The political ideology of Islam, I and others have found, is quite amenable to all tenets of fascism, that 20th Century political phenomenon. Private property is not abolished, as in communism, but the state exercises nearly complete control on how it is used, supposedly for the “common good.” Individual rights are always at the discretion of the rulers, and in Iran’s case (the Islamic Republic), all rights and policies are decided by the one Mullah at the top (think Fuhrer). The president has some power, but the Mullahs retain complete control (Nazis in another language). The enforcer gangs, dressed differently from military units, are the real terror forces, very similar to Hitler’s Brownshirts and the SS.
But, perhaps the reason why the Islamic power regimes of the Middle East are so fascist in their system, owes a great deal to the fact that they were intimately allied with Hitler during WWII and shared a bedrock hatred of the Jews. The Mufti of Jerusalem, alHusseini, according to Rabbi David G. Dalin’s book “The Myth of Hitler’s Pope,” this Islamic Mufti was invited by the Nazi leadership in Berlin to move his base of operations on behalf of the Axis to Berlin. In November of 1941, al-Husseini had his first meeting with Adolph Hitler, wherein the Mufti explained to the Fuhrer his devotion to the Nazi cause, asked Hitler to give his approval “for the elimination of the Jewish National Home in Palestine,” and convinced Hitler of his “total dedication to the Nazi goal of exterminating the Jews, and offered to raise an Arab legion to carry out that task in the Middle East.” (quotes from Dalin; p. 135) Another researcher has chronicled the formation of Hitler’s Final Solution, and has much evidence to conclude that it was no accident that details of the Final Solution emerged in Berlin shortly after the Mufti’s arrival there, and that the Mufti was a close confidant Eichmann, and the man who “constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures.” (Dali; p. 136)
Kenneth R. Timmerman, another researcher, quoted by Dalin, concludes: “The new Muslim-Nazi alliance that the Mufti forged with Hitler marks the beginning of a Nazi-style Antisemitism as a mass movement in the Arab world.” And Dalin adds “that under the initial leadership of the mufti and his protege, the young YASSER ARAFAT, continues to this day. At the War’s conclusion, al-Husseini barely escaped prosecution for war crimes by being smuggled out of Germany to Egypt, where he met Yasser Arafat shortly thereafter. Al-Husseini took Arafat under his wing and mentored him in Nazi tactics, underscoring the need to complete the Final Solution for the Middle East. Arafat gave tribute to his mentor, Hitler’s Mufti, calling him the “central figure of the pantheon of the PLO in both spirit and practice.” (Dalin; p. 140)
The former leader of the PLO was actually trained and mentored by the genuine 20th Century Nazis. And he wasn’t the only one. Even Anwar Sadat, the more moderate-seeming president of Egypt (who mellowed in later years much to the disdain of the true IslamoFascists) was a loyal spy for Germany during WWII in British-occupied Egypt. But Sadat had strong ties to the Third Reich, which were quite well-known at the time. In 1972, at a celebration for Mohamed’s birth, Sadat declared: “We shall not only liberate the Arab lands in Jerusalem and break Israel’s pride of victory, but we will return the Jews to the state in which the Koran described them before: to be persecuted, suppressed and miserable.
At the War’s conclusion, many top Nazis were also smuggled out of Germany and took up residence in the Middle-East for the express purpose of training the new vanguard against worldwide Jewry.
There is so much evidence linking the current tactics and beliefs of Islamic terrorism to the Nazis of the 20th Century, that it is undeniable they keep Hitler’s own flame burning these many years after his ignominious death. So, isn’t it right that we should refer to them as the IslamoFascists? I believe it is. After all, the Islamists formed a tight alliance with the first Nazis under Hitler, and it is an alliance that exists to this day, across time and space.
The Nazis represent a Beast that refuses to die. A Beast, which was near-fatally wounded at the end of WWII, but which has arisen once again to snare 21st Century peoples. The big question in my mind now is which man will arise to take Hitler’s own place? From whence will he come? From the East? Or from the West?
That is the question that ought to burn a hole in every man and woman in these days — in my opinion.

Believe it or not, it was once utterly unfashionable to engage publicly in trash talk.  Prior to the so-called “women’s liberation movement,” a David Letterman and his frat-boy joke writers would have known better than to even attempt the kind of sexually perverse lines that now parade in counterfeit fashion for genuine wit.  If they had dared to go public with anything even close to Letterman’s violence-provoking line, which perversely conflated open misogyny with humor, the women would have shamed them into a shunned obscurity, worse in many ways than death.

These guys would have been persons non gratis in every social milieu in the Western world.  Even shut out of their own marriage suites for a time.

So, what in the world changed?  Why are these overgrown adolescents still employed?  Why are they folk heroes of the political left?

I was born in 1951 and graduated from a very large, very affluent suburban high school in 1969.  The first time in my life I ever heard the F-word, I was in college and happened to be in the presence of a soldier who had just returned from Vietnam.  He laced his war tales with a word I’d never heard, but that for some reason, he found extremely versatile.  He used the word in nearly every sentence, in such a variety of connotations that it was utterly impossible to discern the true meaning of it.

I finally summoned the courage to ask what the word meant, which provoked immediate, rather prolonged laughter.  A girlfriend whispered, “It means ‘screw,’” at which point I felt a bright red blush spread from forehead to toe.  But then, without my saying a single word, the F-bomb was simply dropped from the monologue, not to be repeated again.  The soldier hadn’t been raised in a barn; he had simply forgotten what it meant to be in the presence of real women.

I recently saw the F-word guy at a reunion.  We laughed a bit, remembering the incident, and he once again apologized.

A true gentleman never needs more than once with a real woman.

For many centuries, Western women dictated the decorum that gave civilization its very civility.  Men who breached this code of conduct in the presence of a woman would be socially shunned to the point of absolute ostracism.  He would be labeled a man lacking in self-control, a man not to be seen with, nor considered as a candidate for the lifelong commitment of marriage.  It was well known that a man who could not even control is own tongue would never be able to withstand the demands of fidelity to his spouse.

Not only would this half-a-man be shunned in the company of adult women, he would be kept at a distance from all children.  Women, prior to the 1960s, considered it their solemn and sacred duty to protect the innocence of children, allowing them the time necessary to be genuine children, who needed to spend their time learning and developing their bodies, not embroiled in premature sexual inquisitiveness.  To this end, children were closely guarded and protected from the likes of trash-talking men and loose women.

But the 1960s radicals changed all that for much of America.

It isn’t at all hard to see how this happened.  Young women on college campuses of the 1960s became hapless tools of a communist-inspired revolution aimed at destroying the very fabric of American society and culture.  These women, in the name of a collective pursuit of “liberation,” became the willing pawns of a movement to destroy the handholds of all that made our civilization strong.  And the very first thing these women did was to abandon the ubiquitous social dictums of language in “mixed company” (both sexes).  These early militant “feminists” began a steadfast march into the lingual gutters that would have challenged even the most hardened barroom-brawl talk, all for their tacky little revolution.

These 60s radical women were out to show the world that they could be every bit as profane, as vile, and as sexually perverse as their half-a-man male companions.

Once the language fell to perversion, these women set out to destroy all which separated sexual promiscuity from social acceptance.  In the name of the “collective,” which was to replace family alliances with dependence upon the all-encompassing state, these militant “feminists” set about to depersonalize sexual relations.  All things “Bourgeois” were to be dumped as relics upon the trash heap of a defeated-from-within America.  Personal loyalties, such as love, were to be forcefully overcome by “smashing monogamy.”  Group orgies, bi-sexual and homosexual mating became the forced new model for the radicals.  They indulged in “Wargasms,” and “national orgies.”

And forty years later we have David Letterman blithely “joking” about the raping of a 14 year old child to the bawdy applause of the leftists and the hordes they’ve spawned and properly indoctrinated for gutter living.

Whatever else one might say about “progressives,” returning a once-quite-civilized culture to barbarian standards in no way exemplifies genuine progress.

From barbarianism we have come.  To barbarianism we are fast returning.  And leftist women have led the way, paved the path and now wallow in their uncivilized world the way hogs wallow in their slop.

Writing as a former long-term victim of incest, I have perhaps a very sensitive nerve when it comes to even the suggestion of child rape.  So, as far as I’m concerned, David Letterman’s disgusting rant aimed at an innocent 14 year old girl is so beyond the pale that he deserves nothing less than to be hounded off the airwaves and fired as quickly as possible.

What?  A man of supposed stature enough to have his own hour of network air time suggests that raping a 14 year old girl is a suitable situation for satire and we’re supposed to just take it in stride as though no harm has been done.  What David Letterman did on his show was the equivalent of verbally flashing every American girl, as though she were standing on a street corner just “asking for it.”  No real man would ever think such a thing was funny, much less have the lack of decency to say so out loud.

It’s time for genuine feminists to take a stand and not be shy about it.  Yes, we conservatives are known for taking it all on the chin, for not being roused by words alone, and it’s usually quite admirable.  But sometimes things do go over the line and ought to be vociferously attacked for the barbarity they constitute.

David Letterman’s performance and his half-witted apology, wherein he really does not see the error in his purely mysogenistic attempt at foul humor, is one of those things which no civil society ought to tolerate.  I want him fired.  Quickly fired.  This isn’t political; it’s about common decency.  It’s about not holding up girls and women as persons to be used as chattel and for one’s personal gratification as thought they were slaves.

Any public person who does not demand Letterman’s firing is no friend to women.  Not in the least.

David Letterman has stepped over a line of public behavior that demands his immediate firing.  Speaking in terms of grave offense to an innocent child lands him at rodent level in the trashiest gutter, and continuing to give him a national platform now merely breeds more of the same.

See for yourself how David Letterman lashes out at an innocent girl, suggesting that she be raped by an adult male ball player in the stands at a baseball game merely because she happens to be the daughter of a political foe:  Gov. Sarah Palin.

If the president were even half a gentleman, he would demand the firing himself.  While a Senator, Barack Obama was the very first to publicly and righteously clamor for the firing of Don Imus for his “nappy headed hos” line, referring to the female basketball players at Rutgers University.

Here’s Barack on Imus:

“I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus,” Obama told ABC News, “but I would also say that there’s nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude.”

So, here’s the perfect opportunity for President Obama to prove he is not a racist or a Marxist ideologue.  He can act appropriately and quickly to demand that David Letterman be fired.

In point of fact, the remarks by Letterman go much further over the line of decency than did Don Imus’.  Imus was not actually suggesting any physical harm to the Rutgers’ team and none of the Rutgers’ players were minors either.  David Letterman has sunk to the lowest possible level for any man anywhere in suggesting the raping of a minor girl.

And no genuine feminist on this planet ought to let it go without a bitter and forceful fight to have the man disgraced and out on his ear.

Now that I think on it, however, this sexually exploitative shtick is becoming a veritable liberal staple.  During the presidential campaign we had a guttersnipe comedienne suggesting that Sarah Palin be gang-raped.  A MSNBC reporter, David Shuster, declared on air that the Clintons had “pimped out” Chelsea to do their bidding on the campaign trail.

A couple of weeks ago, Playboy magazine published a list of the top ten conservative women the author would like to “HateF**k.”  In the president’s viewing last month, Wanda Sykes made a sexual slur against Sarah Palin’s method of birth control.  Now, we have David Letterman suggesting sexual violence against the minor daughter (Willow Palin) of Alaska’s governor.

Really, these apes pretending to be people are beyond the pale.

They ought to be scorned from polite society in a forceful rush and told explicitly never to return.

For the past forty years, we have witnessed a continuous coarsening of our society.  Things once uttered only in bars or in otherwise all-male company are now accepted, not only in mixed company, but upon the public airwaves.

It’s as though 60s radicals and their attempts to “Smash Monogamy” with “national orgies,” bisexuality, homosexuality and collective sexuality have become the rule, rather than the once-shunned exceptions.  Sexual  self-control is mocked, while the sexualizing of the entire public discourse is seen as somehow “progressive.”

We are seeing in all its disgusting inglorious dimensions the very real fact that the leftist-political “feminism,” hatched on university campuses in the sixties and still flourishing today, was never, ever aimed at improving the lot off women.  If it were, then feminists would be the first in line to defend Muslim women, which they emphatically are not.  If this leftist “feminism” were about all women, then these so-called feminists would be on the frontlines demanding the firing of all who openly demean women and girls, most especially when violence is suggested.

Feminists are coming out of their Commie Closet, revealing themselves as nothing more than hapless pawns in a concerted, deceptive ploy to destroy the foundations of decency and the natural family in America.

Now, it is time to polarize them and make them feel the heat.  Anyone who does not now vociferously demand the immediate firing of David Letterman for his vicious suggestions regarding a minor girl is self-revealed as no lover of women, no protector of the society for children and no genuine human being, but a veritable ape in a human body.

It’s time to shut the door on this uncivilized beast of a movement before it finally, and perhaps irrevocably, destroys America.

As most of you already know, Operation Gratitude does July 4th patriotism year round, year in an year out, sending care packages to our troops in every place they are stationed in harms way.  Everything OpGrat sends to our troops — snacks, coffee, electronics, games, toilet articles, etc — is all donated by patriotic citizens like you and me and generous American corporations.  But the U.S. Postal Service charges their normal fees for overseas packages, and that adds up to big money.  The current drive, with 40,000 Patriotic Care Packages, each individually addressed to a U.S. service member, will cost $11 each at total of $440,000.

Right this very minute, Target-Facebook  is having a contest to see which charitable organizations will split $3 million.  We need every American Thinker reader to go to the link below and vote for Operation Gratitude.  Your vote costs nothing and will help ensure that our service men and women will continue to know WE ALL CARE.

Operation Gratitude is the only Military Support organization in the running and it would be great if the entire Military Support Community would help them.  They are up against some giants in the charity world (St. Jude’s, Salvation Army, Red Cross), and we need to martial everyone who cares about supporting our Service Members in order to get a decent portion of the votes and dollars.

Please do it now:  http://www.facebook.com/target#/target?v=app_74787998079&viewas=578674873

If you need more explantion, Operation Gratitude has it all here:
http://campaign.constantcontact.com/render?v=0018_Ub4iCoCaGMyZzKO97erxUQJ_0-boOkC0mqeORCE4QNfx5cUE1zIm7Lts-QiJ5YayIEwkj3FL4Es-j0MpAbj8A3i1PgJqbMgs7AdVTkvmb2-Xi3qMgb_I14HaMsltZNupps5a-oq_OtyEKi88sQPw%3D%3D

Please do not delay!  Let’s help Operation Gratitude say a huge “WE LOVE YOU!!!!” to our troops!

Remember, we can all vote early and often until May 25!  It’s perfectly legal, even encouraged!