Radical American Left Firmly In Bed With Islamists
Saturday’s “World Can’t Wait” demonstration in Washington, DC has all the proof you need to know that the radical left has joined hands with our international Islamic enemies. (hat tip: LittleGreenFootballs) Unfortunately, much of their rhetoric and slogans are shared by leaders of the Democrat Party of America including Howard Dean, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton.
But first, just to level-set my argument…here’s a lovely child protesting the cartoons of Muhammed this week.
Now our friends from the American Left in Washington on Saturday:
“World Can’t Wait” is a Communist-funded organization according to reports. Glad to see our youth support such icons of free speech and democracy as Lenin and Stalin.
So these kinds of folks repeatedly demean Christianity and burn our flag in our free country. I wonder what they think of the gunfirey response of Islamists who are horrified of the mocking of their religion in cartoons?
And now it appears the Left advocates the tactics of al-Qaeda….
Will the Lefty bloggers and Democratic mainstream disavow this type of statement? I doubt it. There is less and less distance between the American Left/Democrats and our enemies abroad.
Disagree? Prove me wrong. I challenge you.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
56 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I am curious where the well made sign came from. That sign wasn’t created in somebody’s garage using markers and poster board.
But I think sometimes the average person on the left-the one who is anti war and anti Bush, but doesn’t hang out at war protest rallies etc, may not realize just how much the movement they support is in bed with communists and the Islamists. They sort of keep blinders on, so they don’t quite see the truth.
Comment by just me — February 6, 2006 @ 7:27 am - February 6, 2006
Some would say, “it’s unfair to taint the left/anti-war movement using these radical extremists.” Until y’all on the left unequivocally disassociate yourself with them the way the right has done with it’s violent fringe … yeah, it’s totally fair.
Comment by V the K — February 6, 2006 @ 7:54 am - February 6, 2006
That crap on parade is nothing but heartbreaking. I doubt a liberal poster will address this with more than a few words before going off on Pat Robertson, the Crusades or how Bush is the worst thing to happen to the world for the next ten sentences. Their objective is to change the subject every time and rationlize extremist’s hate and support of violence against their fellow Americans.
Comment by VinceTN — February 6, 2006 @ 7:59 am - February 6, 2006
Check the photo again — that’s not the American flag. (Consider it a double desecration.)
Comment by Tim Hulsey — February 6, 2006 @ 8:18 am - February 6, 2006
Tim’s correct. In the field that in a real flag would contain stars, the field contains corporate symbols. I suppose that they are supposed to be symbols of American corporations, but the rightmost symbol in the second line used to be the symbol of Chrysler Corporation–it still may be–which is now owned by the German company DaimlerChrysler.
Comment by raj — February 6, 2006 @ 9:49 am - February 6, 2006
Vince, they won’t comment on it AT ALL. The tactics those petulant, apologist morons favor reveal an instinctive need to support ANYTHING that opposes the president and his administration, no matter how ridiculously unhinged those tactics are. Watch and see…we won’t hear a single word about this, or any other sociopathic antics taken by the moonbats.
Eric in Hollyweird
Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — February 6, 2006 @ 10:02 am - February 6, 2006
Good post Bruce.
For me, the most troubling images are the ones of the young boy carrying a sign promoting the murder of anyone and the young female adult with a home-made poster of someone displaying our President’s head after a beheading… ala the practice of some Middle East governments and terrorist groups. If there is such a thing as a “hate crime” –it’s demonstrated in the speech choices of that young adult female. Shame on the parents who taught these people to confuse hatred with political dissent –and the event’s organizers who help promote the messages.
In the wake of the brutal attack against gay patrons at the New Bedford bar, I’d expect every single GayLeft commentator who comes on this post to denounce this kind of political hatred speech >>which, frankly, shouldn’t enjoy the protections of free speech and ought to fall into the exempted speech categories and outside protection.
Your call for them to disavow these types of statements is pretty easy thing to do for any civil, democracy-loving citizen. I hope they can, do; without reservation or attempt to evade. Afterall, it’s the GayLeft that started the one-up-manship campaign of “Hate is not a family value.” if they ever held the moral highground, here’s a chance to affirm it.
Unfortunately, I can hear TeddyK or MikeRogers or HowieDean begin with “We can all understand the long suffering frustration these noble people (the protesters in the pictures above) feel in the face of this Administration’s continued abuse of power, subversion of civil rights, and acts of impeachable offenses…”
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 6, 2006 @ 10:16 am - February 6, 2006
More Islamo-Leftist Rhetoric from Democrats-dot-com: Rove Planned Attack on Super Bowl
“Is Karl Rove planning a terrorist attack during the Super Bowl in order to set the stage for building towards war with Iran over the coming year?” Remember, Rove has played the “war card” before. The Iraq War buildup in 2002 was all about politics.”
Comment by V the K — February 6, 2006 @ 11:01 am - February 6, 2006
Yeah, it’s called the Steelers (-:
The loony leftists crossed a line with that beheading photo. Seriously.
Comment by rightwingprof — February 6, 2006 @ 11:08 am - February 6, 2006
#0 – During the Vietnam protest era, a sincere (and by no means conservative) teacher of Peace said something like, “You’ll never catch me at a peace demonstration, because they never have anyone there who demonstrates it.”
Seems like the same could be said today.
Comment by Calarato — February 6, 2006 @ 11:58 am - February 6, 2006
“Some would say, “it’s unfair to taint the left/anti-war movement using these radical extremists.” Until y’all on the left unequivocally disassociate yourself with them the way the right has done with it’s violent fringe … yeah, it’s totally fair. ”
V, you are right, it is totally fair, and I tend to swing left-center on a lot of things. Harry’s Place has been on the warpath about this for days, and they are left-wing, but here in the States I haven’t heard a peep.
The kid tyhing is disturbing. A few years ago they did a study on kids raised in white supremacist hate group settings, and found that by about the age of five the attitudes were too set ever to reverse, so this kid may be screwed too. Maybe Colonel Chivington was right.
But these losers get ignored more than challenged on this crap. That hurts them worse.
Comment by Jim — February 6, 2006 @ 12:04 pm - February 6, 2006
Wow, the comparison to the right is amazing too!
The kid could hold up a sign “Whoever insults Bush is unpatriotic, a terrorist, and a commie!”
Ooops! GayPatriot is also in bed with Islamasists, hahaha.
Comment by Joey — February 6, 2006 @ 12:05 pm - February 6, 2006
It seems to me that the protest was somewhat silly, but it also seems to me that GayPatriot’s being upset at the protest is somewhat silly too. From the AP article that he linked to, the protest drew only about 1000 protestors. That’s a paltry number, even if all of the protesters came from the Wash DC metro area.
GP’s presumptuous gratuitous diatribe against the named Democrats was somewhat silly, too, but it was to be expected.
Comment by raj — February 6, 2006 @ 12:11 pm - February 6, 2006
Ahhhhh, and so by my count the two commenting GayLefties are Joey and the ever-condesceding raj baby, both failing to denounce the messages contained in the protest… and that makes it -0- (zero = zed for the Euro-centrists) of GayLefties willing to denounce the hatefilled messages of their brothers & sisters of the radical political Left.
Joey: show us the poster. Maybe one of those GayLefties standing outside Walter Reed Medical Center and using our wounded soldiers for political gain can help draw one up for you? Yeah, that’s the ticket.
No surprise. Thank God they’re not in anyway or any shape close to political power, control of decision making or in a meaningful position to influence America’s future.
A beheading poster of the President among others, to quote the ever-condescending and unrepenting raj baby, is “silly”. No wait, it isn’t even that; it’s “somewhat silly”. Wow.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 6, 2006 @ 12:29 pm - February 6, 2006
The loony leftists crossed a line with that beheading photo. Seriously. But that’s just it, these are the LOONIES, the fringe. They don’t represent my views or the majority of Democrats anymore than Concerned Women for America speaks for you. Please, let’s be honest for once. Are there right-wing nutcases in this world? Yes. So naturally we expect there are some crazy liberals, too. Do you think in order for liberalism to be valid there can’t be any weirdos who adhere to it? Hold yourselves to the same standard. Sheesh.
Comment by Andy — February 6, 2006 @ 1:03 pm - February 6, 2006
#14 With Andy’s comment above, that makes it two on the gay left who condone any violent protest. Oh, I am not or never have been an admirer of Islam. For some reason, besides having a core of religious nuts like Christianity, there seems to have a much higher percentage of Muslim terrorists and otherwise violent individuals than Christianity and most other religions.
Comment by Pat — February 6, 2006 @ 1:22 pm - February 6, 2006
#3, Vince, you called it right: Check out #12. Good call.
And thanks, Joey, for again proving our point better than we could on our own. What would we do without you?
Comment by ColoradoPatriot — February 6, 2006 @ 1:29 pm - February 6, 2006
#16 Oops. Please insert “don’t” between “who” and “condone.” Perhaps a stronger phrase is necessary. I oppose and condemn such violent protests and those who advocate violence.
Comment by Pat — February 6, 2006 @ 1:50 pm - February 6, 2006
When a fringe of loony right-wingers are out there, the MSM will be all over it, trying to paint that as the image of conservatives in the minds of the general public. How much attention will this get in the MSM? I agree we shouldn’t judge all Democrats by the actions of these people, but it’s hard to empathize when the media doesn’t show conservatives the same courtesy.
Comment by Dale in L.A. — February 6, 2006 @ 4:06 pm - February 6, 2006
#13 – “It seems to me that the protest was somewhat silly, but it also seems to me that GayPatriot’s being upset at the protest is somewhat silly too.”
And there, ladies and gentlemen, is a nutshell illustration of at least three of the Left’s problems. Its “moral equivalence” problem. Its “blame the victim” problem. And, of course, its “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!” crisis.
Reminders for the sane:
- The protestors wanted to get noticed. They try to inject themselves into people’s consciousness. That’s the point of protesting.
- No one in the world today kills more gays and lesbians, or hates us more, than (a) Islamist radicals, and (b) Communists. (Kevin, think of the gays Fidel Castro has jailed and murdered – his real gay prisons).
But show visual evidence of the mutual admiration / shared views among Islamists, Communists and contemporary Left protestors, and all that the local political pervert can come up with is, in effect:
“My friends and I weren’t there (so it doesn’t count) and maybe it was a silly protest – barely – but now I’m going to declare you as bad or worse, for noticing and commenting – how dare you notice or comment on anything about us!”
He can’t even bring himself offer a ritual “I don’t condone beheading the President.”
Comment by Calarato — February 6, 2006 @ 4:11 pm - February 6, 2006
12) “The kid could hold up a sign “Whoever insults Bush is unpatriotic, a terrorist, and a commie!” – Joey
Uh… sure, Joey. Partaking in your right of free speech to express a ridiculous and exagerated judgement about someone who opposes your views is JUST AS BAD as suggesting that someone who expresses an opinion against your beliefs should be KILLED.
O.o
Comment by Dale in L.A. — February 6, 2006 @ 4:14 pm - February 6, 2006
The difference, of course, is that we loudly condemn nutjobs on the right — witness the outcry against Phelps — whereas liberals say, when backed into a corner, “that’s not fair, we’re not all like that,” then let the loonies run their party and campaigns.
You put Howard Dean in charge of the DNC. They don’t come much nuttier, except for Kucinich.
Comment by rightwingprof — February 6, 2006 @ 4:29 pm - February 6, 2006
#22
Actually as I see it, the KOSsacks and DUmmies are in charge of the DNC.
And these people can’t figure out why nobody will put them in charge of the country.
From the AP article that he linked to, the protest drew only about 1000 protestors. That’s a paltry number, even if all of the protesters came from the Wash DC metro area.
Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn how many there are or where they came from. The fact that they are out there spreading hatred is the point and undermining the whole “tolerant and understanding” BS.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 6, 2006 @ 4:39 pm - February 6, 2006
Just noticed the Playboy bunny is on the flag. That’s pretty damn funny.
What’s the “W” one? I thought it was Whattaburger, but then I figured it was Weinerschnitzel.
And what could possibly be smarter than squirting Ronsonol on something that’s burning?
Think they got the time off at McDonald’s to burn a flag with their logo on it?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 6, 2006 @ 4:43 pm - February 6, 2006
LOL! I don’t know why anyone’s even wasting energy posting on this topic. Isn’t it a foregone conclusion that the radical LEFTist fringe in this country HATES America??? I don’t see this latest Moonbat convergence – or that one sign in particular – as anything out of the ordinary. These idiots “cross lines” all the time and have been for, oh, about the past 5 years. Let’s not pretend that we’re shocked or saddened or disgusted by any of it, OK?
The only thing that’s actually disgusting is that the DEMOCRATIC PARTY “leadership” can’t seem to bring itself to denounce this kind of behavior and, in fact, will ocassionally join in. At the very least, let’s step up the effort to remind the average American that the Democratic Party is nothing less than the political arm of Al Qaida in America. If they want to act like terrorist-sympathizers then they shouldn’t be offended when they’re portrayed as such.
Comment by glisteny — February 6, 2006 @ 5:23 pm - February 6, 2006
#20. Calarato — February 6, 2006 @ 4:11 pm – February 6, 2006
And what did this have to do with anything I posted? And why did you edit out very next few sentences, which it should have been obvious explained why I believed that GP’s being upset was silly?
And there, ladies and gentlemen, is a nutshell illustration of at least three of the Left’s problems. Its “moral equivalence” problem. Its “blame the victim” problem. And, of course, its “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!” crisis.
This is rather silly, too. Do you know what “moral equivalence” refers to? Moral equivalence is a term used in political debate, usually to characterize in a negative way the humanist claim that ‘there can be no moral or ethical hierarchy decided between two sides in a conflict, nor in the actions or tactics of the two sides.
Now, you tell me: in what way was my comment a matter of moral equivalency? It was a matter of my view that GP’s paying attention to this was a waste of time, and I said so. But I recognize that it is his time to waste. It’s somewhat amusing that he couldn’t find something more important to blog on–other than an obscure protest march involving so few people–but it is his time to waste. I recognize that he wants to rhetorically bash Democrats, but his presumptuous gratuitous bashing of Democratic leaders (“Unfortunately, much of their rhetoric and slogans are shared by leaders of the Democrat Party of America including Howard Dean, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton.”) is funny as heck.
For some reason, GP seems to have an obsession for Mike Rogers. I don’t know whether it is because Rogers outed him on his blog (is it still active?) or–if, I suspect–he used to comment there as “Jeff,” but was eventually banned. If GP is in fact “Jeff,” it is interesting that he took my advice to heart and started his own blog.
You may wish to expand on how my post had anything to do with “blame the victim.” Who is the victim? And the “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” makes no sense at all: the primary “man behind the curtain is Karl Rove and, to a lesser extent–he isn’t so much behind the curtain–Dick Cheney. GWBush is the CheerleaderInChief.
I don’t have the slightest idea what the last few paragraphs of your comment have to do with my comment. If you really want to know, I don’t condone beheading of anyone. In fact, I don’t condone the death penalty at all, for a variety of reasons, most of which have nothing to do with morality.
The simple fact is, though, that GWBush will never be put in the position in which he is likely to be beheaded. Others have been and probably will continue to be. Including gay people, by GWBush’s friends, the Saudis.
Comment by raj — February 6, 2006 @ 5:26 pm - February 6, 2006
#21 Dale in L.A. — February 6, 2006 @ 4:14 pm – February 6, 2006
Partaking in your right of free speech…
One would believe that you had never heard of the sedition acts. I’m not referring solely to the 1798 sedition acts. I’m referring to the sedition acts that restricted speech and the press during WWI. Do a google search for the US SupCt decisions in US v. Schenck and US v. Frohwerk. The 1st amendment’s guarantee that “congress shall pass no law…abridging freedom of speech and of the press” is not quite a guarantee.
Comment by raj — February 6, 2006 @ 5:31 pm - February 6, 2006
#22 rightwingprof — February 6, 2006 @ 4:29 pm – February 6, 2006
The difference, of course, is that we loudly condemn nutjobs on the right — witness the outcry against Phelps…
Outcry by whom? From what I read a couple of years ago, some moderate and liberal christian denominations protested (mildly of course) him coming into the area. But the reason for the protest was that they believed that his presence would be devisive, not because they disagreed with his message. There is a difference.
Or are you referring to something specific?
Comment by raj — February 6, 2006 @ 5:41 pm - February 6, 2006
“Wow, the comparison to the right is amazing too!
The kid could hold up a sign “Whoever insults Bush is unpatriotic, a terrorist, and a commie!” ”
I know someone already pointed this out… it just needs a repeat… joey thinks that calling someone names is *equivalent* to saying “kill him.”
The equivalent would be…. “Whoever insults Bush, kill him.” That is the same. Suppose the sign the kid held said, “Anyone who insults a prophet is an infidel.” Infidel is bad, right? At least as bad as “commie.” So this hypothetical kids holds a sign that calls people an “infidel”… does anyone even bother to take his picture?
And thanks to whoever mentioned that the severed head was George Bush… I couldn’t tell. Thought it looked a bit like a youngish Dan Rather.
But yeah… this is *definately* no worse than name calling. *sigh* We’d best just stop calling people traitors and unpatriotic and start marching around with posters of their severed heads.
Comment by Synova — February 6, 2006 @ 5:44 pm - February 6, 2006
#27) You’re making my point. If someone calls you names because they don’t agree with you, like unpatriotic for example, that is nothing more than their opinion and expressing their opinion is free speech. It may be childish or incorrect but it certainly is not the moral equivalent to suggesting people DIE for expressing views that you find offensive, and it shows just how absurd Joey’s analogy was.
Comment by Dale in L.A. — February 6, 2006 @ 6:57 pm - February 6, 2006
I am baffled at how you can possibly consider the cases during WWI relevent to this debate. Oh, unless you’re referring to how Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, and many other outspoken critics of the war were Federally prosecuted by the Bush administration for the statements. Oh wait… THEY WEREN’T!
Comment by Dale in L.A. — February 6, 2006 @ 7:04 pm - February 6, 2006
#26, 27 & 28
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 6, 2006 @ 8:27 pm - February 6, 2006
#26, 27 & 28
(snore)
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 6, 2006 @ 8:27 pm - February 6, 2006
For the record, I condemned the violence over at my blog. You should read it, I’m sure you’d get a kick out of it.
Comment by Andy — February 6, 2006 @ 9:08 pm - February 6, 2006
There are limits to free speech. If the beheaded figure is supposed to be George W. Bush (with the blonde hair I thought it might be the Danish cartoonist) the woman carrying the sign should be detained by the Secret Service and interrogated. If nothing comes of it, at least she’d be harassed for advocating the president’s murder.
The demonstration by warped minds on the far left puzzled me. There must not have been any TV coverage. If there had been GayPatriot surely would have been able to find a photo showing Cindy Sheehan and Jesse Jackson kicking and clawing each other to see who could get in front of the closest TV camera first.
Comment by Jack Allen — February 7, 2006 @ 12:02 am - February 7, 2006
Now, if we could have even one left-wing American organization “speak truth to power” and go on national television condemning the fascist demonstrations by “the religion of peace” the left might have an argument that doesn’t look like bad satire when bitching about how “scary” Christians are.
Comment by VinceTN — February 7, 2006 @ 12:35 am - February 7, 2006
Clever raj:
“Do you know what ‘moral equivalence’ refers to? Moral equivalence is a term used in political debate, usually to characterize in a negative way the humanist claim that ‘there can be no moral or ethical hierarchy decided between two sides in a conflict, nor in the actions or tactics of the two sides.”
The problem is, the human world is nothing if not moral and ethical. Everything depends on how we judge things. So it is quite right to characterize “moral equivalence” as a false equivalence, where the claim is:
1) For at least some x, if x is identical to y, x=y
And the rejection is:
2) It is not the case that x=y.
Hence the charge of moral equivalence is more than a sleazy debate tactic.
Among Calarato’s excellent and accurate charges against those pointing true left, he neglected to mention a fourth: the habit, practiced in bad faith, of re-defining whatever gets in their way out of existence.
Comment by Anthony — February 7, 2006 @ 12:36 am - February 7, 2006
#38 – LOL – Well I didn’t bother even reading the new raj-spew (my reasons given here)… but if he did try to toss around a charge of something being a “sleazy debate tactic”: ain’t that the bank robber calling the police dishonest! Slap my ass!
Comment by Calarato — February 7, 2006 @ 12:54 am - February 7, 2006
Raj is a pervert who believes that cancer survivors are heros and soldiers who sacrifice everything are stupid. Don’t give it the oxygen it needs by recognizing and/or responding to its execreble rants. There are many others here to engage who may be diametrically opposed to what many of us believe but they are IMHO just silly and/or misguided. This reptile lurks with the NAMBLA/Galloway crowd in the deepest parts of the moral cesspit.
I apologise for seeming to be over the top on this but what it believes is pretty much as anti-American as you can get.
Comment by Bobo — February 7, 2006 @ 12:59 am - February 7, 2006
I’ve seen the kid holding the sign that says “Whoever insults a prophet kill him.” Although (and I’m just guessing here on his age) I doubt he can read the darn thing. However, I haven’t seen the picture of a someone, a kid or otherwise, holding a sign that says “Whoever insults Bush is unpatriotic, a terrorist, and a commie!” Could you provide a link for me? Thanks!
Comment by cbi — February 7, 2006 @ 1:39 am - February 7, 2006
#41, cbi, I asked the same thing of Joey at #14 on his comment at # 12. He can’t. Truth talks and … well, I forget what walks. Andy, over at Last debate, condemned “violence” ala the riots in Europe over polticial cartoons insulting Islamics… but that’s a far cry from condemning those on the Left who use similar images to inflame, incite, and rouse hatefilled speech in America ..like the Impeach BusHitler types.
Andy missed the hate mongering evident in the little boy’s sign and the beheading sign are beyond reasonable or tolerable messages in a civil society. If that’s what he meant by violence; great. I think he meant the riots in Denmark, etc.
To my way of thinking, the single greatest lesson we SHOULD have taken away from VietNam isn’t that a war waged without popular support is doomed to failure or that the military leadership should be free from political intervention by civilan leaders in the prosecution of the war… I think it was that the little seeds of dissent, sown for political or partisan gain by opponents of the war, are as dangerous as giving on-air interviews to the dictators, enemies and allies of our enemies. The lesson we SHOULD have learned –and still haven’t learned– is that those little seeds of dissent fester in the ground and bear tainted fruit which infects the strong, determined will of a nation. And a strong, determined will isn’t a negoitable item in war –no matter what the whacked Left think Tommie-cut&run-Jefferson said, wrote, or has been attributed as wisdom from the Founding Fathers.
No, the Left –maybe starting with HowieDean and accelerated by John Kerry and politics of campaigning– undercut American resolve on the WOT once the embers of 9/11 cooled.
I think it wasn’t political dissent –it was hazarding our national will for cheap partisan gain. And that’s the greatest sin of the Left in America.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 7, 2006 @ 9:10 am - February 7, 2006
#42:
“giving on-air interviews to the dictators”
Luckily we have a resectable media who would never do something so irresponsible. Oh wait, yeah.
Comment by ColoradoPatriot — February 7, 2006 @ 9:38 am - February 7, 2006
Who writes yur Headlines..Karl Rove? Radical American Left Firmly In Bed With Islamists
Comment by moderate — February 7, 2006 @ 10:04 am - February 7, 2006
Speaking of items, like this, that barely made the radar screen, here is another one that I just happened to see.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/HRW/d765b4038d44bd4ef1a0c8d2fb6a79fe.htm
Anyone have a take on this?
As much as I deplore those who advocate violence, this is a fringe group. And whether or not I see mainstream Republicans and Democrats condemn these actions as they should, I can’t see anything happening with regard to these nutcases. I am more concerned with the actions that our government takes, such as in the link above. Maybe I am missing something, but that article concerns me much more.
Comment by Pat — February 7, 2006 @ 10:47 am - February 7, 2006
“…the United States on Monday backed an Iranian initiative to deny United Nations consultative status to organizations working to protect the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people.”
I have no idea what that means (‘United Nations consultative status’). Purely from knowing what a profoundly corrupt, hopeless organization the U.N. is, I suspect it means little or nothing. If I’m mistaken, please feel free to explain.
Comment by Calarato — February 7, 2006 @ 12:23 pm - February 7, 2006
#46 Calarato, I’m afraid I don’t quite know what that means either. Part of the reason that I’m concerned is that U.S. is siding with Iran, Cuba, China, and Sudan (as opposed to France and Germany) on what looks like is possible assistance of gays in repressive countries. Granted, the UN is far from squeaky clean, but I would hope the U.S., while still a member of the UN would be on the side of human rights. Anyway, if anybody understands what this all means, I’m all ears.
Comment by Pat — February 7, 2006 @ 1:47 pm - February 7, 2006
#47 I believe that the invitation was for the left and liberals to take this opportunity to unequivocably *un* align themselves with the wackos.
Hey, we *know* we’re talking about wackos. It should be very easy for someone… say, you, for instance… to firmly condemn them. But instead we get joey, who explains how a nicely printed poster calling for killing people is the same thing as calling someone names.
Comment by Synova — February 7, 2006 @ 2:57 pm - February 7, 2006
#46, #48 The article said that an explanation for a change in the US policy (apparently we’d made accepting noises about the GLTB groups previously) wasn’t given.
The US is always on the human rights sh*t list… no doubt we’d be on these particular organization’s list as well because we don’t have gay marriage here (yet) but I think that even when we do it will be something else we do wrong. Other groups seem to place capital punishment above the worst sorts of massacres and genocide, and limits on abortion rights above the worst systematic oppression and mutilation of women. It’s a fact that we *can’t* win, so voting *for* this in order not to appear to side with the bad guys is pointless.
Still… it seems to be just about giving this group access to some part of the UN system and allowing them to air their grievences periodically. So why not? I don’t see how this makes sense as a concession to the Republican “base” as I doubt it would have made the news. And I can’t really think that it was a concession to Iran or Cuba or any of those countries who also voted “no”. That would have been out of character.
Or was this an issue of funding? Is the group asking for a voice at the UN or a bankroll? Where they refused because they are an GLTB group or because of some other reason? I’d have liked to hear about the group itself rather than the need for advocacy, which is a given. That doesn’t mean the group itself should get an automatic “yes.”
It would be interesting to know.
Comment by Synova — February 7, 2006 @ 3:24 pm - February 7, 2006
One of the groups suggested for consultation had previous ties with NAMBLA. The US did not approve of the specific GLBT groups chosen for that reason. They weren’t against the broader proposal but they want different groups involved. It was on the main Yahoo news page.
Comment by Dale in L.A. — February 7, 2006 @ 4:55 pm - February 7, 2006
NAMBLA ties – that rings a bell (i.e. this issue may have come up before).
If that’s really the issue, then I would favor denying the groups recognition, even if it something as lame as U.N. recognition, and even if Iran is on the same page.
What bothers me about Iran is their support for terrorists and their megalomaniacal nuclear ambitions (“wipe Israel off the map” and all that); not their valid criticisms of NAMBLA or child molesting.
Comment by Calarato — February 7, 2006 @ 8:08 pm - February 7, 2006
Keep this charade up … it’s absurd to read what the right-wingers wanted us to be.
What we wanted you to be was honest. Is that so absurd?
Eric in Hollywood
Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — February 8, 2006 @ 12:02 am - February 8, 2006
I’m still learning about american politics but I think may be it’s good to have people with both left and right views in goverment. It’s definitely hard to argee on one thing in a democratic society. But It would be harder to know if your idea is right if you don’t compare it with someone who disagrees. I personally would call the left unpatriotic if Bush foreign affair tactics were representative of the desire of all american.
Comment by Nguyen — February 8, 2006 @ 8:59 am - February 8, 2006
#46 Calarato — February 7, 2006 @ 12:23 pm – February 7, 2006
I have no idea what that means (’United Nations consultative status’).
A quick google search turned up the following faq:
http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/ngo/faq.htm
Regarding the NAMBLA issue as the basis for the Bush administration’s rejection of ILGA’s admission to consultative status, as far as I’m concerned, that is a red herring. ILGA expelled NAMBLA in 1994.
Comment by raj — February 8, 2006 @ 11:10 am - February 8, 2006
The Reuters story was hardly more than a Human Rights Watch press release. The UN grants NGOs power through the UN Economic & Social Council, which exists to carry through the agenda of the Millennium Declaration. It isn’t a document without controversy.
ECOSOC, as it is grimly called, “consults with academics, business sector representatives and more than 2,100 registered non-governmental organizations”, of which the Human Rights Watch is a member. In effect this “consultive” power allows the NGOs–highly partisan activist groups–to speak for their governments. That is what makes the UN so attractive to NGOs: they can bypass the elective process.
Needless to say, nobody elected them to speak for us.
The HRC is whining because the US threw them off their pedestal.
If it really worries you about it just wait for a Democratic president. They’ll be back.
Interested individuals might read these UN links (if you can stand bureaucratese):
http://www.un.org/docs/ecosoc/ecosoc_background.html
http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.htm
http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/ngo/
Note: the quote is from the first link, ECOSOC’s background page.
Comment by Anthony — February 9, 2006 @ 12:59 am - February 9, 2006
“HRC” in the sentence:
“The HRC is whining because the US threw them off their pedestal”
–should be HRW.
Comment by Anthony — February 9, 2006 @ 4:57 am - February 9, 2006
A thread where on-the-rag reveals his disrespect for soldiers (and his general intellectual vacuousness) is here:
http://gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=985#comment-29898
Comment by V the K — February 16, 2006 @ 6:25 pm - February 16, 2006