I like watching Glenn Beck. His focus on analysis makes the show more stimulating than typical evening news programs. I also like his willingness to focus on history and the totalitarian ideologies of the past century and how they relate to us today. That said, Beck completely blew it last night and lost quite a bit of credibility in my book. Watch the clip below and see what I mean.
Expand Video Embed Embed this video on your site
In the clip, Beck says
Also, you have far right Dutch M.P. Geert Wilders. Last year, he was banned from the U.K. They said his presence could threaten community a harmony and therefore public safety. Last week, not only was he allowed into England, he was at the House of Lords, where he screened a film on the Quran.
The right and left are growing again in Europe. The left — listen carefully — the left in Europe is communism. The right is fascism, in Europe.
Clearly, Beck equates Geert Wilders and his Freedom Party with fascism, which is too absurd a claim to even warrant disproving. What is even more significant, in my view, is the tone with which he lamented Wilders’ being allowed in Britain to screen his documentary in the House of Lords. This is the same Glenn Beck who, just one year ago, had Wilders on his program to discuss infringements on free speech in Europe and to condemn the UK for banning him from screening the very same documentary in the very same chamber. The hypocrisy doesn’t seem to add up.
If something like this came from Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, it wouldn’t be a big deal. But when it comes from a commentator who is supposed to be fighting in our corner, it’s unacceptable.
If you detest Glenn Beck’s sorry mischaracterization of this courageous, forthright politician and his objection to Wilders’ appearance at the House of Lords, contact him here and let him know how you feel. We have enough media personalities spreading lies and criticizing our freedoms without typically conservative commentators doing the same.
Read more at Atlas Shrugs.
The government of Pakistan has sentenced a Christian couple to 25 years in prison for 'blasphemy', offering us a glimpse of what life would be like under Sharia Law. Pakistan and other Muslim countries have attempted to enact this tenet of Sharia Law over the entire world through the United Nations. Pakistan first introduced a resolution entitled “Combating the Defamation of Religion” aimed at condemning criticism of Islam worldwide in 1999, and a version of this has been passed by the United Nations as a 'nonbinding resolution' in some form every year since then. For example Resolution 62/145 in 2007 which “notes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of 11 September 2001.”
Muslims believe that their law should expand until it is enforced upon the entire world, as declared in the Koran, for example in Surah 9: 29-30:
009.029
Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
009.030
And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!
Although the UN resolutions condemning criticism of Islam are 'non-binding', socialist governments in Europe have taken up the cause and enacted laws in line with the spirit of the resolution, for example placing Dutch maverick politician Geert Wilders on trial for 'insulting muslims in a documentary entitled 'Fitna.' The Dutch court decided that the traditional western principle of free speech was no defense, declaring that “The court considers [Wilders' film] so insulting for Muslims that it is in the public interest to prosecute Wilders," on the basis that Wilders' statements were "one-sided generalizations” This may have backfired on the socialist government, with Wilders winning local elections and poised to make an electoral breakthrough in the upcoming Dutch Parliamentary elections.
The European socialist media and governments however have no problem with “one-sided generalizations” when they come from far-left organizations such as the wealthy fundraising organization 'Southern Poverty Law Center', for example reprinting a fearmongering screed attempting to link Glenn Beck and Fox News to a handful of threats and violent outbursts by individuals suffering from mental illness. This canard is repeated Obama's head of 'Homeland Security', Janet Napolitano, who has declared that 'Tea Party participants' and other 'right-wingers' constitute a greater threat to homeland security than Islamic terrorists.
One would think that an ideology in which is it 'mainstream' thought to throw people in jail for 25 years for touching a book would constitute a greater threat to the western way of life than groups which espouse the 'live and let live' principles America was founded on. Yet, the socialists and Islamists find common cause in using force to punish those viewed as heretics, such as a recent incident in which a childish prank of littering was turned into a felony because it occurred on the lawn of a shrine to 'diversity'.
According to Asia News:
A court in Kasur district, Punjab, convicted a Christian couple, Munir Masih and Ruqqiya Bibi, to 25 years in prison. According to the Center for Legal Aid Assistance and Settlement (CLAAS), judge Ajmal Hussein convicted the couple for touching the Qur‘an without washing their hands.
Munir Masih and Ruqqiya Bibi were released on bail last January, but were re-arrested after the judge ruled against them. The husband was locked up in Kasur’s district prison; the wife was sent to the women’s prison in Multan. Both have started serving 25 years behind bars.
CLAAS, an association that fights for the rights of the poor and marginalized, said that the couple was accused of “contaminating” the Qur‘an when they touched it “without washing their hands”.
The incident, which dates back to December 2008, unleashed the fury of Muslim extremists who put pressure on police. Unconfirmed reports suggest that extremists paid off police agents to discover “new evidence” to justify the sentence.
At the end of the police investigation, husband and wife were charged with blasphemy.
The blasphemy law is the harshest tool for religious repression available in Pakistan. It was adopted in 1986 by then dictator Zia ul-Haq to protect Islam and its prophet, Muhammad, from attacks and insults.
In fact, it is actually comprised of sections 295-B and 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code, which respectively punish with life in prison anyone who defiles, damages or desecrates a copy of the Holy Qur‘an, and imposes the death penalty on anyone who defiles the name of the Prophet Muhammad.
An editorial in the student newspaper of Tufts University is glowing with praise of diversity. We are told Tufts "prides itself on its acceptance and encouragement of diversity" and that "nearly a quarter of the class of 2013" identify as "students of color." Tufts has an "Office of Institutional Diversity" and recently hosted a symposium over the weekend that "afforded further opportunity for Tufts to highlight and promote dialogue around racial and ethnic diversity."
The Civil Rights Movement has come full circle. In the 1960s, progressive liberals argued that Americans should embrace the ideal of colorblindness and equal opportunity for all races. In his 2008 election campaign, Barack Obama ran on his dream of a "post-racial" America where skin color would gradually become irrelevant. Meanwhile, the bean counters on America's college campuses have never been more obsessed with race. Racial considerations seem to play an important role in almost everything they do.
No one has ever adequately explained why "racial diversity" is such an important goal. The argument rests on the racist premise that individuals are representatives of distinct races with definable characteristics. A white female cannot bring a certain perspective to a university because of her genetic makeup. Therefore, the Office of Admissions must recruit Hispanic females and a diverse faculty and student body to ensure that certain ideas are represented on campus.
"Diversity" runs against the idea that we should judge others as individuals on the basis on merit. A colorblind society cannot be realized when university administrators are constantly discriminating on the basis of race.
Disney Pixar’s latest film, Alice in Wonderland, is certainly a graphic feat. The 3D technology, actors moving seamlessly through wonderfully animated environments, imaginative creatures, and a half-animated, half-human Johnny Depp contribute to a movie that will awe audiences visually. Beyond that, however, the movie is a bit of a mixed bag.
In terms of the updated characters, plot, and themes, this version of Alice in Wonderland has become a thoroughly "modern" affair. Gone are many of the peculiar features that made the original novel and film great. They have been replaced by ideologies characterized by rootlessness and materialism. To begin with, consider a number of the character alterations.
The film’s lead actress, Australian Mia Wasikowska, makes for a pretty, strong-willed, and eccentric Alice. Though she handles her role well, I was not fully satisfied with the script's characterization of Alice. Alice is depicted as being intelligent, independent, and quirky early on in the movie, which contrasts to the highly creative but ditzy and ultimately dependent Alice from the '51 film. While the new Alice likely has more appeal to the feminists in the audience, many will miss the traditional depiction.
Other characters undergo more drastic changes. The Mad Hatter, played by Depp, becomes a more prominent figure in this film, while the Cheshire Cat, by far the most memorable character after Alice in the old film, sadly plays only a forgettable bit part. The Queen of Hearts transforms from a hulking, commanding, grossly belligerent figure to a short, conniving, bluntly sinister one. The White Rabbit’s role is cool while it lasts, but he isn’t there much, while the monocle-wearing caterpillar takes on the role of adviser for Alice and even gets his own death scene.
Completely new characters are even added in this film. The most important is the White Queen, who takes on the role of "good queen" opposed to the evil Queen of Hearts. Anne Hathaway’s takes up the role and proves the most intriguing character in the film. Like her portrayal in Sweeny Todd, Hathaway is made to look ghostly pale, but she also wears a black lipstick which creates an appearance that is angelically pure and mysteriously seductive.
Coming into this movie, I expected a remake of the Alice in Wonderland classic with updated visuals and a Tim Burton twist, but I quickly saw that this movie is supposed to be more of a sequel. Unfortunately, this movie cannot be said to assume the full sense of that word. Not only are new characters added and defining ones significantly altered, this rendition also loses much of the mystery and flair that made the original Alice great.
Wonderland is supposed to be a place that is radically opposed to the realm of everyday life. It was meant to be the literal result of Alice’s wish that the world would turn to “nonsense" and that "nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?”
The original Wonderland was a supra-moral world to the point of absurdity, but this version unfortunately makes it out to be a run-of-the-mill Good vs. Evil one. Further,
the characters in the original were interesting because they were the opposite of their prototypes in real life. For example, the original Queen of Hearts was interesting because she was needlessly loud, arbitrary, idiotic, and uncouth - characteristics unbecoming of a ruler, to say the least. In contrast, the updated Queen has many all-too-real characteristics of ruler, which makes her an utterly believable, but boring, evil, female version of Napoleon.
Other characters were meant to be totally arbitrary as well, expressing the nonsensicality and strangeness of the world they live in. Unfortunately, Disney churns out characters that audiences can relate to and cheer for, as the Mad Hatter goes from an insane man who has the unshakable desire to have Alice as his guest for tea to a person reasonably trying to save the world from evil. The White Rabbit is meant to have one role, to be late and run away, but he helps Alice in this film. Again, everyone seems perfectly content with the Queen’s role in 1951’s version, but in this one her power hangs on threads.
[Minor Spoilers ahead]
This sequel’s disloyalty to the old plot and characterizations is disappointing, and some of the themes and messages it passes off are as well. In the original Alice in Wonderland, Alice learns an important lesson: that the world is alright as it is. In this film, however, she learns nothing. While I was expecting Alice to gain maturity from her adventure and want to settle down in the real world, she instead remains discontent with the more than satisfactory life laid out for her. The film has a very "Americanized" ending in the bad sense of the term, suggesting that Alice need travel the whole world before settling down into a rooted life. It is also an absurdly feminist ending as well, as it expressly promotes the idea that women need find "Mr. Right" as opposed to finding someone realistic and likeable by having Alice turn down a somewhat flawed but very good mate. This idea has had a destructive effect on marriage.
Coupled with the anti-marriage themes in the plot are those of mercantilism and globalism. Alice is going not just going on a new adventure at the film's close, she is embarking on a mercantile venture. This is in lieu of the opportunity she had to marry a Lord, which would have meant a rooted and stable life for the young Alice. Even hints at globalism work their way into the film, as Alice's business prospects will take her to China of all places. A cosmopolitan and materialistic lifestyle, in conformity with feminist ideals, is promoted here, as opposed to one characterized by rootedness and family life.
Despite its flaws, Alice in Wonderland, is a worthwhile and at times very good movie. While some of the changes are disappointing, it’s still worth a watch.
An interesting confrontation recently took place a couple of days prior to Dutch local elections. All the candidates of the leading political parties of the Netherlands met on national television for one last debate before voters headed to the polls. Out of the seven or so political leaders on stage two were chosen to go head to head on a question that a decade ago could not even have been raised but has since come to dominate Dutch political discourse: Is Islam a threat to Dutch society?
The two men chosen for this debate truly represented polar opposites of Dutch society. On one side was Wouter Bos, former vice-premier and leader of social-democratic Party of Labor, a party that has been in power in some form of coalition or another for the majority of years since 1945. The party is credited with helping rebuild the Netherlands after the war and reshaping it into all of what the post-war Netherlands has come to represent: social liberalism, the welfare state, tolerance, and of course, multiculturalism. This is the establishment.
On the other side was Geert Wilders, a man currently under indictment by the Dutch government. A man who lives under twenty-four hour protection due to death threats and is routinely vilified by politicians and major press as a "fascist." A man who until recently was banned from even entering the United Kingdom. In other words, the anti-establishment.
Wouter Bos predictably answered that Islam poses no threat to Dutch society; there is room enough for everyone in the Netherlands. Wilders retorted that Islam is indeed a threat, arguing that with it have come extremism, criminality, and lack of respect for western values. He called for a moratorium on immigration and for foreign criminals to be punished with lengthy prison sentences followed by deportation. "Enough is enough!" exclaimed Wilders to a mixture of cheers and boos.
The majority of the rest of the debate featured the other Dutch politicians bashing Wilders. From the political left to the right Wilders was called and "extremist" and "dangerous." There was a call from one party to exclude Wilders from the political process. Then, at the end of the debate the moderators made known the result of a poll asking 'Who won the debate?' There was hushed silence followed by loud shock when it was announced that Wilders was voted overwhelmingly the winner. It seemed the Dutch politicians and Dutch people were of two completely different mindsets.
The results of the elections two days later are well known. Wilders’ party, the Party for Freedom, performed very well, becoming the largest party in Almere and the second biggest party in the capital of The Hague. The media immediately proclaimed it a victory for the "far-right." The international media in particular reported the results with a sense of alarm, asking how such an "extremist" as Geert Wilders could possibly have widespread support in such a tolerant country as the Netherlands?
It is a valid question. Of course, Geert Wilders is really neither "far-right" nor an "extremist", but media regularly portray him that way and I would wager the majority of Dutch public believe it. So why do so many support him?
It is because they are reacting to extreme conditions. By extreme conditions one may be inclined to think I mean the murder of Theo van Gogh in broad daylight for being critical of Islam, the Hofstad terrorist network, or the fact that a Dutch politician is forced to live under constant security for fear of his life. That is all true, but what I really mean are the fear and injustices many Dutch must face on a daily basis.
Dutch women are harassed and called whores when walking through Muslim neighborhoods. Dutch who have contributed through high taxes their whole lives to social services are put last in line behind immigrants. Dutch who are attacked by gangs of immigrant youth for just being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Dutch who must fear their house being broken into or car stolen because criminals are given a slap on the wrist and released back on the streets. I could go on and on. This is what creates true terror for many Dutch citizens.
Naturally, critics would be quick to point out that not all Dutch suffer these injustices. This is true. The Dutch working and middle class suffer them but those who drive to work, live in rich neighborhoods, and only travel in exclusive circles have little to fear. They don’t live near asylum centers, ride the tram through sketchy areas late at night, or attend “inclusive” schools. They live in a different world. Therefore it is little wonder that this elite class which comprises the Dutch political establishment is amazed and dumbfounded by the popular appeal of Wilders.
The political establishment may not understand the problems of ordinary Dutch but they have come to realize that Dutch voters want to hear about immigration and law and order. As a result, many parties such as the Christian Democrats have recently come to adopt Wilders-style slogans about crime and immigration. Even the social-democrat Wouter Bos spoke during the debate about the need to crack down on crime and the problem of criminality among foreigners. Unfortunately for them, however, the Dutch are not as stupid as they think and easily recognize insincerity. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that if the Christian Democrats and Party of Labor really wanted to do something about crime and immigration they'd have done it during their past four years in the ruling coalition government.
Therefore the people turn to Wilders because they’ve had enough. Enough of the unresponsive political establishment. Enough of living in fear. Enough of paying for social parasites. Enough of living as foreigners in their own country. That is why when Wilders yells “enough is enough!” a million Dutch voices join him.
Barack Obama, in a secretive meeting, has asked his staff to ready for an attempt to push an illegal alien amnesty through Congress before voters start paying attention. The initiative will be led in the Senate by radical left-wing New York Senator Charles Schumer and liberal Republican Lindsay Graham. Due to increased voter scrutiny, they are having trouble finding Republicans besides Graham willing to go along with the scheme. Even liberal Republican John McCain who co-sponsored the last attempt at amnesty, facing voter anger and a primary election challenge from J.D. Hayworth, has opted not to come on board publicly this time.
Although the LA Times claims there are only 10.8 million illegal aliens, many analysts estimate the total number of illegal aliens in the United States to be much more, including a report prepared by top financial analysts in 2005 which estimated the population at 20 million and growing, including an aunt of Barack Obama. An cost estimate prepared before the similar amnesty proposed in 2007 placed the price tag at around $2.6 trillion, due primarily to increased eligibility for government welfare and entitlement programs. This estimate was prepared using the official government figures of 10-12 million illegal aliens, so the cost could be twice as high ($5.2 trillion) if, as many estimate, the number of illegal aliens is twice as high as the government estimate.
'Coincidentally', turning 10-20 million illegal aliens into 10-20 million undereducated, impoverished welfare dependent citizens would also add 10-20 million new voters to the planned 'new Democratic majority' which has been hemorrhaging middle class American voters as the economic disaster of the current administration's policies becomes ever more apparent. Obama and the Senators have also not explained how they would enforce the proposed registration and tax requirements when they have thus far not been able or willing to enforce existing immigration laws.
As reported in the LA Times:
Obama took up the issue privately with his staff Monday in a bid to advance a bill through Congress before lawmakers become too distracted by approaching midterm elections.
In the session, Obama and members of his Domestic Policy Council outlined ways to resuscitate the effort in a White House meeting with two senators -- Democrat Charles E. Schumer of New York and Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina -- who have spent months trying to craft a bill.The basis of a bill would include a path toward citizenship for the 10.8 million people living in the U.S. illegally. Citizenship would not be granted lightly, the White House said. Undocumented workers would need to register, pay taxes and pay a penalty for violating the law. Failure to comply might result in deportation.
Nick Shapiro, a White House spokesman, said the president's support for an immigration bill, which would also include improved border security, was "unwavering."
Participants in the White House gathering also pointed to an immigration rally set for March 21 in Washington as a way to spotlight the issue and build needed momentum.Schumer, speaking as he walked quickly through the Capitol, said he was having trouble rounding up Republican supporters apart from Graham. "It's tough finding someone, but we're trying," Schumer said.
On Thursday, Schumer met with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who oversees the government's immigration efforts, to strategize over potential Republican co-sponsors.
"We're very hopeful we can get a bill done. We have all the pieces in place. We just need a second Republican," Schumer said in a statement.
Among proponents, there is a consensus that a proposal must move by April or early May to have a realistic chance of passing this year. If that deadline slips, Congress' focus is likely to shift to the November elections, making it impossible to take up major legislation.
This is in response to the previous controversy we covered at Boise State. YWC is the only student group that will fight back against left-wing oppression on American college campuses.
Boise State University, located in one of the most conservative states in the Union, is still subjected to liberal guilt and ideology. BSU’s chapter has been formed by sophomore Erin Marlor and junior Gabriel Iacoboni. Recently on campus there has been much controversy. The Cultural Diversity director, Ro Parker, posted a photo of two African American women yelling “Shut the F*** Up White Boy!” at a timid white male on Cultural Diversity’s Facebook page without any explanation behind the photo. Ro Parker voiced that her hopes behind posting this photo would open up discuss and get students talking. Well, she was right, it got students talking! But not in the way she felt was correct. Her photo sparked anger and frustration towards the Cultural Diversity Center. So we decided to create Youth for Western Civilization here on campus, and fight back against this obvious intolerance and inequality.
Our hope with starting a BSU chapter of Youth for Western Civilization is to promote conservative values and ideas such as protecting our borders and real multiculturalism which includes equality for all races not just minorities. The Ro Parker event showed us that even on a campus in the state of Idaho students are not safe from intolerant liberal beliefs being pushed on campus.
Last month, the Zeta Tau Alpha chapter of the University of Arkansas won a national dance competition in Atlanta - the "Sprite Step Off" - and all hell broke loose. "Step dancing," you see, is a traditional black art form and the Zetas from Arkansas were the only white contestants. The Arkansas sorority has been "stepping" for 16 years now. They were introduced to the tradition in a multiracial "Unity Night" in which black and white sororities swap traditions.
In Barack Obama's postracial America, where racism is said to be a relic of the past, you would think the Zeta's victory would have been celebrated as the quintessential example of "celebrating diversity," "interracial harmony," and "encouraging mutual respect." Obviously, the Zetas must think highly of African-American culture to find it worthy of emulation. Music and dance have traditionally played an important role in breaking down racial barriers.
Not this time. In the aftermath of the Zeta's victory, hundreds of furious African Americans took to YouTube, blogs, and internet messageboards to post thousands of hateful, racist comments about the Zetas. How dare a bunch of white girls from Arkansas waltz into the "Sprite Step Off" and beat black sororities at their own game! The videos of the competition on YouTube generated so much racist, anti-white vitriol from African Americans that the comment section had to be shut down.
Angry black callers seething with hate flooded talk radio call-in shows with hostile comments. Rozonda Thomas of TLC, a judge at the competition, took such a beating on one black radio show in Atlanta that she called in to defend herself. In an act of racial solidarity, Thomas told her listeners that "the AKAs from Indiana, hands-down in my opinion, should have won." Apparently, the old idea that we should judge others based on the color of their skin, not the content of their character, still resonates with many in the African American community.
Initially, the Zetas performance in Atlanta was met with wild applause by the largely African American audience in attendance. However, when it became clear that the Zetas had actually won the competition, large sections of the audience booed them off the stage. Later, the Coca Cola company retroactively awarded a second first place prize of $100,000 to the runner up black sorority. The message sent was clear: even if they lose, the first place prize will always be awarded to a black sorority.
Race is more important than merit. That's what the multiculturalists would have us believe. They talk endlessly about "diversity" and "inclusion," but it quickly becomes clear that one race in particular doesn't match their profile. Telllingly, the professional anti-hate community hasn't had much to say about this sordid episode in American race relations.
Al Sharpton hasn't marched. Jesse Jackson hasn't held a candlelight protest. The NAACP isn't launching a boycott. President Barack Obama hasn't called this a "teachable moment." Is anyone surprised?
Geert Wilders is making gains in the Netherlands; according to Mariette Le Roux of the Sydney Morning Herald, Wilder’s Freedom Party is currently making strides in the Dutch political sphere:
“Dutch anti-Islam leader Geert Wilders celebrated a symbolic breakthrough on Thursday as his party won control of its first municipality in a show of strength ahead of June's general election.
"What is possible in The Hague and Almere is possible all over the country," Wilders said after his Party for Freedom (PVV) came first and second in the only two out of 394 municipalities it contested in local polls Wednesday.
"It's a springboard for our victory. We will become the biggest party in the Netherlands on June 9."
This represents a pivotal change since last year when Wilders was barred from Britain upon being invited to show his documentary on Islam, Fitna, in the House of Lords, as well as being charged with incitement of racial hatred in the Netherlands for expressing "inflammatory comments." Wilders will be screening his documentary in the House of Lords tomorrow since his ban has been lifted by the British government.
Geert Wilders is one of the few voices in Europe willing to defy the gods of multiculturalism and political correctness and pulls no punches when addressing the problems facing his homeland. He is a fierce patriot and he has paid dearly for it, as he cannot even walk the streets without a security escort. Upon meeting Herr Wilders last year at the Conservative Political Action Conference, I was stunned to see the rigorous security detail that followed his every move.
Despite this intense atmosphere, he struck me as quite congenial and approachable considering his political stature in European politics. Though his court battles are ongoing, they seem to only have helped Wilders' popularity rise in the minds of the Dutch voters. Hopefully this sentiment will come to fruition in form of a sweeping victory for the Dutch Freedom Party in the June parliamentary elections, in an electoral contest that will determine the future for the Dutch people.
At Ole Miss, a campaign is underway to select "Admiral Ackbar," a space alien from Star Wars, as the new school mascot. There are several Facebook groups promoting this absurd idea: "Ackbar Olemiss" has 2,416 fans, "Ole Miss Rebel Alliance" has 3,602 fans, "Admiral Ackbar for Ole Miss Mascot" has 5,678 fans. These are the largest groups I have found. A couple of smaller groups with a few hundred members exist.
Ackbar seems to have a lot of out-of-state fans. The "Rebel Alliance" campaign has tapped into a huge well of support in the American sci-fi community. Northern liberals who write for major newspapers love the idea of Ole Miss shedding its "racist" heritage. These are generally not the people who religiously follow SEC football. I never knew anyone at the University of Alabama who was offended by Colonel Reb when the Rebels came to Tuscaloosa. Everyone I have spoken to back home hates this sort of political correctness.
TMZ is reporting that a backlash has erupted on campus. Disgruntled Ole Miss students are threatening to transfer if Ackbar becomes the new mascot. The groups pushing Ackbar have received a number of angry calls and emails. The parents of current and prospective students are threatening to send their kids to other colleges. This writer has been contacted by angry Ole Miss students and encouraged to press the issue.
I can't imagine Ole Miss alumni are pleased with this idea. What does "Admiral Ackbar," a fictional alien from Star Wars, have to do with Mississippi or Ole Miss tradition? The best part of being an alumni is carrying on the tradition of a storied institution. It means continuity with previous and future generations. That is exactly what Ackbar supporters are proposing to jettison here.
Who wants Admiral Crawdad when you can have The Colonel?
Zennie Abraham of the San Francisco Chronicle is denying the existence of a backlash. Apparently, Mr. Abraham (a Star Trek fanatic) hasn't been following the opposition groups on Facebook. "Colonel Reb" has 4,514 fans. The Colonel Reb Foundation, SaveOleMiss.com, has 9,825 fans. In 2003, 94% of Ole Miss students voted to keep Colonel Reb on the field, but that option wasn't on the recent ballot. Colonel Reb has far more supporters than "Admiral Ackbar" ... and most of them are actually from Mississippi!
History has shown that appeasement doesn't work. Leftists went after the Confederate flag at Ole Miss football games. Then Colonel Reb was forced into retirement. But that wasn't good enough. So Dixie and "The South will rise again" had to be banned at football games. Now "Admiral Ackbar" is being pushed as the new mascot. A few years from now, the same agitators (although they deny this) will be demanding that Ole Miss rename the football team, as the term "Rebels" can be construed as another politically incorrect reminder of the Confederacy.
Should Jackson, MS be renamed as well? President Andrew Jackson was a slaveowner who ethnically cleansed the Choctaw Indians from Mississippi. How many cities and counties in Mississippi are named after white racists? How many of those towns are graced by Confederate monuments in town squares? The list goes on and on. A dangerous precedent has been set here. It could one day lead to a Soviet Union style cleansing of Mississippi place names and historic markers.
We are already sliding down that slippery slope. If we don't start fighting back, the Iron Curtain of political correctness will continue to smother our Southern heritage.
