Monday, September 08, 2008
Frontpage Magazine covers the memorial debacle
FrontPage managing editor Jamie Glazov interviews Alec Rawls in this week's FrontPage Interview.
Rawls takes the opportunity to lay out the basic facts for a new set of readers:
1. That the giant crescent (originally called the Crescent of Embrace) points to Mecca.Punch line:
2. That this giant Mecca oriented crescent is STILL THERE in the Circle of Embrace redesign (explicitly described as a broken circle, just as the Crescent of Embrace was).
It’s like gate security catching a terrorist with a bomb and telling him to go back outside and see if he can hide it better the second time. All [architect Paul Murdoch] did was add some completely irrelevant disguise.Please give FrontPage a visit, and if you haven't bookmarked them already, the site is well worth your time.
Frontpage founder David Horowitz has been exposing the far left's takeover of the Democrat mainstream since the 1980's, and since 2001 has extended his Discover the Networks approach to our Islamofascist enemies. If you are drawn to the sound of the guns, FrontPage is on the frontlines of both the culture-war and terror-war battles for accurate information.
You might think; "Wait a minute. How do you know The Proud One isn't a leftist pretending to be conservative when he calls you a pinko and himself a Christian?"
Well, because he has a history. He first called me a pinko commie etcetera in a comment on the previous post, where he saw the Obama logo and the Democratic Party logo and thought I was pitching for the Democrats.
Can anyone really be dense enough not to notice that I was pointing out the Islamic symbol shapes in Obama's logo? That is NOT pro-Obama.
Apparently he also missed my Photoshopping of the Democratic Party logo.
On the upside, all this foolishness on Proud Minuteman's part makes fodder for a very interesting experiment. I have had a number of comment thread exchanges with leftists where I press them to check the facts and show that they care about the truth, instead of just saying whatever they can to maintain their established position. Every time, no matter how reasonably they present themselves, they always prove that, when the facts do not conform to their presumptions, they will always choose their presumptions over the facts.
Everyone has SOME tendency to do this, but I have often suggested that the difference between leftists and conservatives is that, when push comes to shove, conservatives will side with reason and evidence (the truth), while leftists are partisan to the marrow of their bones, and ultimately have no interest in truth, only power. Divorced from truth in this way, this lust for power for its own sake is the most naked evil, no matter how much leftists may dress it up as concern for the oppressed, the environment, or whatever. In the case of environmentalism, the left eagerly embraces every global warming lie precisely because it serves their ambition for totalitarian control.
Proud Minute Man is my test in the other direction. It seems he actually is a conservative. Thus according to my theory, if I press him to look at the facts, he will not ultimately refuse, but will be capable of 1) looking again at the Obama and Democratic Party logos and seeing that these are not left wing propaganda (sheesh), and 2) (the big one) he will be willing to check the Mecca-orientation of the giant crescent and report back that indeed the crescent DOES point to Mecca.
I'm counting on you Proud Minute Man. Please show us whether you have any integrity. I'm rooting for you!
Here are a couple previous data points from the left: Victor Krause (Mr. Negative IQ), and Chen Zhen.
No single data point makes or breaks a theory, but this is more than just a social science experiment. When I challenged Mr. Negative and CZ to show me they had the integrity to honestly check and report a fact, I was hoping that they would be able to do it, even though it would have been a strike against my theory.
Similarly with the Proud one here. He's already showed himself to be pretty damned thick, but he hasn't shown himself to be dishonest, and I hope for his own sake that he can show himself here to be an honest man, independent of my theoretical interest in his example.
He seems to disagree with your view on the memorial controversy. Fine. But this talk about shamless acts, these colors don't run, tarnishing the memory etc, those are impressive-sounding words, but the meaning is muddled and indistinct. If he really had a strong opinion on the memorial controversy, why doesn't he talk about specifics? Because he's acting, playing a role (and doing it pretty well). I don't think that he cares about the specifics of the memorial in the slightest.