The UCLA MES Supports Gay Genocide

I recently attended another terrorist sleeper cell meeting at UCLA that billed itself as an academic conference. The anti-gay, anti-Semitic and anti-American rhetoric flowed like a fabulous fragrance from a homosexual Islamist cologne bottle. The links to the column are at Campus Watch and American Thinker.

http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/10341

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/ucla_where_queer_studies_and_m.html

I would like to thank Daniel Pipes at the Middle East Forum and Richard Baehr and Thomas Lifson at American Thinker for their friendship, support, and total commitment to defeating Radical Islam.

eric

8 Responses to “The UCLA MES Supports Gay Genocide”

  1. Those speakers sounded exactly like American, Republican, social conservatives. What are you complaining about?

    JMJ

  2. blacktygrrrr says:

    Cheap shots are not going to cut it today. If I heard any college professor on a campus make those remarks I would condemn it.

    Rather than bash the right gratuitously when they have nothing to do with this, the left should be thrilled that a conservative blogger is doing what the left won’t do, which is condemn these professors.

    Leftists are so interested in “diversity” that they invite bigots. Then somehow the right gets blamed. The left screwed this up, and I am trying to help fix it by making sure these bigots don’t get invited back.

    eric

  3. Micky 2 says:

    Yeah Jersey, you really need to curb your enthusiastic hate

  4. I just don’t see how one hypocrisy trumps another. And I don’t even know what you’re condemning. After all, you freely associate yourself with people who hold pretty much the exact same beliefs.

    Yes, liberal people, especially academics, are firm believers in the profligation of ideas, whether we agree with them or not. It’s about understanding them – not agreeing with them. Let the bigots speak. We need to hear them speak if we are going to understand where they’re coming from, rather than do as conservatives do and simply project our own epistemologies on others and assume we understand them, usually to the detriment of all involved.

    JMJ

  5. Look, I understand what you’re talking about. For instance, let’s say Ann Coulter spoke to the same audience. What would happen? She’d probably get booed off the podium – or worse. That bothers me too. Ann Coulter may be a deplorable human being, but she’s not a Sharia zealot (though I imagine if she had her way she’d be almost as bad). There is hypocrisy from the Left and if often manifests itself rather arrogantly and obbiquitously in academia. But the hypocrisy is not that they let people like Merabet speak, but that they don’t let people like Ann Coulter speak. Of course, there is a simple reason for that – Ann Coulter and the rest of the American Right are heard all the time on TV and radio and in the print. We don’t know nearly as much about what goes on in the Middle East, as our modern corporate media doesn’t seem to think it’s important enough to report on.

    JMJ

  6. Micky 2 says:

    ” American Right are heard all the time on TV and radio and in the print. ”

    And in the last election

  7. Exactly. There’s no great mystery about the American Right. On the other hand, the plight of homosexuals in the Muslim world is new to the West. It came to the fore when that Iranian lunatic of a president made that insane comment about there being “no homosexuals” in Iran. Since then, there’s been a spotlight on this interesting issue. I say we should keep that spotlight on, not turn it off in the name of partisan “cheap shots.”

    JMJ

  8. Micky 2 says:

    Maybe they could go with “dont ask dont tell “?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.