National Review, having parted with John Derbyshire for advising his children to adopt black friends as shields against the racism charge, and having parted with Robert Weissberg for his rigorous defense of the right to call black people "schvartz," has now turned over its pages to David Yerushalmi, a guy who writes things like this:
Islam was born in violence; it will die that way. Any wish to the contrary is sheer Pollyannaism. The same way the post World War II German youth were taught by their German teachers and political leaders to despise the fascism of their fathers, with strict laws extant still today restricting even speech that casts doubt on the Holocaust, so too must the Muslim youth be taught from the cradle to reject the religion of their forebears.
Who heads an organization which argues for measures like this:
- It shall be a felony punishable by 20 years in prison to knowingly act in furtherance of, or to support the, adherence to Islam.-The Congress of the United States of America shall declare the US at war with the Muslim Nation or Umma.-The President of the United States of America shall immediately declare that all non-US citizen Muslims are Alien Enemies under Chapter 3 of Title 50 of the US Code and shall be subject to immediate deportation.-No Muslim shall be granted an entry visa into the United States of America.
And whose thoughts on democracy amount to this:
There is a reason the founding fathers did not give women or black slaves the right to vote. You might not agree or like the idea but this country's founders, otherwise held in the highest esteem for their understanding of human nature and its affect on political society, certainly took it seriously. Why is that? Were they so flawed in their political reckonings that they manhandled the most important aspect of a free society - the vote? If the vote counts for so much in a free and liberal democracy as we 'know' it today, why did they limit the vote so dramatically.
In National Review's defense, they brought the guy in to argue in favor of anti-Sharia laws. I imagine it's difficult to find a person to do such work who isn't a bigot. More telling is the fact Yerushalmi must stand aghast at all who would call him by his name:
To even suggest, as Mr. Schmitz does, that those of us confronting the reality of transnationalism and Islamism are harboring some darker motives is, to put it mildly, patently offensive.
This is how conservatives do political correctness: A guy who believes that merely being a Muslim should garner a multiple-decade stay in our prison system is somehow offended at being called out for bigotry.
/home-article-curation-405x234.jpg?mnaxjl)
Join the Discussion
After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register. blog comments powered by Disqus