Michael Berry is un-American

I just discussed the profound double standards in the mainstream media here.  Here’s another one: right wing radio host Michael Berry says that he hopes someone blows up a mosque should one be constructed.  Remember when the Revolution Muslim clowns posted on some obscure internet forum saying that the producers of South Park might end up being killed?  These radical Muslims didn’t say they would kill anyone, or even that they hope for that (although you can and should read between the lines).

Yet, now we have someone who has upped the ante and said that he hopes a mosque is blown up.  Imagine the ruckus if a Muslim American leader said that he hopes a church or synagogue should be blown up.  The story would go viral, and the mainstream media would whip up a storm of crazy.  Meanwhile, Michael Berry says that he hopes a mosque should be blown up, and the story barely gets any coverage whatsoever.  It certainly doesn’t evoke a sense of national panic as a similar case would should Revolution Muslim publish a statement saying “we hope such-and-such Jewish synagogue is blown up.”

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJDizmNgrd0 300 250]

When Berry asks “what is your real name”, by this he means to say that only people with white names are real Americans.  Sorry to say, buddy, but our president is named Barack Hussein Obama.  Don’t like that?  Then you can leave this country.  If you don’t believe in our pluralistic society, then you can go to the Israeli Occupied Territories, the last place on earth where racial apartheid is in place.  But here in the U.S., we believe your name can be Barack Hussein Obama, Sanjay Gupta, or Muhammad Ali…and such people are just as American as Bob, Pete, and Michael.

As for his tribalistic response dividing the world into “us vs. them”, this is the same type of mentality exemplified by the jihadists.  What do Muslim Americans–many of whom were born and raised in the United States–have to do with what happens in Saudi Arabia?  Are all Muslims the Borg?  Are they somehow one sentient being?  If some Muslims in Saudi Arabia do something then that somehow falls on the shoulders of all Muslim Americans?  If some Muslims in Saudi Arabia prevent churches in Saudi Arabia, then Muslim Americans should pay for that and not be allowed to build mosques in America?  What is ironic is that this typifies the tu quoque fallacy that Robert Spencer and the rest of the Islamophobic world invokes when questioned about their two-faced hypocrisy.

Glenn Greenwald responded to this “tribalistic response” by pointing out that we wouldn’t fair so well in such an “us vs. them” comparison when it is considered that we are invading at least five Muslim countries, occupying two, launching illegal attacks against others, killing thousands of Muslim civilians, aiding the state of Israel in the enforcement of the most inhumane blockade today, etc. etc. etc.  The list goes on and on.  If you want the Official List and Score Chart, go ask Usama bin Ladin for it, because he likes tallying up the rights and wrongs of Team Muslim vs. Team Christian, which is the “us vs. them” mentality that is shared by Islamophobes and radical Muslims alike.

Berry’s guest, Tony, is wrong about one thing: Tony is not just as American as Berry.  Tony is way more American.  This country was founded upon the freedom of religion, which includes the right to build mosques.  Michael Berry is quite simply un-American if he can’t understand that.

The part I find most interesting about this is how loons always come up with justifications to hide their blatant Islamophobia.  Here, they argue that the woman is being “inflexible” with regard to her no-pork diet.  Obviously, this is a bunch of baloney, since (as the ACLU rightfully points out) I doubt they would have denied fosterhood to strict vegetarians.  But somehow when you throw in Islam and Muslims into the mix, suddenly these sorts of justifications make sense.  It has nothing to do with pork: it has to do with Islamophobia, plain and simple.  Robert Spencer and Pam Geller will obviously come to the swift defense of bigotry here, and it really shows how they are on the wrong side of history.  They will have egg (and ham) on their faces, just as those people who discriminated against blacks in the sixties are now scorned.

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ode_G72nKUQ 300 250]

Cenk, posing as a Bollywood hero

Cenk Uygur, the host of The Young Turks, rips this closet Islamophobe a new one.  I especially like how he made sure to mention George Bush’s intention behind invading Iraq (the Biblical prophecy of Gag and Magog), which resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.  (But of course those civilians don’t count, since they are brown Moozlems.)

Cenk could have sealed that argument by mentioning the Christian version of Al-Qaeda, none other than the fundamentalist Evangelical Blackwater group, which has killed scores of civilians.  And he could also have mentioned the thousands of Christians who believe in the Joel’s Army theology and the general surge of Christian fanaticism in the U.S. military.

One other point: the conservative loon mentioned the idea that 90% of mosques in America are owned and operated by Saudi Arabia.  This is a blatant lie commonly peddled by Islamophobes.  “But you can google it!”  Believe it or not: but not everything on the interwebs is true.  *gasp*  In fact, the vast majority of mosques in America run on local donations.

Joy "7 million Muslims in the World?" Tiz

Then in that same breath she says that they are funded by the Muslim Brotherhood, when in fact the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood runs contrary to that of the “Wahhabi” (Salafi) strain of Islam followed in Saudi Arabia.

But anyways, I must say that Cenk did a great job (and I give him a 10 out of 10).  Here is the debate:

Cenk vs Conservative [Loon] on Muslims in the Military

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFsV1tHEvzA 300 250]

The Young Turks

Many of us here at LoonWatch.com are fans of The Young Turks, so we decided to post some of their videos on the Ft. Hood Shooting along with some commentary:

Crazy Conservative Bloggers on Fort Hood

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEzyPpCKU8c 300 250]

My comments: There were two Muslim American soldiers who shot their fellow soldiers, compared to tens of thousands of Muslim Americans who serve in the military, and millions of Muslim Americans who live in the country.  But surely two of them define them all, right?

Fox “News” Un-American Take on the Fort Hood Shooter

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8l5kGWwHlbk 300 250]

My comments: At about four minutes into the video, the Fox “News” lady host argues that “political correctness” is the problem: the U.S. military knew about his radical postings online and didn’t do anything about it because they wanted to be PC about it.  Of course conservatives love to be politically incorrect–or rather, pathetically incorrect–and this is one of their favorite talking points.  They use the euphemism of “I’m going to be politically incorrect” instead of just saying “I’m going to be bigoted.”  Anyways, the entire theory is bogus because his military command already said that they didn’t know about his radical postings online.

Also, at the very end of the video, Cenk mentions the most important point: so many right wingers unfortunately think that they are “allowing” Muslims to be Americans.  We’ve had a few similar comments on LW, where a few posters would say something along the lines of “if Muslims want to be treated as Americans…”, not knowing that Muslims in this country are already Americans!  You didn’t “gift” that Americanness to them, and they are just as American as you are.  And your entire attitude of thinking that you get to decide who is and who is not a real American is the most un-American of all.

America was a country founded upon immigration, a melting pot by definition.  Unless you’re Native American, your ancestors were also immigrants to this country, and what difference does it make that they were from a European country as opposed to an Asian or African one?  Why is it that a third generation Arab American is treated as being a foreigner/immigrant, whereas an immigrant who just moved from Italy to the United States some three years ago is considered more American?  It’s absurd.  Get this through your thick skulls: you will treat every single American as a fellow American regardless of his race, religion, or ethnicity.  And if you don’t believe that, then you should be treated as being un-American.

Should Ft. Hood Shooter Been Racially Profiled?

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0anLUrcgMY 300 250]

My comments:  Cenk, I think you missed the point here.  There was absolutely no need for racial or religious profiling here at all.  The fact is that if anyone had said the things Major Nidal Hasan had said–be it his radical postings online or his rantings in person–then that’s a red flag no matter what race or religion he is.  So that’s not racial or religious profiling if you pull a guy aside for saying those things.

Let me clarify: if there is a guy going through airport security and he says something like “I love Al-Qaeda,” then you can and should pull him aside for saying that.  This is regardless of his race or religion.  On the other hand, if you simply pull aside those who are of a certain race or religion, then that’s racial profiling.  Nobody on earth would have a problem with the former, but the latter is racist and 100% un-American.

The thing that is being missed here, with the Ft. Hood Shooting, is that there was no reason to racially profile this guy!  He could have been caught and stopped if people had just paid attention to the numerous red flags.  Major Hasan was saying crazy things, and doing crazy things (giving absurd and out of place presentations at work)…It was just a matter of picking up on those numerous cues and then looking into that.

If you start racially or religiously profiling people, then you alienate the same community within which the problem exists.  It’s counter-productive.  Instead of wasting time trying to screen tens of thousands of Muslim Americans, why not just investigate those people that are saying and doing things that are questionable?  And that’s the American thing to do: judge people based on their words and actions, not their race, ethnicity, nationality, or religion.  It’s about judging people for the content of their character.

Crazy Conservatives on Ft. Hood

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRKpzHsN1-w 300 250]

My comments: Of course, any sane person knows that it’s a lie that Muslims believe they must “kill all infidels.”  Pious Muslim Americans believe that they must obey the U.S. laws, and are thus not a threat.

The Islamophobe says “this is not Islamophobia, it’s Islamo-realism.”  That’s exactly what bigoted people say.  Cenk of TYT interviewed a racist guy earlier on his show, and that guy would call himself a “racial realist” instead of “racist.”

Anyways, the key point that Cenk raises is at 4:00 when he talks about how truly un-American these guys are, and how they really and truly don’t understand the ethics and purpose of this country.

UPDATE:

Pat Roberson: Islam is Not a Religion

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgL8FDUtkWQ 300 250]

My comments:  A bit over the top?  I don’t know.  But yes, I do agree that these right wingers shouldn’t throw stones when they live in glass houses.

Alright, that’s it for now.  Thanks a lot, TYT Nation!  Keep up the good work.

Michael Savage

Michael Savage’s flagship station in California has decided to drop him. Savage, you may recall, is the genocidal radio personality who has amongst other things called for the “nuking of Muslim countries,” the “killing of millions of Muslims,” and more. He is so over the top you wonder if people take him seriously, but judging from the size of his listeners it seems that enough do for him to be considered a dangerous demagogue.

Zaid Jilani for Think Progress reports,

Earlier today, the conservative blog Patriot Axom noted that far-right radio host Michael Savage has been taken “off the air” from his San Francisco-based flagship station, Talk 910 KNEW. Now, a representative from the station has issued a statement explaining why it will no longer air Savage’s show:

I’m going to answer the very first question many of you have.

“Why did you take Michael Savage off the air?”

Here’s your no-spin direct answer; we have decided to go in a different philosophical and ideological direction, featuring more contemporary content and more local information. The Savage Nation does not fit into that vision.

910 KNEW’s decision is the latest blow to Savage’s efforts to spread hate. Last winter, following a campaign by the Council On American-Islamic Relations and Brave New Films, numerous advertisers ended their relationship with Savage, including Geico, Union Bank of California, and ITT Technical Institute. Savage has in the past advocated killing 100 million Muslims, compared President Jimmy Carter to Hitler, and has said that the U.S. Senate is “more histrionic than ever” because of the addition of female senators.

Cenk Uygur of Young Turks has some commentary that hits the nail on the head:

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pnEtbecHmU&feature=channel_page 300 250]

Reeling from this fresh blow from his flagship station dropping him, Savage’s company was also forced the very next day to apologize to Brave New Films as part of a settlement in a lawsuit brought by Savage,

Yesterday’s news that Michael Savage was dropped in his hometown market, by KNEW, is followed today by news that he and his company, Original Talk Radio Network (ORTN) have reached a settlement in a lawsuit filed by Brave New Films (BNF).

Last year BNF produced a short film, “Michael Savage Hates Muslims,” which was posted on YouTube, consisting mostly of audio clips of Savage ranting against Muslims on his syndicated radio show. ORTN subsequently demanded that YouTube remove the clip from its site; as a result, YouTube took down all of BNF’s online content, and BNF filed suit for damages and free speech rights.

BNF was represented pro bono by Bingham McCutchen LLP and Stanford Center for Internet and Society’s “Fair Use Project,” which was founded in 2006 to provide legal support to a range of projects designed to clarify, and extend, the boundaries of “fair use” in order to enhance creative freedom.

On Aug. 21, Savage and OTRN settled, which included the following written apology:

OTRN acknowledges that it made a mistake by asking YouTube to remove Brave New Films’ video “Michael Savage Hates Muslims” from the YouTube site. Upon further examination, it is clear that video should not have been included in OTRN’s September 29, 2009 takedown notice. OTRN apologizes for this error.

Savage, of course, has taken numerous anti-Muslim stances over the years, many of which can be heard in the film in question:

It looks like the loons are taking some big hits, but it is going to take a lot more to make people realize that individuals such as Michael Savage are so radioactive that you don’t want to be associated with them.