Dhimwit of the Month Honors

Dhim·wit (dïm-wît) - A non-Muslim member of a free society that abets the stated cause of Islamic domination with remarkable gullibility.  A dhimwit is always quick to extend sympathy to the very enemy that would take away his or her own freedom (or life) if given the opportunity.

December 2007 Dhimwit: Tor Erling Staff

Hide the women and children... (seriously).

Ok, so he's a criminal defense attorney... a profession that is not exactly renown for integrity.  Still, just the fact that any European is publicly calling for reduced sentencing for honor killers speaks to the sad state of affairs there.

Tor Erling Staff is a high-profile, controversial Norwegian lawyer who has defended some of society's worst, including pedophiles.  Now he lavishes his sympathy on men who kill their wives, daughters and sisters for the purpose of restoring "honor" in the wake of sexual indiscretion.

That's the way it works in Muslim culture, says Staff, so why shouldn't Norway have some appreciation for this when it comes to deciding prison sentences for local Muslims?

Uh... maybe because it's WRONG!

There is simply no legitimacy whatsoever in killing anyone over consensual sexual practice (ironically, Mr. Staff himself is openly gay).  Making allowance for any sort of justification for violence in this context merely reinforces the error.

Of course, this is only symptomatic of a larger problem - the pressure on Western host countries to adapt to Muslim immigrants rather than the other way around.  Needless to say, there are many reasons why Muslims don't want to live in Muslim countries, and Europeans would be much better served by sticking to their own standards rather than, for example, making it easier for one to get away with killing women and children.

Well, that's just our opinion.

November 2007 Dhimwit: Vladimir Putin

"So long, Suckers!"

Well, this month’s choice is so obvious that it makes us look like we were dipping into the sauce last month when we nominated President Bush.   

Vladimir Putin is President of Russia, the country that has been at war with Islamic terrorists since before it was fashionable.  Putin gets the nod this month for doing his best to ensure that his country’s enemy is supplied with nuclear weapons.  Let’s just say that things have really changed with the Russians over the years.

In the old days, the Soviets had absolutely no qualms about meeting the lowest denominator of any enemy and even exceeding it.  Subduing a Muslim population wasn’t at all difficult for them.  In 1944, for example, the Soviets quickly put down a Chechen “Intifada” by deporting the entire ethnic population to the Gulag in a matter of months. 

In 1985, not even five years after the Americans limped through their “Iran hostage crisis” with a famously shattered ego, the Soviets faced a similar situation when Russian officials were abducted from their embassy in Beirut by Hezbollah.  Gorbachev gave the “Party of Allah” 48 hours to release the hostages and then began sending decapitated Hezbollah heads to the group’s leader until the demand was met (and it was).

The old Soviets knew that the only rule of war Islam consistently respects is ‘Might Makes Right.’  Unfortunately for them, the old ways were not available to them when they rolled into Afghanistan in the early eighties, since the world was watching.  The Soviets were compelled to wage the same sort asymmetrical war that became America’s downfall in Vietnam, where one side attempts to observe an ethic that the other is entirely free to violate.

Today, it has gotten so bad for the Russians that Islamic militants have brazenly taken the battle to the heart of Moscow, where they took over a theater 2002 and killed more than 200 civilians.  Two years later, 350 other innocents were left dead in a school siege, half of whom were just children.

Islamic terrorists have killed thousands of other Russians over the last decade in commuter bombings, train derailments, apartment building demolitions, airplane suicide blasts and the low-wage ethnic cleansing campaigns taking place in the southern provinces – all in the name of Islam.

Regretfully, the Russian response has been to pander to Islam, and no one is doing a better job of this than President Putin.  The man, who once allied himself with Bush in the war on terror, now travels to Muslim countries, where he trashes the US effort and openly flirts with the idea that Americans are waging a war on Islam. 

Putin has called for the abandonment of US airbases in Kyrgyzstan, provided support to Palestinian terrorists, and even offered the Saudis and other Arab nations nuclear reactors (for “peaceful purposes”).  His pro-Muslim policies at home have made him the darling of the Russian muftis, whose enthusiastic endorsement of him in national elections is both meaningful and unnecessary.

Perhaps the worst thing that Putin has done, however (and the primary reason for his nomination this month), took place on a recent trip to Tehran, where he completely undermined the international resolve against the Mullahs’ nuclear ambitions by opposing sanctions and supporting Iran’s “right” to enrich uranium.

The Iranians spent many years lying about the very existence of their nuclear program.  Now that it has been proven, there is no reason to believe what they say about their intentions, particularly when the evidence is very much against them.

In case Putin hasn’t noticed, Iran is the world’s fourth biggest energy exporter.  They have the fifth largest oil reserves on the planet and the second largest natural gas reserves.  They need an alternative energy source like Bill Gates needs a job.

More than likely, Putin is attempting to create an ‘unholy alliance’ with the Mullahs, in the hope that they will spare Russia from the terror-by-proxy campaign for which Iran is famous.  But like all deals with the Devil, the short-term profits never outweigh the long-term consequences.

October 2007 Dhimwit: George W. Bush

CAIR's Nihad Awad teaches Bush the proper way of donning a hijab.

Like Tony Blair's nomination a few months back, we realize that George W. Bush is a controversial choice for Dhimwit of the Month.  After all, while his predecessors threw out false bravado and an occasional limp-wristed cruise missile strike, this President has actually racked up dead terrorists.

But, in addition to diligently fighting Islamic terror abroad, Bush has paradoxically become Islam's biggest cheerleader in the States.  From the moment that he informed the world that Islam is a "religion of peace," two days after 3,000 Americans were massacred in the name of Allah, to his most recent genuflection to Muslim leaders at a White House Ramadan dinner, the President has been a tireless promoter of the threadbare cliché that Islam has nothing to do with Islamic terror.

Bush’s PR campaign on behalf of the “Religion of Peace” was in full swing by September 20^th, 2001.  As bodies were still being pulled from the smoldering ruins at Ground Zero, the President stood before Congress and assured us that the Islam’s teachings are “good and peaceful” and that not only do ”those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah,” but they are “traitors” and “hijackers” as well.

That December, the President included Islam prominently in the holiday festivities, even reading Allah’s praises to a group of gathered children at a traditional recital. 

By 2007, Imam Bush was standing shoeless in an Islamic center, telling Muslims that he would help them “reclaim” their faith from terrorists.  Three senior female members of his staff wore hijabs to the event, as CAIR looked on.

A few months earlier, CAIR voiced objection to Bush’s use of the terms “Islamic terrorism” and even “Islamic fascism” to describe the more radical elements of Islam.  The President of the United States then dutifully adjusted his vocabulary so as not to step on the Hamas supporter's toes. 

In October 2007, the President invited Muslim leaders to the White House for Iftar (Ramadan dinner).  During the event he gave an interview to al-Arabiya in which he insisted that people of all religions pray to the same god (we aren't sure how Hindus fit in).  He even told the Muslim world that terrorism also plagues Christianity, using the Oklahoma City bombing as an [erroneous] example (Timothy McVeigh was an atheist and never cited religion as a motive).

Bush has even discouraged Congress from recognizing the genocide of 1.5 million Christian Armenians, because doing so offends the Turks – who perpetrated the Muslim holocaust in the 1910’s.  To put this in perspective, consider that his antagonist on this issue is none other than our April of 2007 Dhimwit honoree, Nancy Pelosi!

Quite frankly, Islam could hardly have a greater friend in the Oval Office than George Bush.  If what the President says about Islam is even remotely true, and it were indeed a religion of peace with which terrorism has no association, then Bush would be one of the planet’s most popular infidels for making this distinction under the most trying of circumstances.

Instead, the President is hated and reviled in the Islamic world.  He is burned in effigy and has lower approval ratings among Muslims than Osama bin Laden.  Even his effort to liberate Iraqis is bizarrely interpreted as an attempt to destroy Islam.

CAIR, which has had the leader of the free world inexplicably wrapped around its finger, turns against him at every opportunity by openly supporting political opponents and blasting the Bush Administration in a string of public statements.  The organization famously left the President twisting in the wind In March of 2006, when he tried to counter explicit anti-Arab demagoguery raised against the “Dubai ports deal” by Democrats.  CAIR stayed uncharacteristically quiet during the matter, refusing to side openly with Bush.

So, how can a man who has done more than anyone in America to raise the legitimacy of Islam also be demonized as Islam’s greatest enemy?

Well, obviously it is because Bush is dead wrong about the religion.  As much as he wants to believe that Muslims are just like Baptists in burqas, the truth is that Islam is quite different from other faiths.

In the first place, Islam has very little regard for those outside the religion.  The Qur’an is very explicit in its low opinion of non-believers and in Allah’s hatred for them.  Although Bush enjoys telling Muslims how much he appreciates their respect for universal values, he doesn’t seem to notice that he is merely projecting his own ideals onto a skeptical audience with a much different moral perspective.

For example, although Muslims may engage in Jihad on several (somewhat ambiguous) pretexts, it is absolutely against Islam for a non-Muslim to fight a Muslim, even if it is in self-defense.  This is the primary reason why the Islamic world has never been supportive of Bush’s war on the radicals who have supposedly “hijacked” their faith, yet the President seems to have completely missed this very basic premise of the religion that he extols.

If George Bush were to stop projecting his personal standards onto Muslims, and start paying attention, then he might realize just how deeply rooted terrorism is within Islam and why Muslims are less than enthusiastic in the fight against it.  Killing in the name of Allah isn’t a recent phenomenon.  It first began when Muhammad exhorted his followers to plunder merchant caravans and kill innocent Arabians who had the bad fortune of not being Muslim. 

The President’s naïve optimism is cute, but it may also be getting Americans killed, particularly in Iraq, where Bush gambled heavily on Islam and lost.  The lesson being learned there is that the Muslim world hates non-believers more than it cares about itself.  Americans are blamed for the very terror attacks that they are trying to prevent and the death of Iraqis that they are literally spilling their own blood to save.

While it is true that decent Muslim Americans don’t deserve to have their religion denigrated by their country’s President, it is still possible to be sensitive to their feelings without evangelizing on behalf of the enemy.  How far would Reagan have gotten if he had praised Marxism and bemoaned its “hijacking” by Communist radicals?

Telling Muslims what they want to hear isn't helping either George Bush or his country.  The President merely perpetuates dangerous misconceptions about Islam when he should be challenging them.

See Also: Other "Bushisms" on Islam.

September 2007 Dhimwit:
Brussels Mayor Freddy Thielemans

It's tough being a dhimmi in Europe these days.

Given that most European capitals are headed in this direction, what do you suppose happens when Muslim immigrants are haphazardly imported to the point that they eventually form an Islamic majority in a mainstream political party?

If you think that it means the triumph of Sharia and a crackdown on intellectual dissent, then you would be denounced as a bigot... even if you are entirely correct, as the recent events in Brussels prove.

In August, a group known as Stop the Islamisation of Europe (SIOE) applied for a permit to protest the introduction of Sharia law in Europe and to memorialize the victims of 9/11 on the anniversary.  Their request was rejected on ideological grounds, despite the broad interest that it received.

Now, you can't blame Muslims for being Muslim.  Criticizing Islam is against the law in Muslim countries, and this will certainly become the rule in Europe as well as Muslims gain strength through numbers.

In this case, however, the Muslim majority found a willing dhimmi to do its bidding.  The request to protest Islamism was rejected by the non-Muslim mayor of Brussels, Freddy Thielemans, a prominent member of the Socialist Party that is beholden to the rapidly-increasing Muslim community.

It is thanks to Belgian dhimwits like Thielemans that Brussels now has segregated swimming sessions, halal meat served in schools, and even the slaughter of sheep on city streets.

Islam's historical rise has always been accompanied by the decline of other freedoms, and Belgium is no exception.  Not merely content with banning the right to speak out against Islam, Thielemans chose to send a strong message to anyone who would dare defy the Religion of Peace. 

When the SIOE organizers attempted to go forward with their peaceful protest on September 11th, the mayor sent his brownshirts into the crowd with instructions to use unnecessarily brutal tactics against the uppity infidels (reserving the worst, it seems, for the group's audacious leaders, as can be seen from the above photo). 

This is a turning point for Europe.  After centuries of trying to conquer the cradle of Western civilization by the sword, Islamists are delighted to find that the same goals can be achieved through a backdoor that has naively been left wide-open in the name of multi-culturalism.

Of course, European Leftists are just the latest in a long list of non-Muslims who mistakenly assumed that throwing their lot in with the Religion of Peace would mean short-term gains without long-term consequences.  The Islamic-Leftist axis may be effectively serving the interest of both parties for the moment, but it is ultimately doomed. 

As Sun Tzu puts it in The Art of War, "Never enter into an alliance with a neighbor unless you know his intentions."  The explicit goal of Islam is not a socialist paradise, it is the political and cultural dominance of all people. 

A useful idiot like Freddy Thielemans may not live to appreciate the full impact of the damage that he is doing, but, future generations of Europeans will have a very different perspective on those who sold out their future to totalitarianism - and the heroes who stood against them.

August 2007 Dhimwit: Bishop "Tiny" Muskens

Bishop "Tiny" Muskens... (and we're pretty sure that his are quite small).

A Roman Catholic Bishop in the Netherlands suggests that, in order to please Muslims,  we all start calling God, "Allah."  (Hmmm... let's just say that this month's pick wasn't too hard to come up with).

Hey, while we're on the subject, do you know what would really please Muslims?  If we started calling ourselves "dhimmis" and tacked the jizya onto our monthly Visa bill.  That might buy us about ten years of goodwill before the protests start up again.

According to the good Bishop, changing the name of God to Allah is a terrific way to generate "greater understanding and acceptance of Muslims."  Apparently, he hasn't noticed that we aren't the ones with the tolerance problem.

Are there any Muslim countries that allow an influx of non-Muslims to immigrate and build houses of worship, preach their religion on street corners and even denounce their new government?  Because if there aren't, then perhaps it's best to wait until the Muslim world catches up to the West before racing further down the road to social extinction.

Each year at least 10,000 people lose their lives in terror attacks committed explicitly in the name of Islam, while violence from other religions hovers at around zero.  So, as far as "understanding and acceptance" goes, its probably time that the rest of us started demanding some, rather than use our time dreaming up new ways to pacify Muslim peevishness. 

Naturally, the move to de-Christianize Christianity delighted CAIR's Ibrahim Hooper, who declared that God and Allah were the same person, "There not a theological leap to make on the part of Christians," he informed Fox News. 

Well in that case, Ibrahim, why don't you and your buddies start calling Allah "Jesus?"  Or is it that Islam only appreciates compromise when the kafirs are the ones doing it?

In the real world, there is an enormous difference between God and Allah.  Just ask the Korean Christians being held by the Taliban...  those who haven't been killed yet, anyway.

Frankly, we've said more than we intended to here about the good Bishop.  Much of our own thunder on this issue was taken by others, who were quicker to comment:

Let's Call God 'Allah' and Jesus 'Slappy White'

Why Not Call Allah 'The Fonz'?

July 2007 Dhimwit: Gordon Brown

One thumb for his own arse - the other for the nearest Muslim's.

Much like the average American's perspective of 9/11 these days, most Brits have come to think of 7/7 as a historical fluke.   It seems that it takes more than just one kick to waken a sleeping Western nation in an era of political correctness.

The dramatic attempt to blow up a nightclub district in London and an airport in Scotland at the end of June might have been that second kick from Islamic terrorists that could have roused Britain into realizing that the battle is ideological.  After all, the terrorists were not impoverished or oppressed.  They had wealth, education and status.  And they were, of course, Muslims who credited the "Religion of Peace" with sanctioning their violent intentions. 

Here was an opportunity to finally take Islam seriously and examine its role in both the terror it produces and the broad apathy that it induces (among those Muslims not openly celebrating the carnage, at least).  It was a perfect time to rethink the policy of blindly importing a fifth column into British society - a Muslim identity group that constantly demands that its host country adapt to it rather than vice versa, slowly co-opting and eroding from within the very civilization that it could not take by blunt force.

A bold leader would have stood in the breach and told the Muslim community that British patience is running thin.  It is time for Muslims to clean house and cease toying with Islamacism and anti-British radicalism.  Muslims came to Britain under the guise of not wanting to live in a Muslim country, and so they should either start acting like it or consider migrating back.

Had Britain had such a leader at the time, then it is quite possible that the most recent attempts to kill British citizens would have been a turning point from a great society's bizarre complicity in its own demise.  The Muslim community could have been held accountable for the hate and bigotry that is all too common in its mosques and neighborhoods.  Perhaps a foothold might even have developed for genuine Islamic reform in the West.

Instead, Britain has a brand new prime minister who chose to do exactly the opposite.  Gordon Brown, in office for only a few hours at the time, banned the association of the word "Muslim" with terrorism, a turning point of a different sort that immediately absolves the Muslim community of any responsibility for terrorism and the burden to root out extremists. 

Islam and Islamic terror are safe for now.  Britain is not. 

One wonders what future rewards the prime minister intends to bestow on the Islamic community in response to future attacks. 

Change doesn't happen without challenge.  If Islam is never challenged on its teaching that non-Muslims are third-class degenerates who are hated by Allah, then all the multiculturalism in the world won't prevent the next 7/7 or 9/11.  After all, how can Muslims really be blamed for not respecting those who decline to respect themselves?

The opportunity may have been missed this time around, but with Gordon Brown at the helm, the British people will have plenty of future occasions on which to rediscover their collective backbone… or at least those who survive, anyway.

June 2007 Dhimwit: Ann Holmes Redding

"Episcopal Priest" Ann Holmes Redding
(she just wants her belly scratched)

All dog owners can tell you that there are times when the furry, little mooch just wants attention.  Sometimes they'll get it by hopping up on the sofa and shoving a wet nose in your ear.  Other times, they might lie on their back directly in front of you, looking as pathetic as possible until you reach down and rub their belly.

This month, former alcoholic and admitted co-dependent, Ann Holmes Redding, is in doggie heaven.  The so-called Episcopal priest (and we use the term loosely - even by Episcopalian standards) decided to invent a new religion... one that garners her plenty of attention.  She calls herself both a Muslim and a Christian, and the national media is lining up at the door to get a piece of this freak show.

Now, keep in mind that declaring membership in two religions isn't like supporting the Mets and the Jets in September.  The central doctrine in Christianity is the divinity of Jesus.  Yet, the Qur'an scoffs at this and plainly states that "God has no partners" (and that Christians are "cursed" for thinking otherwise)  Other logical contradictions between the religions abound (such as the not-so-subtle issue of whether one's enemies should be forgiven or beheaded).  So how does Ms. Redding reconcile all of this?

Well, the details are a bit sketchy.  In fact, one gets the impression that it's best not to ask too many questions, since answering one only seems to raise several others. 

On the issue of the divinity of Jesus, for example, Ms. Redding claims that he is divine in the same way that "all humans are related to God." Although having a nice esoteric ring, this pearl of wisdom actually opens up an even larger can of worms since neither Christianity nor Islam teach the divinity of God's creation.  (Perhaps she is also a Hindu...?)

But Ms. Redding sees no obligation to provide real answers to real questions.  In a Seattle Times interview (in which she revealed an obvious disdain for "white people", she said that her new faith "wasn't about intellect," but rather the "calling of the heart."  In this tradition, logical flaws are to be ignored rather than resolved.

In fact, Ms. Redding, who appears to have only a vague understanding of Islam, merely "reconciles" Christianity and Islam by ignoring the details of each, which leaves nothing more than hollow vocabulary.  In the real world, one cannot be both a Muslim and a Christian, even if one is perfectly free to call oneself whatever one likes based on feelings.

Of course, that's as long as one lives in a Judeo-Christian based society, which afford the philosophical luxury of usurping fact for feeling as a personal choice.  If Ms. Redding were a cleric in Saudi Arabia, however, then she would soon be feeling something sharp along the back of her neck.

Frankly speaking, Ann Holmes Redding is what happens when people don't have to work for a living.  Whether it is the idle rich, the idle welfare class, or the idle clergy, bad things happen when people have too much time on their hands and no incentive to be productive.

In this case, the nonsensical ramblings of a racially-biased, attention-seeking "priest" continue to be subsidized by the very Episcopalians whose religion she is undermining...

Hmmm... 

Perhaps we should have aimed a bit higher with our Dhimwit honor this month.

Follow Up: A week after posting this, the Episcopal Church did vote to suspend Ms. Redding for a year, giving her time to decide on what she wants to be.

May 2007 Dhimwit: Ron Paul

Ron Paul, helping terrorists feel good about themselves.

Terrorists usually don't start out as terrorists.  They are mostly just dedicated Muslims who come to believe that their religion is under attack, or that some power is targeting Muslim civilians because they are Muslim.  From there, it is an easy transition to justifying violence, since that was the unequivocal command of Islam's prophet.

Islamic terrorism is fueled by misinformation.  The new al-Qaeda recruits in Iraq, for example, are drawn there based on false propaganda, particularly the lie that Americans are deliberately targeting Muslim civilians in Iraq (rather than spilling their own blood to protect Iraqis).  Through the wonders of Islamic indoctrination, these young religious devotees are then skillfully manipulated into carrying out the very massacres against civilians that they were supposedly motivated to stop.

Obviously, the key to stopping Islamic terrorism (and saving Muslim lives) is to counter rumor with truth, thus cutting the flow of terror recruits.

Needless to say, terrorist recruiters would love Ron Paul, the sort of American dhimwit who supplies anti-Americanists with their most effective propaganda. Paul, a Republican Congressman from Texas is currently running for President and hoping to make a big splash with such performances as his debate earlier in the month with Rudolph Giuliani over whether 3,000 Americans got what they deserved on 9/11.

"They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years.  We've been in the Middle East [for years]"

At the same time, Paul also panders to 9/11 conspiracy theorists, fueling their paranoia by telling them that they can't trust the government.  (Nothing says "genuine" like the Man telling you that you can't trust the Man).

Of course, if Ron Paul wants to start acting like a real man, then he should stand up and speak truthfully about America's so-called "intervention" in Iraq, instead of encouraging the misconception that the U.S. is there to harm Iraqis.  Over 3,000 U.S. troops have died to give a Muslim nation a terrific opportunity to rise above dictatorship and corruption, but you wouldn't know if from listening to this man, who merely tells the terrorists what they want to hear - in turn, getting more Iraqis and Americans killed.

Muslim lives are of little concern to Ron Paul.  This "humanitarian" has the distinction of being one of the most vocal opponents of impeding the Islamic Republic of Sudan's sovereign right to massacre black African villagers by the hundreds of thousands in Darfur.  The victims had the bad fortune not to be born American, the only race that appears to count in Paul's book.

Ethnocentric jingoist? 

Probably. 

Dhimwit of the Month. 

Oh, definitely!

April 2007 Dhimwit: Nancy Pelosi

You've come a long way, Baby...

Last November, we gave a loose endorsement to the Democrats in the U.S. elections, hoping that a victory would encourage them to join the war against terrorism.  We were wrong, of course.   Since capturing the House and Senate, Democrats have hardly wavered from their relentless campaign of burden and demoralization that does so much to encourage the Jihad while buoying their own partisan objectives. 

This month, the face of that victory, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, staged a high-profile trip to Syria with the naked goal of undermining the Bush Administration’s foreign policy, particularly the strategy of isolating state sponsors of Islamic terror.  Though she responded to criticism by insisting after-the-fact that she only went to reinforce Bush’s message, her fellow traveler, Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison, had already gone on record to declare that the trip was an “alternative Democratic strategy toward foreign policy.”

Calling this “alternative strategy” a flop would be putting it kindly.  Too eager to appear relevant on the international stage, Pelosi breathlessly informed the Syrians that the Israelis were ready to talk peace, somehow managing to botch the only precondition that Prime Minister Olmert had explicitly spelled out for her – that the Syrians must first stop supporting terrorists.  (What exactly was she doing there, again?)

Photographers also captured the very image of appeasement to radical Islam, as the woman who champions so-called “women’s rights” issues at home quickly shucked her feminist principles and draped herself in a hijab, a symbol of male oppression according to the Muslim women who have been fighting for the right to dress as they please.

Needless to say, there have been no breakthroughs in the Mid-East peace process.  The first post-9/11 Democratic foreign policy tour was only slightly more disastrous for Americans as a whole as it was for Democrats in particular.

Pelosi’s only accomplishments were to garner lavish praise from the anti-American press for flouting the Administration and to delight the very terrorists at war with her country, who gave her the thumbs-up as well.

Unsurprisingly, the Islamic Army in Iraq (one of the bloodiest terrorist groups in that country) and the Islamic Republic of Iran have both announced that that would like to negotiate with Nancy Pelosi and Congress.  Their dreams of testing America's weakest link will be fully realized when the Democrats take complete control in 2008.

Despite the fawning Arab press, it is the Muslim world that has the most to lose from ostensible sycophants like Nancy Pelosi, who oppose standing up to Islamic terrorists in Iraq.  If that country falls, then not only will Iraqis eventually be saddled with another dictatorship, but America will surely never invest the lives of her soldiers in the civil liberties and human rights of Muslim people.  Future Presidents will only deal with subsequent threats to the security of the United States, real or perceived, from 30,000 feet.

Not that Pelosi would lose sleep over any of this.  As one of the wealthiest and most liberal members of Congress, she personifies the very evil that she rails against – the polarization of wealth.  Pelosi is therefore quite comfortable with personal contradiction, and it is doubtful that the foreign lives sacrificed for her political ambitions will be of any more consequence to her than the millions of Southeast Asian lives sold out in 1975 were to her Democratic forbearers.

March 2007 Dhimwit:
The Government of Norway

Palestinian reform?  Not on Norway's watch.

Ismail Haniyeh is a man with blood on his hands.  His organization, Hamas, is a very successful terrorist group that has deliberately racked up hundreds of innocent Israeli lives in just the last ten years, with attacks on cafes, retail shops, hotels, and passenger buses. 

The many unfortunate victims who survived his organization's terror campaigns often suffered physical disability, mental impairment, disfigurement, and/or a lifetime of chronic pain. These include children, the elderly, and hundreds of other human beings in the prime of their lives.

Haniyeh and his fellow terrorists have promised to keep attacking the Jewish people in their own state and denying them basic human rights.  Last year, they raided Israel and captured an innocent soldier, whom they have yet to free.

As can be seen from the picture posted above (Norwegian Deputy Foreign Minister, Raymond Johansen, shaking Haniyeh's hand), the government of Norway is not deterred by any of this.  Shamefully, they have chosen to recognize the Hamas government and send a diplomatic mission to Gaza.

The sly grin on Haniyeh's face belies his confidence that the murderous activities and diplomatic intransigence of Hamas are fully affirmed by Norway's recognition. 

Norway (which sent at least 737 Jews to the Nazi death camps) is the first Western country to breach the dam of international ostracism that was intended to slowly pressure Hamas into reform and peace. 

There will be none of either now, as other Western nations are sure to follow Norway's example.

(See also, Norway's Socialist Dhimmis, which briefly discusses the pathetic response to the 2001 report that the perpetrators of two out of every three rapes in Oslo are Muslim immigrants).

February 2007 Dhimwit: Ted Turner

Ted Turner
Giving Angry White Males a bad name.

This month, French President Jacques Chirac narrowly escaped our Dhimwit of the Month honor by hastily retracting an off-the-cuff remark in which he asserted that Iran having "one or two nuclear weapons" wouldn't pose much of a danger to the world.

Whether his retraction was based on common sense or political expediency is a matter of speculation, but American billionaire Ted Turner can hardly be accused having too much of either these days.

Turner went even further than Chirac last year by saying that Iran should be allowed to have ten nuclear bombs, since the U.S. has "28,000".  To our knowledge, he has yet to retract this ridiculous statement.

What makes this particularly noteworthy is that Turner co-founded the Nuclear Threat Initiative, an anti-nuclear proliferation organization that claims to be "working for a safer world."  By this, we assume that the group means this world... although it is unclear how our safety is enhanced by the presence of nuclear weapons in the hands of the same theocratic regime that pioneered the suicide bomber and has been the world's leading financier of Islamic terror.

Perhaps Turner didn't catch the memo, but Islamic terrorists are trying to kill the rest of us, and have been for some time.  They have no obligation to international law or even basic human decency.  All they have is a vision of mass destruction in the name of Allah. 

Turner's statement legitimizes the illegal activities of rogue regimes like Iran, abetting their quest for nuclear weapons and most certainly making the world a far more dangerous place for ordinary residents.

Turner is one of the wealthiest men alive.  He owns massive swaths of real estate in places like Patagonia (the obscure southern tip of South America).  In short, he is one of just a handful of individuals on the planet who could actually ride out a nuclear holocaust in luxurious fashion, while the rest of the world perishes in chaos.

Although Turner apparently sees through Iran's flimsy denial that it is pursuing nuclear capability for "peaceful purposes," he is unable to make the obvious connection between apocalyptically-minded nuclear Mullahs and a very, very bright future for certain parts of the planet.  He is deeply ignorant of radical Islam and its relentless drive to dominate every soul on earth by any means necessary.

This man's wealth insulates him from the reality in which the rest of us have to live, which is why he feels comfortable essentially telling the Iranians that they have a right to pursue nuclear ambitions.  Even if we successfully preempt the Iranian holocaust, irresponsible dhimwits like Ted Turner have convinced these religious fanatics of their entitlement to weapons of mass destruction, virtually assuring that our children pay a price of some sort down the line.

January 2007 Dhimwit: Tony Blair

Tony Blair... what's he been smoking lately?

We aren’t entirely comfortable with our choice this month, since Prime Minister Tony Blair has made tremendous political sacrifices fighting Islamic extremists in Afghanistan and Iraq.  He is demonized by the far Left in Britain – the wild-eyed bunch of naïve fanatics who are doing their best to flush the country.  Placing him in the same category (however briefly) as George Galloway seems about as natural as putting Stephen Hawking on a surfboard.

On the other hand, we have heard from quite a few angry Brits over the last several months who have been pleading for his nomination as top dhimwit on the basis that he coddles Islamic extremists in Britain, such as Abid Javiaid, a member of a radical Islamic group and (amazingly) a high-ranking immigration official in government.

Last month, Blair all but hoped for a Muslim prime minister of Britain.  He also stated that he didn’t mind having a Muslim daughter-in-law (which indicates a deep ignorance of Islam, since the religion expressly forbids its women from marrying outside the faith).

But what Blair did earlier this month managed to top all of this.  In an interview with the magazine, Foreign Affairs, the prime minister pandered to Muslims with extraordinary indulgence:

TOP