Showing posts with label Socialists-Fascists-Marxists-Communists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Socialists-Fascists-Marxists-Communists. Show all posts

Monday, February 28, 2011

Shooting Liberal Fish in a Barrel

Burt Prelutsky

By Burt Prelutsky

It isn't merely that they're always wrong about everything that makes leftists so damn obnoxious, it's their unshakeable belief that they're always right.

In a world that calls for logic, they have an endless supply of emotion. Talk about bringing a knife to a gunfight, these lunkheads bring a crying towel.

They talk incessantly about the need to raise taxes, mainly to provide for the poor. But, one, it's the taxes that are making more and more people poor and, two, they themselves retain an army of accountants and money managers to keep their tax bite to an absolute minimum. Or, better yet, they arrange things so that they receive their money through trusts, tax shelters and offshore accounts. Or, best of all, they simply cheat on their taxes. So it is that in one of those categories you will find George Soros, Tim Geithner, John and Teresa Kerry, Charlie Rangel, Alex Baldwin and all of the Kennedy's except George.

Time and again, man-made global warming has been shown to be a man-made hoax, but the true believers on the Left will continue promoting it, even when someone like Al Gore curiously changes the nomenclature and begins referring to climate change or climate disruption.

Some liberals are so gullible, I have even been tempted to place an ad in the NY Times or the Washington Post, promising to provide people with guaranteed winners at the race track if they'll send me, say, a hundred bucks. If they did, I'd send them this morning's newspaper with yesterday's race results.

If leftists had the slightest ability to reason, wouldn't they question why Obama and those of his cronies who promote the redistribution of wealth aren't standing on the corner redistributing all of theirs? Obama had millions of dollars when he became president, and today he has even more. George Soros had billions of dollars in January, 2009, and today he has even more. Why is that? It can't be that hard to find poor people who will gladly take the money off their hands. Heck, I'd take it, and I'd even give them the names of some winning horses. But the question remains, why is it only my dough and yours that needs to be redistributed?

Also, why is it that liberals are always talking about social justice? What ever became of plain old justice? So far as I can tell, when so-called progressives tack on "social," what they mean is that there should be two kinds of justice, separate and unequal, one for rich people and one for poor, one for white people and another for everybody else.

The problem is that when Eric Holder, for instance, refuses to prosecute New Black Panthers for intimidating white voters, he is in fact practicing social justice. Which is no justice at all. If anything, it should be called injustice.

Worse yet, it is the sort of thing that Sonia Sotomayor pledged to promote, as a wise Latina, on the Supreme Court.

Which reminds me -- as we begin the long, slow slog to the 2012 presidential election, it is essential that Republicans keep their eye on the prize. It will be a rough, even at times dirty, fight for the GOP nomination. Even without Mike Pence in the running, it promises to be a very crowded field. There are some potential candidates I like a lot, some others not so much. But I vow that whoever emerges victorious from the primary wars will have my support, even if I don't agree with him or her on every last issue.

The essential thing for all Republicans to keep in mind, whether they're RINOs or Tea Party patriots, is that Obama has already appointed two justices to the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan and Ms. Sotomayor. The only good thing I can say about them is that, aside from their gender, it didn't alter the makeup of the Court because the ladies were replacing those equally liberal dodos, John Paul Stevens and David Souter.

But God forbid that Obama gets an additional four-year term and has the opportunity to replace 75-year-old Antonin Scalia or place a younger version of 78-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the bench.

Keep in mind that long after the Obamas have gone back to Chicago where they can vote for Rahm Emanuel, party with Bill Ayers and pray with Jeremiah Wright, his Supreme Court appointments could continue to hold sway over everything from health care and same-sex marriages to illegal immigrants and late term abortions.

If you think four years of Obama is bad, just try to imagine what 30 or 40 years would be like.

Read
more excellent articles at The Patriot Post
Opinion

Friday, January 07, 2011

Liberals Don't Deserve America

Burt PrelutskyBy Burt Prelutsky

Considering the way that Obama shows his contempt for patriotism time and again -- as when he misquotes the Declaration of Independence, neglects to place his hand over his heart at flag ceremonies and denies American exceptionalism at every opportunity -- you'd think he'd learn to leave symbolic gestures to the professionals. Instead, whether the issue is closing Gitmo, providing civilian trials for Islamic terrorists or racial profiling at airports, his sole consideration seems to be whether something will annoy Muslims. Understand, I'm not claiming he is a Muslim. I have no proof of that. I'm claiming he's an arrogant idiot.

As I see it, America has been setting the world a damn good example for over 230 years. Most people have gotten the message long before now. The exceptions have mainly been Islamics and communists, and they're not looking for good examples; they're looking for world conquest. If the president wants to set a good example, he should stop insulting our allies and mollifying our sworn enemies.

Frankly, whenever I hear those knuckleheads in academia and the media praising the likes of Castro and Chavez or lamenting the loss of Mao or Che, I want to rap on their heads just to hear the echo. I mean, is it possible that they are totally unaware that, starting with Stalin, every communist regime has started out by employing intellectuals (aka "useful idiots") to propagandize on their behalf, and, inevitably, ended up by executing the ultimately unnecessary pests.

The reasons that intellectuals are so dangerous is because, one, they reside in a bubble, be it at a university, a paper or a TV newsroom, where they are surrounded by their clones; and, two, they are so certain that they're smarter than everyone else that any two-bit despot who pays them the least bit of attention will have them acting like lapdogs, eager to lick his hand and kiss his patootie.

Intellectuals remind me of Randy and Evi Quaid. They're the couple that escaped to Canada. Psychiatrists have suggested that the Quaids suffer from folie a deux, the madness of two. It's a delusional state shared by two people who bolster each other's twisted take on reality. When more than two people share the same delusions, we refer to it as the Democratic party.

In the case of the Quaids, they believe there's a secret cabal in America that has been responsible for murdering Michael Jackson and Heath Ledger. The Quaids believe those mysterious assassins they refer to as the Star Whackers are now after them. Of course, any sane person would realize how ridiculous that is. We're talking about Randy Quaid, for crying out loud. He really shouldn't start worrying until he gets word that he's been targeted by the Has-been Whackers.

Finally, getting back to Obama and foreign policy, the man is convinced that we can actually undermine and destroy Iran through economic pressure. That might be described as folie a un. Still, I can see where he might have gotten the idea. After all, it's worked like a charm for him here in America.

Read more excellent articles at The Patriot Post



Monday, November 08, 2010

Voters Speak: No To Soak-The-Rich Schemes

Michelle MalkinBy Michelle Malkin

Do Americans share President Obama’s desire to impose redistributive social justice on the well off? In liberal Washington State, of all places, voters gave a definitive answer this Tuesday: No! The resounding rejection of a punitive “Robin Hood” initiative shows that it’s not just red-state Republicans who oppose extreme tax hikes on the nation’s wealth generators.

As Capitol Hill resumes debate on whether to extend the so-called “Bush tax cuts,” the White House should pay special heed to the fate of little-noticed Initiative 1098. Its defeat by a whopping 65-35 margin doesn’t bode well for Team Obama’s class warriors still clinging bitterly to their soak-the-rich schemes. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner insisted this summer that saddling higher earners with higher taxes was “the responsible thing to do.” Given the chance to weigh in at the ballot box, a diverse majority of voters in the other Washington determined otherwise.

The Evergreen State is just one of seven states in the nation without a personal income tax. The ballot measure, which would have enacted a state income tax on the wealthiest 1 percent of Washington residents to raise $2 billion for bankrupt public schools, was sponsored by Microsoft founder Bill Gates and his left-wing corporate lawyer father. Top donors? The Service Employees International Union, whose state and national chapters threw in a combined $2.5 million of its members’ hard-earned dues money, and the National Education Association, which pitched in nearly $760,000.

Hiding behind kiddie human shields, the I-1098 campaign assailed the wealthy for “not paying their fair share” and plastered their campaign literature with sad-faced students and toddlers. Big Labor has been pushing a punish-the-wealthy movement for months. According to Forbes magazine, “six of the 10 states with the highest income tax rates — Oregon, California, Hawaii, New York, New Jersey and North Carolina — raised their levies on high earners, at least temporarily” last year.

But business owners large and small, representing companies from Bartell Drugs to Amazon.com, successfully fought back against the job-killing measure in Washington State. Disavowing the Gateses, Microsoft honcho Steve Ballmer also joined the opposition. The software company’s senior executives expressed grave concern “about the impact I-1098 will have on the state’s ability to attract top tech talent in the future.” Liberal newspaper editorial boards including the Seattle Times and Tacoma News Tribune added their objections, citing I-1098′s reckless targeting of wealth-creation in the middle of a recession and the inevitable extension and increase of income taxes to the middle class. And economists at the independent, nonpartisan Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University found that I-1098′s tax burdens would lengthen and deepen the current economic downturn by destroying private sector jobs, reducing residents’ disposable income and prolonging the state’s high unemployment rate.

Amber Gunn of the free-market Evergreen Freedom Foundation in Olympia, Wash., gave the bottom line on I-1098′s unreality-based advocates: “Initiative proponents like to operate in a Keynesian world where higher tax rates and their effects on human behavior and competitiveness among states don’t matter. But those effects are present in the real world and must be accounted for.”

I-1098′s promoters tried to disguise their wealth-suppression vehicle as tax “relief” by tossing in a few stray targeted cuts. But they were called out by a judge and slapped with a court order to make the income tax burden explicit in the ballot title.

If only the taxmen in Washington, D.C., were required to do the same. Obama’s budget proposal is a soak-the-rich scheme adorned with a few business tax breaks that would — for starters — impose nearly $1 trillion in higher taxes on couples making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000. Some “relief.”

On Thursday afternoon, still smarting from the nationwide “shellacking” the Democrats received on Election Day, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs signaled that Obama would be willing to “entertain” temporary — not permanent — tax relief for the nation’s highest earners. But a time-limited reprieve in prolonged economic hard times is expedient politics and bad policy. Tax relief should be all or none. The new House majority should force the Democrats to choose.

Republicans must stop allowing the White House to demonize America’s entrepreneurs and producers. By continuing to refer to them as beneficiaries of the “Bush tax cuts” instead of as the besieged victims of Obama tax increases, the GOP cedes the moral high ground. It’s time to make the White House own its noxious war on wealth.

Contributing Editor is the author of Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies (Regnery 2009).

Read more excellent articles from

Tuesday, November 02, 2010

Last Week, Juan Williams; This Week, Andrew Breitbart

Project 21 / The National Center for Public Policy Research – Press Release

For Immediate Release
Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or (703) 568-4727 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org
Judy Kent at (703) 759-7476 or jkent@nationalcenter.org

Free Speech "Schizophrenia": Left Claims to Support Freedom and Openness, Yet Up in Arms that Andrew Breitbart Might Express an Opinion on ABC News

The Censorship Continues: Last Week, Juan Williams; This Week, Andrew Breitbart - Who's Next?

Washington, D.C. - Members of the Project 21 black leadership network are expressing disgust over the left's lack of real respect for the First Amendment in light of the uproar among professional liberals that ABC News invited conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart to contribute opinions on election night.

"Silencing speech is the consistent theme used by progressives," said Project 21 full-time Fellow Deneen Borelli. "Not too long ago, NPR threw Juan Williams under the bus because he expressed his feelings, and now ABC News is experiencing the wrath of the left for inviting Andrew Breitbart to appear as a commentator on election night. Progressives will conveniently play the race card or launch smear campaigns in their desperate attempt to control conservative thought."

Breitbart is scheduled to take part in an online election night town hall meeting at Arizona State University to be moderated by ABC News anchor David Muir and Randi Zuckerberg of Facebook. The far-left Media Matters for America, a long-time Breitbart critic, claims the network "puts its credibility on the line" by associating with Breitbart.

Media Matters also published the opinion of Rose Sanders, the attorney for Shirley Sherrod, the former U.S. Department of Agriculture official fired by the Obama White House after a video of part of a speech she gave to a local NAACP event was posted online by Breitbart, and sought, but failed to obtain, the opinion of Sherrod herself. Sanders recklessly compared inviting Breitbart to participate in a media event was like "giving a Klansman an award for burning a cross on Shirley Sherrod's house."

"Shirley Sherrod's lawyer personifies the liberal schizophrenia on the subject of free speech," noted Project 21 member Jerome Hudson. "The Left cannot on one hand be champions of decency and openness and then attempt to suppress Andrew Breitbart's views on the other."

Project 21, a leading voice of black conservatives since 1992, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research (http://www.nationalcenter.org

Read more informative articles at The National Center for Public Policy Research



Sunday, October 31, 2010

‘Dogs Don’t Bark at Parked Cars!’

Ken BlackwellBy Ken Blackwell

That’s some of the wisdom my Dad taught me. I thought of that saying when I read the attacks on Family Research Council president Tony Perkins. There’s a concerted effort to marginalize those who think marriage is important. In doing so, the left wants to shut out millions of Americans at the grassroots. But Mr. Perkins never runs from a fight. He’s out in front, leading. And all the dogs are barking at him.

Recently, Mr. Perkins was attacked as a big government backer. Apparently, if you try to defend marriage as the union of one man and one woman, that is supposed to make you an advocate of big government.

Perkins has been fighting for tax cuts and less spending for twenty years. He wants the federal government to stop interfering with the family, stop intruding into small businesses, and stop usurping state and local authority. How does that make him an advocate for big Government?

Some critics think that when you stand up for marriage, that makes you an ally of big government. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The wedding march began through the states in Hawaii. The Aloha State was America’s first majority non-white, majority non-Christian state, and Hawaii voters strongly backed a referendum that prevented the state’s Supreme Court from overturning marriage.

Conservative leaders have teamed up with the people against liberal powers in state after state. All too often, the top dogs of both parties opposed these people’s initiatives, or else hung back.

These state and local groups have rack up popular victories for marriage in 31 states. Wherever the marriage issue appears on the ballot, the people say it loud, say it proud: Marriage is between one man and one woman.

There are no marriage questions on the state ballots this year. Liberal journos are trying to say the movement has lost steam. What? Is that why liberals are afraid to let the issue come to a vote in Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York?

Judges of the Iowa Supreme Court are hanging onto their hats and their seats, facing voter wrath because they decided to overturn marriage – and the people’s voice be silenced.

Thirty-eight million Americans have voted to protect marriage. Marriage is more popular than any other issue on the conservative agenda. Marriage wins in liberal states, like Hawaii and Wisconsin, in conservative states like Kansas and Utah, and in middle-of-the-road states like Virginia and Ohio.

Marriage is no “wedge” issue. Some jounalists like to call it that, as if it’s not important. But Marriage is a bridge issue. Marriage wins among blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and whites.

Marriage appeals to non-college educated as well as to blue collar workers. It’s a way of bringing those elusive Reagan Democrats back into the fold.

In California this year, we may see a Republican win the state house and another go to the Senate. But it’s been more than twenty years since Republicans carried the Golden State for President. While John McCain was going down to a crushing defeat in California in 2008, Proposition 8, the Marriage Protection Amendment, was cruising to victory.

We have heard a lot about compassionate conservatism. And we’ve heard accusations that conservatives are “downright mean.” Well, defending marriage is the most compassionate thing conservatives can do.

Even some liberals recognize this. Bill Galston once worked for Bill Clinton. He says if a young couple will just finish high school, avoid having children out of wedlock, and marry, the chances are only 4% they will ever live in poverty.

Big government feeds on the breakdown of marriage. Our prisons are filling up with fatherless young men. What Bill Bennett wisely called the Broken Hearth fuels demands for more money for extra helpers in schools, for food stamps, for expanded medical coverage – all these needs are exacerbated by the breakdown of marriage.

Today, tragically, nearly 40% of our children are born out-of-wedlock. And big government consumes nearly 40% of our Gross Domestic Product.

I don’t believe the 40/40 link is imaginary?

If you want smaller government, lower taxes, and a return to constitutional principles, the fastest way to do that is to defend marriage, empower the family, and show Americans  real compassion.

Read more informative articles at The Patriot Post



Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Harry Reid: “Vote for Me or I’ll Pose Nude”

Scott Brown
Scott Brown

Nevada Senator’s New PR Guru Also Coached Scott Brown, Nixon

Erica Bazoombas(Washington, D.C.) – by Erica Bazoombas - Scott Brown’s meteoric rise to the U.S. Senate came as a surprise to most, but not to Las Vegas image consultant Barb Iturate. Posing nude and driving a pickup truck is the recipe for eminence and fame says the public relations genius who helped launch the political career of Richard Nixon. “A lot of people don’t remember Nixon posing nude, but he did,” Iturate told SPN. “They didn’t call him Tricky Dick because of his politics” she added.


Harry Reid
Reid: “I’ll take it all off, baby.”

55 DodgeNow embattled Senate majority leader Harry Reid has hired Iturate to get him through a very tough election this November in Nevada where he is trailing in every poll and is reportedly desperate to win.

Iturate spoke to SPN this afternoon and said: “If I don’t detect a major change in the polls soon you’ll be seeing Harry’s hairy ass on the pages of your Sports Illustrated and Ladies Home Journal.” The Nevada Democrat said he has already purchased a pickup truck, a 1955 Dodge. “It’s way cool dude,” he said.



Thursday, September 16, 2010

Dem Candidates Masquerading As Republicans

SCOOTER'S REPORT EXCLUSIVE - Amid a growing number of reports that Democrat candidates are attempting to hide their party affiliation from voters, we contacted the campaign offices of two candidates involved in high profile races to see for ourselves:

Ohio Rep. Steve Driehaus

Driehaus campaign office (DCO): Driehaus for Congress, may I help You?

SR: Hello. Is Rep. Driehaus a Democrat?

DCO: Do you like Democrats?

SR: Of course not, they suck.

DCO: Well then, I can tell you that you'd like Rep. Driehaus, he's very conservative...

SR: Did he vote for healthcare?

DCO: (Hang up)

Virginia Rep. Glenn Nye

Nye campagn office (NCO): It's a Nye day for America, how may I help you?

SR: Hello. I just want to know if Rep. Nye is a Democrat.

NCO: Rep. Nye doesn't believe in labels...

SR: Look sister, is he a Democrat or not?

NCO: Sort of not...

SR: So then he's a Republican?

NCO: I'd say more like a Republicrat...

SR: There is no such thing.

NCO: (Hang up)

While our investigation was inconclusive, the fact most Democrat candidates are campaigning under an altered version of the traditional party symbol may indicate a possible attempt to mask their affiliation. More on this as it develops.





Saturday, September 11, 2010

9/11 Anniversary: Administration Rubs Salt Into A National Wound

The events of the last few days should forever cast upon this administration the twin stains of hypocrisy and cowardice. The affair of the proposed Koran burning, which I wrote about here, has been met with such a ferocity by the American media and the American establishment that it is hard to feel anything but revulsion at the treatment of Pastor Terry Jones.
 
Burning Korans is an act that Muslims will find outrageous, and many Muslims would want to respond with violent acts, but it is every American’s right to burn books that he or she legally possesses.
 
There is something very alarming about seeing books being burned. In the days of the Renaissance, the genuine advancements in art, thought and literature that were changing and civilizing the European world were met with hostility. A tyrannical Dominican friar named Girolamo Savonarola (1452 – 1498) became leader of Florence. In 1497, in an act known as the Bonfire of the Vanities, he publicly burned books and art. A year later Savonarola was suspended by chains from a giant cross and roasted to death over a bonfire, in Florence’s public square. In the 20th century, the Nazis burned books and art. Burning of books has always suggested intolerance.
 
Pastor Terry Jones intended to burn Korans, and when religious leaders in America and South Africa presided over the burning of “offensive” music albums by the Beatles in the 1960s, he was following a tradition. As far as I can tell, no American president intervened to condemn preachers burning Beatles records, or later examples of music. Whether or not Pastor Terry Jones, whose church is so small he has less than fifty members, considered the extent of the  backlash when he decided to mount his own protest on the anniversary of 9/11 is not known.
 
Yesterday, Pastor Terry Jones was even vilified in the British Parliament. Sir George Young, the leader of the House of Commons, and a member of the Cabinet, used Parliamentary Question Time to declare that Pastor Terry Jones was a “stupid bigot.” Young’s comment was met with resounding cheers.
 
When a man who only has a few supporters is attacked in the media, and in the world’s press, receives more than a hundred death threats in his own country, and is portrayed as a hate-figure in the Muslim world, is it not disgraceful that he should then be condemned publicly by politicians and even his president? Is this justice? Is this showing respect for the man’s First Amendment rights?
 
Why would the President of the United States get involved? On Friday August 13 Obama defended the religious rights of Imam Rauf to build a mosque near Ground Zero, even though 70 percent of Americans felt offended by this. Obama effectively sided with the imam, the imam who in 2001 had said that “United States policies were an accessory” to the attacks of 9/11. Rauf had added: “In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.”
 
In the eyes of many Americans, the president of the United States had already shown himself to be more concerned with the feelings of Muslims than Christians, Jews or any other American group. When he publicly spoke of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s rights to build a mosque at Ground Zero, that impression deepened. Rauf is paid by the State Department to travel abroad and talk to Muslims, and the White House has a Muslim adviser. There is no “Christian” and no “Jewish” adviser in the White House.  Members of Muslim Brotherhood-related groups are invited to iftar dinners in the White House, even though the Muslim Brotherhood seeks to destroy democracy and replace it with the barbaric system of Sharia. Is the administration trying too hard to appease the Muslim world, and neglecting the will of the people?
 
Tomorrow is the anniversary of 9/11. If one thing has emerged from the recent debacles involving the proposed Ground Zero Mosque, it is that many Americans still regard the attacks that took place nine years ago tomorrow as a hurtful wound that has not healed. It is a wound that will not be healed by an administration that allies itself with Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood. It is a wound that is being aggravated by an administration that seems to pander to Muslims, but neglects Christians, Jews and members of other religious groups.
 
Pastor Jones, despite representing a small religious community has been subjected to severe pressure. He has been condemned by Eric Holder and Hillary Clinton. General David Petraeus has suggested that burning Korans will put American soldiers at risk.
 
American soldiers have always been at risk from fanatical Muslims, just for being American. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are not going to become non-hostile because Korans are NOT burned. And American soldiers have sometimes been put at risk by fanatical Muslims in their own ranks such as Sergeant Hasan Akbar, who killed two superior officers in a grenade attack on the eve of the Iraq invasion of 2003. Another fanatical Muslim who put American soldiers at risk was the army psychiatrist and “Soldier of Allah” Major Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 military personnel at Fort Hood.
 
President Obama has gone along with the notion that a small event in Florida involving some Korans and some gasoline would threaten the security of the nation. Obama said openly that the burning of Korans would be
 
“a recruitment bonanza for al-Qaeda. If he's listening, I hope he understands that what he's proposing to do is completely contrary to our values as Americans. That this country has been built on the notion of freedom and religious tolerance. And as a very practical matter, I just want him to understand that this stunt that he is talking about pulling could greatly endanger our young men and women who are in uniform.”
 
Not content to demonize the pastor for being “un-American,” Obama apparently urged Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to pressure the pastor. Gates called Terry Jones and according to Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell:
 
“The Secretary expressed his grave concern that going forward would put the lives of our forces at risk, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, and urged him not to proceed with it. That was the extent of it.”
 
The disproportionate pressure that the administration has brought to bear upon a preacher from a humble community is startling. A BBC reporter, Mark Mardell, has written:
 
“There's something grotesque about the man who's in day-to-day charge of the most powerful military force the world has ever known having to lift the phone and plead with an eccentric pastor with a flock of around 50.”
 
Why Did Pastor Jones Back Down?
 
Yesterday, at a press conference in Gainesville, Florida, Pastor Terry Jones announced that he had come to an agreement with the backers of the Ground Zero Mosque and for this reason the planned Koran-burning would not go ahead. He told reporters:
 
“We are, of course, now against any other group burning Korans.  We would right now ask no one to burn Korans. We are absolutely strong on that. It is not the time to do it.”
 
He said that the backers of the Ground Zero Mosque had said they would be moving the location of the proposed Islamic “cultural center” in Lower Manhattan. Jones said that he would be flying to New York on Saturday to talk to the imam of the proposed Ground Zero Mosque.
 
Standing beside Pastor Jones was Imam Muhammad Musri, the head of the Islamic Society of Central Florida. Pastor Jones, during the press conference, said that Musri had told him that officials had guaranteed that the mosque would be moved. Jones said:
 
“I asked him [Musri] three times, and I have witnesses. If it's not moved, then I think Islam is a very poor example of religion. I think that would be very pitiful. I do not expect that.”
 
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf then declared from New York that he had no intentions to move his mosque.
 
This caused Pastor Jones to then announce that Imam Muhammad Musri
 
“had clearly, clearly lied to us. Given what we are now hearing, we are forced to rethink our decision. So as of right now, we are not cancelling the event, but we are suspending it.”
 
Pastor Jones may well have been lied to. Musri was present at the press conference. He has subsequently claimed that his words were “stretched”, and that he had only agreed to fly to New York with Pastor Jones to meet with the Ground Zero Mosque backers.
 
Muhammad Musri silently stood by while Pastor Jones apparently made a fool of himself, only to later claim that his words were stretched. He could have contradicted the Pastor then and there. The fact that he did not do that indicates that he may have deliberately set up the preacher.
 
The whole affair has been undignified, and has done more to present to Muslim nations the concept that America is weak and spineless.
 
Few people agree with burning Korans, but when a president talks of the rights of an imam to build a mosque at Ground Zero, it is shameful that he should then condemn a preacher for wishing to express his own political views. It is also shameful that the president should use the issue of the safety of American troops as a means to pressure the preacher. After the president’s Rules of Engagement and COIN strategies have placed American soldiers at increased risk, this smacks of more than hypocrisy.
 
Tomorrow will be the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in America’s history. When Pearl Harbor took place, it was an opening salvo in a war where the identities of the participants would be known. 9/11 was an opening salvo in a war, as Bernard Lewis noted, but the identities of the participants in this war between Islamism and the West are clouded.
 
It can only be hoped that when the anniversary of 9/11 takes place tomorrow, the memory of those innocent people whose lives were sacrificed will not be clouded by political actions.
 
Imam Feisal Rauf has managed to turn the spotlight onto his own ambitions, while only paying lip service to those who died. A man who blamed American policies for 9/11 is hardly the person to be representing America. He has succeeded in putting Islam center-stage in the news, while minimizing the fact that the perpetrators of 9/11 were following Koranic injunctions to the letter.
 
The current administration has taken Rauf’s side and opposed a small-town preacher, apparently in an effort to appease the extremists of Islam. In the current febrile climate, it is becoming increasingly likely that the anniversary of 9/11 will be diverted by the administration from its true significance. The day will surely be used to make further politically appeasing gestures to the Muslim world, when it should be about showing solidarity with, and commiseration for, the relatives of those whose lives were cut short by the vicious and inhuman vanguards of radical Islam.
 


Monday, September 06, 2010

A (Consistently) Dishonest Broker?

By David Isaac

On September 2nd, direct talks began between Arabs and Israelis. During the August 20 press conference announcing the talks, Special Envoy for Middle East Peace George Mitchell was asked by a reporter whether President Obama would be seen as an “honest broker” by the two sides. In the case of Israel, the answer, to put it bluntly, is no.

There are, of course, the obvious concerns about our current president: His acceptance of the Palestinian-Arab narrative, revealed during his Cairo speech when he rejected “the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements,” his attempt to make political hay out of Israel’s announcement of new home construction in Jerusalem, and his obnoxious behavior towards Israel’s prime minister during their March meeting. The pieces create a whole that would disturb any Israeli negotiator’s night’s sleep.

But the fact of the matter is, regardless of whether a U.S. president is more or less favorably disposed to the Jewish state – and in this case, certainly less – the United States has consistently pursued a policy that is inimical to Israel and accepting of the Arab position. This policy entails Israel’s return to the strategically indefensible 1949 Armistice lines – what Abba Eban called a “death trap.”

Since 1967, every administration has put forth plans that pushed for Israel’s surrender of the territories it captured in the Six Day War. Policy-makers ignore the fact that areas like Judea and Samaria (the “West Bank”) never belonged to the Arabs. Legally, they remained part of the British Mandate for Palestine. They were seized illegally by Jordan in a war of aggression. They were then wrested from Jordan by Israel in a war of defense. The idea that these are ‘illegally occupied lands’ is the language of anti-Israel Arab propaganda, a figment of a fictional history.

Yet, it’s on this fabrication that the U.S. bases its policy, arguing for Israeli withdrawal. What happens when Israel does surrender territory is clear from the case of Gaza – now a Hamas launching pad for missiles into Israeli population centers. Gaza’s decline has not shaken the belief of American policy-makers that Israel must continue to cede captured territory.

Largely to blame is the State Department, which has a well-documented antagonism to Zionism dating from the First World War. Its motives are two-fold: A desire not to antagonize the Arabs and a fear of risking the flow of oil. For each incoming president, it trots out the same old policy dressed up in new clothes. Unless a U.S. president has strong views to the contrary and the will to impose them, the State Department’s policy will emerge triumphant.

From the start, America has shown itself to be an untrustworthy ally. In 1948, only three years after the Holocaust, when five well-armed Arab states with the support of the British attempted to annihilate the newly formed Jewish state, the U.S. incongruously declared an arms embargo on both sides. In 1967, America attempted to restrain Israel even as Arab forces gathered on its border.

In the Yom Kippur War, it was the U.S. that turned Israeli victory to defeat by pressuring Israel to refrain from destroying the Egyptian Third Army. Nor let us forget how Israel was restrained by the first Bush administration from retaliating when Iraqi Scud missiles rained down on it.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributor David Isaac is a former executive director of Americans for A Safe Israel and currently serves as editor of the Web site ShmuelKatz.com.


Political