Chuck Norris has reached the end of another of his multi-installment opuses, so let's go examine the wreckage.
Nine years ago this week, we began to chant: "We never will forget 9/11."
Damn, Chuck, if by "we" there you mean right-wing crazies, you didn't just start chanting, you started doing the frickin' wave.
Nine years later, I think too many of us have forgotten, especially those in the White House.
Islamic extremists murdered almost 3,000 innocent Americans on 9/11. Who would have believed that within a decade of that tragic event, we'd have a president who believes, according to his own 2009 Cairo confession and creed, that it is part of his "responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear"?
Not to mention his mission to fight for the new mosque near ground zero!
"Towing the bigot missile" is the new "waving the bloody shirt."
We then get Chuck offering his HELPFUL PRECIS of WHAT HAS GONE BEFORE for the BENEFIT of NEW READERS.
In Part 1 of this series, I began to demonstrate how President Barack Obama is using his special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Rashad Hussain, to "deepen and expand the partnerships that the United States has pursued with Muslims around the world since President Obama's speech in Cairo."
Well, fair enough. When Bush said he wanted to reach out to the Muslim World, he sent them Karen Hughes, something that's pretty hard to square with the idea that he wanted them to like us.
Also he started a pretty stupid war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. I suppose if you buy the "logic" of the Ground Zero Mosque Is Wicked!!! argument, then the Iraq war makes sense too, though it's only a small step from there to the idea that the sensible next step is to send missiles into Lower Manhattan, and that's just crazy talk. Oh wait. Right. We're towing the bigot missile....
The rest of Chuck's tedious prattling is about how Obama hates the Jesus-lovers but loves the Musselmen. I lack the patience to go through it all, because, and this is what Chuck does, it's all recycled wingnut blog-standard drivel, and bleah. So just one crazy bit from his Electrifying Conclusion.
And just a few months ago, on June 23, that anti-First Amendment stand was reiterated. Hussain clearly explained the new leg of Obama's Muslim mission at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars -- information, by the way, that no mainstream news agency I could find even reported. Hussain said, "The OIC and the Obama administration will work together in the U.N. on the issue of defamation of religion, especially in Europe." (Please read that again.)
Could it get any clearer? "Especially in Europe," but not excluding America or wherever else Americans reside in the world!
And why should we not believe that Obama will overstep the Constitution again by handing over the administration of defamation of religion laws to global and international powers, when he recently reported Arizona immigration laws to the U.N. as an example of a human rights violation?
Gracious, what a tangle.
If you're not familiar with Rashad Hussain, that is because you're either a policy geek or you read a lot of wingnut blogs. This will get you up to speed if you care to get there, and I'll fully understand if you don't. As for the latest guff, it's more of the same (see here for the even crazier) all shriek, no light.
The thing about Obama wanting to destroy the First Amendment to make it illegal to not be nice to Muhammed comes from this Weekly Standard piece, which gives a sketchy account of Hussain's speech that you can view here in Part One (warning: it's a pretty tedious speech). The gist of the wingnut version is that Hussain is sympathetic to European laws about how you should get tossed in the clink for Insulting Islam.
The relevant bit for Chuck begins at about 36:30. And there isn't a lot of it. What Hussain says is unsurprisingly consistent with what he's said before:
We are also working on the issues of religious intolerance and discrimination at the UN. The United States would like to reach agreement with the OIC on an alternative to the defamation of religion resolution at the UN that addresses the problems of intolerance and discrimination. There is much that we agree on. The United States encourages respect for all religions and as a general matter discourages speech that is offensive. Moreover, we have seen first-hand the discrimination and violence that can be exacerbated by intolerance towards and fear of persons with different religious faiths. Measures taken by governments to unduly control religious dress or symbols like the hijab and minarets are offensive and wrong.
All he means is that the United States takes the view that it's wrong to make it illegal for anyone to express their religious beliefs:
On the issues of targeting religions, while we are also deeply concerned by hate speech that denigrates venerable figures such as the Prophet Muhammad, one area of negotiation that remains on the resolution is whether governments should place legal restrictions on speech. It has been my observation that doing so is counter-productive. The examples of the Satanic Verses and the Danish cartoons demonstrate that attempts to prohibit speech merely raise the profile of these depictions and make them more widespread. The cartoon ban led to the creation of a “Draw Muhammad” Facebook page. In the age of the Internet, governments cannot stop these pages from popping up. Attempting to shut down these pages will likely lead their authors to move their messages to other places such as MySpace or YouTube. Will governments shut down all these sites? And when they are unable or unwilling to do so, won’t they look weak for not being able enforce the speech restrictions they have put in place. This is why I believe that the resolution as it stands is actually bad for Muslims and Muslim-majority countries. An alternative approach which supports free speech and freedom of religion, while condemning negative racial and religious stereotyping and actions by individuals, provides a better way forward.
Which is some awfully innocuous opining. Or it would be, if Greater Wingnuttia cared about anything but its own lunatic dogma.
I mean, hell, to capture the utter inanity here, let's sample Chuck again:
(Please read that again.)
Could it get any clearer? "Especially in Europe," but not excluding America or wherever else Americans reside in the world!
Could Chuck Norris get any dumber? Hussain was keynoting at a conference called, astonishingly,
Beyond Cairo: Visions of a New Decade in EUROPEAN Islamic Relations
I've highlighted the crucial bit, the part that shows how Chuck Norris has no idea whatsoever what he's talking about, and doesn't remotely care.
Next we'll make fun of his stupid PSA.

