







I’ve re-thought my decision to take down the post and shall instead rewrite it minus most expletives, but with some expansion.
FIRST: THE GOP
There are some issues where President Bush leaves me completely speechless, and illegal immigration is one of those issues. Over the course of writing this blog I’ve become increasingly intolerant of Bush’s stance on illegal immigration, his typifying of the Minutemen as “vigilantes” and his refusal to put his foot down on illegal immigration, illegal immigrants and our porous border. His recent trip to South America and the manner of his reception in each of these countries sent my BP into 210/190 territory. Please, if you will, see my post here about the issue.
At first I speculated out loud if Bush were catering to Mexico because he had cut some sort of “under-the-table” deal with former President Vicente Fox regarding oil; that is, favoring the US with a continued supply of petroleum at an express discount, etc.
I now dismiss that theory. The truth is not nearly that logical, mysterious or satisfying.
I remain convinced that Bush panders solely for one reason only: votes. He has somehow been disturbingly persuaded that Mexicans will miraculously see the light and begin flooding the GOP with votes in upcoming elections.
I am afraid that, yes, President Bush and/or his handlers are in fact that stupid.
And the facts be damned.
Rove, Bush, whomever, have decided that the GOP needs to pull up its collective skirts sans panties in order to entice — not “Hispanics” but Mexicans. Let’s be blunt: Mexicans. And specific: Mexicans are historically Indian in origin; Aztecs, Mayans, Toltecs, Olmecs, Zapotecs, Mixtecs and Purepecha. They are not “Spanish.” The Spanish are in Spain. Spain conquered Mexico. Mexicans are from Mexico.
SECOND: THE DEMOCRATS
The GOP doesn’t have the pandering landscape all to itself, oh no. Recently, Insight Magazine has explored the issue. To wit:
House Republicans have expressed concern that the Saudi-funded Muslim lobby is making serious inroads among Democrats in Congress.
GOP members of Congress have warned that Saudi-funded groups were receiving preferential treatment under the new Democrat leadership. They said some of these groups have records of defending such terrorist organizations as the Iranian-funded Hamas and Hezbollah.
One of these groups receiving preferential Democrat treatment is CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations. CAIR has, in fact, been given direct and physical access to the American Capitol building:
The biggest concern has been the Democratic access to the Council on American-Islamic Relations. On March 13, the Democrats allowed CAIR to hold a seminar on Islam and the West in a Capitol meeting room despite protests by the GOP.
At one point, the House Republican Conference urged House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to deny the group access. The GOP group called CAIR apologists for terror. The room was booked by Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr., New Jersey Democrat.
“The Capitol Building is open to all Americans and should be available to encourage dialogue on the most relevant domestic and international issues of the day,” Pascrell said. “My services are available to individuals and organizations that will advance productive debate regarding our nation’s policies.”
WASHINGTON – A sharply divided House voted Friday to order President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year, a victory for Democrats in an epic war-powers struggle and Congress’ boldest challenge yet to the administration’s policy.
Two stories to warm the heart of Democrat and Left Wing emotional multiculturalists:
1. German Judge Cites the Koran in Divorce Case:
He beat her and threatened her with murder. But because husband and wife were both from Morocco, a German divorce court judge saw no cause for alarm. It’s a religion thing, she argued.
In January, though, a letter arrived from the judge adjudicating the case. The judge rejected the application for a speedy divorce by referring to a passage in the Koran that some have controversially interpreted to mean that a husband can beat his wife. It’s a supposed right which is the subject of intense debate among Muslim scholars and clerics alike.”The exercise of the right to castigate does not fulfill the hardship criteria as defined by Paragraph 1565 (of German federal law),” the daily Frankfurter Rundschau quoted the judge’s letter as saying. It must be taken into account, the judge argued, that both man and wife have Moroccan backgrounds.
The judge makes an excellent point. However, the West manages to interfere:
But there remains quite a bit of work to do. “In my work educating sexist and short-sighted Muslim men,” asked Michaela Sulaika Kaiser of the Network for Muslim Women, “do I now have to convince German courts that women are also people on the same level with men and that they, like any other human, have the right to be protected from physical and psychological violence?”
“Sexist and shortsighted Muslim men”? Judgmental! “Women on the same level with men”? Judgmental! “Like any other human”? Judgmental! — and all through the eyes of the typically-jaundiced Western viewer.
2. Polygamy From Africa:
A husband and wife, Muslims from Ghana and Guinea, settled in New York City. One day the wife got home to find another woman, introduced as the husband’s other wife, in the living room.
Devastated, Ms. D., a Guinean immigrant who insisted that her last name be withheld, said she protested: “I can’t live with the woman in my house — we have only two bedrooms.” Her husband cited Islamic precepts allowing a man to have up to four wives, and told her to get used to it. And she tried to obey.
A New York City woman who has been horribly Westernized comments intolerantly:
The woman is in effect the slave of the man,” said a stylish Guinean businesswoman in her 40s who, like many women interviewed in Harlem and the Bronx, spoke on the condition of anonymity. “If you protest, your husband will hit you, and if you call the police, he’s going to divorce you, and the whole community will scorn you.”
Two heartwarming stories of acceptance, understanding and, more than anything, examples of tolerance, tolerance, tolerance!
All cultures are the same (save perhaps Western Culture which is clearly at the bottom of, and rightly so, any civilization on this planet), the Left and Democrats indicate. Therefore, using this standard, the German judge made the correct decision, did she not? The wife should simply shut her mouth and submit to her husband and her fate.
And regards the Ghanan wife in New York City, she likewise should simply shut her mouth and submit to her husband and her fate.
After all, Islam is a religion engendering vastly different cultures than our own in the West and, as such, needs to be accepted and tolerated by those of us in our various Western countries.
Hey, smile! As they say: “in for a penny, in for a pound!” It could be worse: you could be an infidel!
Cheer up!
BZ