

The problem with Islam:

Now imagine there's a religion, which we'll call "Religion X." Many adherents to "Religion X" live peaceful lives in pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Whatever their religious doctrine is, they don't bother anybody.

But other adherents to Religion X believe – indeed, are taught by prominent clerics, including within the U.S. – that they must rule the world, and that the lord of their religion condones, even encourages, their killing those who refuse to convert to Religion X, or who leave Religion X.

So, one contingent of this religion we are inclined to allow freely to exist within our borders – indeed our laws and culture demand it. But virtually all Americans would rightly categorize the other contingent of the same religion as a murderous, mind-control cult that should be driven from our shores.

The problem with Religion X, then, is that it's really hard to distinguish one type of adherent from the other.

That's the problem we're having with Islam. Every time a jihadist like Hasan goes on a terrorist killing spree, invariably all who knew him

say they were totally stunned, as he was always so "calm, cool and soft-spoken." And yet there were warning signs, such that were we not blinded by our fears and cowardice, we would not merely have seen them, we would have acted on them – and prevented last week's terrorist attack.

According to the London Telegraph, in an article headlined,

"Fort Hood gunman had told U.S. military colleagues that infidels should have their throats cut":
Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the gunman who killed 13 at America's Fort Hood military base, once gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats.
He also told colleagues at America's top military hospital that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire.

Hasan made these incendiary jihadist comments "in front of dozens of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington, D.C." during a talk on the Quran, according to the report.

And how did his fellow doctors respond?

Although they were horrified, "One Army doctor who knew him said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim soldier had stopped fellow officers from filing formal complaints," reported the Telegraph.

Are you with me? "A fear of appearing discriminatory" caused 51 brave American soldiers to be shot by an Islamist monster, 13 fatally.

This inordinate fear, implanted in us by the lords of politically correct attitude, the subtle brainwashers of modern, secular society, is to blame.

It gets worse, much worse. As ABC now reports,

"U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al-Qaida."

The evil of "political correctness" – the totalitarian manipulation of thought, foisted on us by twisted elitist sociopaths who hate America and everything our soldiers have fought and died for over the last two centuries, and continue to fight and die for – has to end. Now. It's over. This nation must rise up and defy the insane thought control that is destroying our country right before our eyes.

In America, a land of precious and unique freedoms, there exists a natural and healthy tension between our cherished First Amendment religious freedom for all Americans – including Muslims – and our paramount need to protect our country from infiltration, subversion and terror attacks by "true-believing" Islamic jihadists. This tension must be resolved by our striking exactly the right balance, but that balance can be achieved only when we first rise above fear and cowardice, and defy the treacherous PC mind-control culture that is poisoning our minds and crippling our national security.

One last point: If you really want to do something besides complain about the spread of Islamic radicalism in the United States – a level of infiltration already far more advanced than you can imagine – then make a donation to WND's legal defense fund. We are defending, at great expense, two people who most definitely are not intimidated by Islamic radicalism:

"Muslim Mafia" co-author and former federal agent Paul David Gaubatz and his son Chris Gaubatz, who daringly penetrated the belly of the Islamist beast in the U.S. for six months, retrieved 12,000 pages of smoking-gun documentary evidence, reported their findings in the blockbuster book (already the basis for new congressional investigations) – and are now being sued by a terror-front group that wants the evidence of its plots and misdeeds returned! We have hired the best First Amendment lawyer in the country, and we can and must win this all-important fight, but it's expensive – so please help. OK?

Peace!

tamtam

He wants you 'hatemongers' silenced

uh-oh! bad news for bloggers like me!

He wants you 'hatemongers' silenced

Shared via AddThis

unconstitutional, YES!!! i mean, you can only squash dissent so much before it boils over. if the president and his goons take the ultimate step in "bumping off" the dissenters, god forbid, you can only take so many lives before people start getting smart and fighting back. you can't possibly kill every single person who disagrees with you! dissent, though irritable, should never be outlawed for it keeps us on our toes.

there's a saying my mom's people, the serbs, have. it goes: "we'll be back". after WWII, the communists drove the king and his supporters out of the country. homesick refugees said that one day, hopefully, they would return to their homeland-thus, "we'll be back" was born.

our day has come. we may be condemned and labeled as terrorists for our traditional conservative beliefs, and some individuals may pay the ultimate price for their beliefs, but in the end, we will win. the dream of freedom will never die.

since you leftists like communists so much, i'll leave you with a choice quote:

"you can kill 10 of my men for every 2 that i kill of yours. but even at these odds, you will lose and i will win"-ho chih minh

peace!

tamtam

Ted Kennedy: Reagan's Benedict Arnold

my boy ellis washington features declassified soviet memos that show a darker side of the late teddy kennedy. it's a nice counter to the abject deification of the late senator.

Ted Kennedy: Reagan's Benedict Arnold

Shared via AddThis

peace!
tamtam

Liberalism is a cult

this makes sense-why else would the members seem like loopy wackos?

Liberalism is a cult

Shared via AddThis

tamtam

The defining issue of our time

this is it, ladies and germs! this is the final showdown!

The defining issue of our time

Shared via AddThis

who will win? stay tuned!

tamtam

Charity: Not in the Constitution

read it and weep. how far we have fallen from the intentions of the founding fathers!

Charity: Not in the Constitution

Shared via AddThis

tamtam

Lockerbie bomber praised, Savage hated?

my favorite columnist ellis washington takes a jab at the british isles for their "compassionate" approach to the notorious lockerbie bomber abdulbaset al-megrahi, all the while scorning them for blacklisting the conservative michael savage.

he should have titled this post "it is indifference", after a quote by the late elie weisel.

Lockerbie bomber praised, Savage hated?

Shared via AddThis

it's getting harder and harder nowadays to be who you really are. if you're a conservative, you've been marked. i too have been scorned for my views by my peers, but then again...who says that change comes from a cookie cutter?

peace!

tamtam

The government is after me...and you!

written by patrice lewis.

The government is after me … and you

Shared via AddThis

conservatives of the USA unite!

tamtam

Memo to CNN President Jon Klein

a commentary piece by joseph farah-editor and founder of my favorite news website WND. be sure to watch the video too.

Memo to CNN President Jon Klein

Shared via AddThis


tamtam

Which "ism" is on Display at Harvard?

allen keys writes a commentary piece about the criminal debaucle in cambridge, MA involving that wacko harvard "professor" henry gates.

Which 'ism' on display at Harvard arrest?

Shared via AddThis

bein' a cop is a dangerous job. when you get called to investigate a break-in, you dont know if the suspect is still on the property, if they're armed, etc. in my home city of chicago, cops are slaughtered by gangbangers left and right. almost everyday, some cop gets shot and killed. just leave them alone and let them do their jobs. besides, a black cop accompanied the arresting cop, and the black cop said that the white cop followed procedure to the "T".

i've also heard rumors that the white cop was bugged with a microphone at the time of the arrest! hopefully soon, the audio of the event will be made public so that we know what REALLY happened. but im sure barry will want this hushed up fast, cuz if the audio comes out and it shows that he's wrong, barry will be left with egg on his face.

looks like somebody's got some 'splainin' to do...

tamtam

Symposium-Obama's universal death care

another fine commentary piece by ellis washington-this time in the form of a symposium, which socrates and other famous greek philosophers used to debate ideas and how well those ideas stood up to critical thought.

Symposium-Obama's universal death care

Shared via AddThis

my favorite line is at the end when socrates says:

"President Obama, you are so supremely enamored with your own abilities, your own words. Like a demigod, you think: if I speak it to the masses, it must be true. To believe that socialized medicine will improve the existentially best health care system in the world is indeed a big lie Goebbels would be envious of."

envious indeed.

tamtam

Catholic nurse ordered to help with abortion

is this kind of treatment in store for me when i finish college and go to work in a hospital setting?

Catholic nurse ordered to help with abortion

Shared via AddThis

tamtam

'Get out of war free' card

a thought-provoking commentary by vox day about obama's missing birth certificate. if obama continues to hide his real birth certificate, soldiers will be leaving the army in droves! then we're REALLY screwed!

'Get out of war free' card

Shared via AddThis

tamtam

Let the dead bury Michael Jackson

this was written by a black man, and pretty much sums up my view of michael jackson

Let the dead bury Michael Jackson

Shared via AddThis

tamtam

J'accuse England! J'accuse America!

ellis washington draws a parallel between the twisted cases of michael savage and capt. alfred dryfuss. the title was taken after a famous letter written by a french intellectual about the dryfuss affair, named emile zola. though zola was jailed for a year following his letter, it remains the most famous piece of criticism with regards to government justice.

J'accuse England! J'accuse America!

Shared via AddThis

tamtam

Obama's sculpted face heads to Mt. Rushmore park

Obama's sculpted face heads to Mt. Rushmore park

Shared via AddThis


oh boy, here we go again. once again, barry-o thinks that he's good enough to belong with the likes of teddy roosevelt, jefferson, and washington on the famed mount rushmore. expect the media to have a field day with this!

tamtam