Study says Iran textbooks urge “martyrdom”

Study says Iran textbooks urge “martyrdom”

No, it’s not shocking that Iranian textbooks would teach hatred of the U.S. and Israel and urge students to wage jihad and seek “martyrdom.” What is interesting is “U.S. academic” Shireen T. Hunter’s contradicting the claims of an Iranian human rights activist that the books teach hatred and urge martyrdom. It’s just Third World countries’ distrust of “neocolonialist” powers, you see.

To think otherwise — for instance, that the jihad ideology transcends whatever geopolitical factors are used as a pretext at the moment, and predates European colonialist aspirations — would be Islamophobic. “Study says Iran textbooks urge martyrdom,” by Thomas Wagner for AP:

LONDON – Textbooks used in Iran’s schools are instilling students with hatred toward the West, especially the United States, and urging them to become “martyrs” in a global holy war against countries perceived to be enemies of Islam, a new study says.

An Iranian human rights activist, Ghazal Omid, praised the findings, saying they prove hard-liners in Iran are using the books to turn children into “ticking bombs.”

However, a U.S. academic who specializes in Iran and Islam, and a former Iranian teacher said they believe the textbooks are a reflection of Iran’s history and its deep suspicions of the West, not an effort to turn students into terrorists.

The books emphasize the teachings of the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and repeatedly refer to the United States as the “Great Satan” and to Israel as “the regime that occupies Jerusalem,” said the study by the Israel-based Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace.

Omid, who fled Iran and wrote “Living in Hell,” an autobiography about her experiences there, urged changes to textbooks in Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East.

“I am an Iranian, a practicing Muslim woman, who sees it as her responsibility to stand up to hard-line Muslims who use Islam to brainwash children of that faith, in particular Iranian children, who the Iranian government is turning into ticking bombs,” she said.

Omid, who lives in Canada, spoke at a news conference in London on Wednesday with study author Aron Groiss, director of research at the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace.

Calls to Iranian officials for comment were not immediately answered.

The study analyzed 95 textbooks and 20 teacher’s guides used at Iran’s state-run schools. Groiss said the curriculum “reflects Iran’s belligerent intentions which should sound the alarm to anyone who is committed to peace and stability in the world.”

The study noted, however, that Western culture “is not rejected in principle” in the books and that the attitude to other religions is generally “not hostile.” The books include discussion sections on respecting other religions and don’t say people should be forced to convert to Islam.

That’s not the same as saying war should not be waged in order to place all peoples under Islamic law.

Shireen T. Hunter, a specialist on Islam and Iran at the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University in Washington, said it was a mistake to portray Iranian textbooks as manuals for creating terrorists.

“In some ways, they simply reflect the deep distrust of Third World countries about the policies and motivations of the great powers, which they see as neocolonialist,” she said.

“When such textbooks promote martyrdom they are referring to the sacrifices needed to defend Iran against foreign enemies as Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war.”

In Tehran, Mostafa Mirzaian, an Iranian freelance political researcher who worked as a high school teacher in Iran in the 1980s, agreed.

“It is natural that a government, formed after an anti-West revolution and an eight-year war with Iraq, inserts such items in school textbooks,” he said.

“But it has no remarkable effect. You saw when American wrestlers came to Iran for a competition in January; Iranian teenagers warmly welcomed them. Also, you don’t see any attacks on the 25,000-member Jewish community in Iran.”

Of course, no mention is made of the concept of dhimmitude, unbelievers’ existence under Islamic law as “protected peoples,” whose subjugation is enshrined in law per Qur’an 9:29.

Textbooks used in Iranian elementary schools included stories and poems that hailed martyrs such as those who died in the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, Groiss said. Another picture book for 10-year-olds provides a basic acquaintance with weaponry, explosives and
military tactics, he said.

The study quotes one passage from a book for 10th graders as saying: “During the eight years of Holy Defense (the Iran-Iraq war), more than 500,000 school students were sent to the fronts. 36,000 martyrs, thousands of missing-in-action, invalids and liberated (prisoners of war) of this sacrificing section were offered to the Islamic Revolution.”

A passage from a book for eighth graders says God gives “eternal Paradise to anyone who becomes a martyr in the cause of God. He considers martyrdom a great victory.”

The United States is referred to as the “Great Satan,” the “World Devourer” and the “Arrogant One” in the books, and Israel is shown on maps as “Occupied Palestine.”

The study is the latest to call for textbook reform in the Islamic world. Such efforts are under way or planned in Egypt, Jordan and Kuwait to remove slurs against non-Muslims or promotions of extremism and terrorism. Israeli textbooks have undergone revisions since the 1990s to remove anti-Arab bias and present a more balanced account of Palestinian views and aspirations.

Hillary Clinton’s Flip-Flop Chronicled

 Hillary Clinton’s Flip-Flop Chronicled

NewsMax.com
Thursday, Feb. 8, 2007 12:55 a.m. EST

The lead editorial in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal chronicles Sen. Hillary Clinton’s move from a “solid, even eloquent hawk” on the Iraq war to a presidential candidate calling for a quick withdrawal of American forces.

“Pressured by other candidates and by her party’s left wing, she is walking back her hawkish statements and is now all but part of the antiwar camp,” the editorial declares, citing Clinton’s statements over the past 4 1/2 years:

  • On October 10, 2002, Clinton spoke to the Senate in favor of a use-of-force resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq, saying: “The facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt.”
  • On December 15, 2003, when it was clear there were no large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Clinton’s support was unwavering. “I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force,” she told the Council on Foreign Relations. “We have no option but to stay involved and committed.”
  • On April 20, 2004, Clinton told CNN’s Larry King that she did not “regret giving the president the authority,” noting that Saddam Hussein “had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade.”
  • In October 2005, amid growing anti-war sentiment, Clinton still told the Village Voice: “I don’t believe it’s smart to set a date for withdrawal . . . I don’t think it’s the right time to withdraw.”
  • By November 2005, Hillary was softening her stance, saying in a letter to constituents: “If Congress had been asked [to authorize the war], based on what we know now, we never would have agreed.”
  • On December 18, 2006, Clinton went even further, saying on the “Today” show: “I certainly wouldn’t have voted that way.”
  • On January 13 of this year, Clinton spoke from Baghdad about President Bush’s call for a troop surge: “I don’t know that the American people or the Congress at this point believe this mission can work.”
  • On January 17, Clinton called for a cap on the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, and suggested withholding funds for the Iraqi government.
  • Finally, on January 27, Clinton hit the campaign trail in Iowa and demanded that the president “extricate our country from this before he leaves office.”

    The Journal opines: “What’s troubling about Mrs. Clinton’s record on Iraq is that it tends to follow, rather than lead, public opinion . . .

    “The question we’d ask is whether this is the kind of stalwart drift that Mrs. Clinton would bring to the Oval Office?”

  • The Pelosi Prescription

    The Pelosi Prescription

    The estimable John Lawrence gives us a first-hand review of socialized medicine’s tender mercies, with which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s troops are eager to freight you.

    Read More…

    Various moves are afoot in the new Democratic-controlled Congress to revive some version of Hillary Clinton’s 1993 socialized medicine.  We are told endlessly that Canada’s single-payer medical care system is far superior to ours, that Canadians, as a result, enjoy better health than do we.

    John Lawrence’s experiences recounted below might be dismissed as an aberration.  But even the New York Times, the paper of record for American socialism, admits that severe problems and shortcomings exist systemwide.

    An article by Clifford Krauss (Long Lines Mar Canada’s Low-Cost Health Care), published in the Times February 13, 2003, notes:

    A recent government study indicated that 4.3 million Canadian adults — or 18 percent of those who saw a doctor in 2001 — reported they had difficulty seeing a doctor or getting a test or surgery done in a timely fashion. Three million Canadians are unable to find a family physician, according to several private studies, producing a situation all the more serious since it is the family doctor who refers patients to specialists and medical testing….. “Waiting can occur at every step of treatment. A study by the conservative Fraser Institute concluded that patients across Canada experienced average waiting times of 16.5 weeks between receiving a referral from a general practitioner and undergoing treatment in 2001-2002, a rate 77 percent longer than in 1993. The recent Senate report noted that waiting times for M.R.I., C.T. and ultrasound scans grew by 40 percent since 1994.Mr. Lawrence’s experience suggests that conditions haven’t improved since 2003.

    Saturday, February 3, 2007

    Oshawa’s Hospital Continues to be a Joke
    
by John Lawrence

    Living near the city of Oshawa, Ontario, I sometimes have to rely on the hospital there. Given its reputation, I can only hope to come out of it alive and intact every time I have to go there.

    You see, like most people who live in Durham Region just east of Toronto, I have a horror story or two to tell about that fine institution.

    My story is more dramatic than some, because I personally know of somebody who lost their life due to a misdiagnosis and an unwillingness on the part of the staff there to take somebody’s worry seriously.

    As that case ended up in the hands of lawyers and is a delicate family subject, I will just talk about my own experiences with ‘that place’.

    About 10 years ago, I found myself in the emergency department with the worst case of the flu that I have ever had. It conquered me within 5 hours to the point of renal failure. My wife rushed me to the hospital by ambulance. I was grateful to be there as I was in intense pain due to the dehydration. My legs muscles were so cramped that they looked like ropes as spasm after spasm rocked my body.

    Once in the ER, I asked a nurse to please give me something for the pain that I was in. Instead of showing a little compassion or caring, she looked at me and barked ‘Not until you tell me what you’re on.’ The nurse insisted that I was a drug user and felt no pity on me. Her disgust was not disguised as I became worse and incontinent. She made me feel ashamed and degraded.

    I finally fell asleep once an IV was placed in my arm and medication was given for pain, nausea, and liquids introduced to re hydrate me. I awoke in the morning with a sore backside, as the nurse had felt no need to clean my skin the night before. The morning nurse was soothing, kind, and soft-spoken. She was attentive and cared for me. I was sure that I had been moved to another facility while I slept.

    I complained the next day about the horrible treatment I received from ‘Nurse Kratchet’, but no one ever contacted me again in regards to my complaint. (As for the good nurse, I took her some flowers.)

    My wife was having some problems awhile back and was sent to see a urologist at Oshawa General. Eight weeks after one appointment, she received a phone call to tell her that her tests showed an infection and that she should start antibiotics to combat this immediately. When asked why it took eight weeks for somebody to pick up the phone, the response was that the doctor was too busy to read his test reports.

    So there sat my wife while an infection made matters and conditions for her worse for almost two months. What is the use of even doing the tests?

    It would turn out later that this doctor would perform a surgery on my wife that a specialist would later claim was the wrong surgery for her condition.

    Earlier this month, I again contracted a virulent strain of the stomach flu. I asked the ambulance attendant to take me to a hospital that is equally as distant as Oshawa, but in the other direction. I was told that it was full, and that I had to be taken back to Oshawa.

    Upon arriving, I found that the new and improved Emergency department had only opened its doors the week previous. It was clean and spacious. Much better than the previous one. The way it is run, however, is identical. Nothing has changed but the floor tiles.

    I was taken to triage to be assessed and then shunted to the Emergency/Admitting desk. The girl there was perky and cheerful. Unfortunately, she wasn’t too concerned with accuracy. Once I was admitted, I was given directions to a nursing station. The girl doesn’t know left from right and I ended up at the wrong desk. Standing there disheveled with my little sick bag in hand, I was pointed in the right direction.

    I went to the waiting room where I would begin a four-and-a-half hour wait. Thankfully for me a maintenance worker came into the waiting room to hang up a clock. (Who’s great idea was that?) Now, not only could I sit there in misery, I could actually watch the hands not move as I sat there for hours.

    I don’t know when it happened, perhaps during a sick episode where I had to look down to my baggy. There I was, trying to focus on my little hospital bracelet, when something on it didn’t seem to make sense. It seems my name had changed. Yes, I was wearing the wrong bracelet. The girl at the check-in counter, the one who was directionally challenged, had mixed up the name tags.

    I would find out later that the man whose name I was wearing was in for a stomach ailment, I believe a growth or a tumor. Thank God I didn’t pass out and wake up in surgery or something.

    Eventually, I saw a doctor. Instead of being able to finally rest, I was told that I would get an IV and then go back out into the main waiting area. I had blood taken, and was told that I would have to come back the next day for more as there was a slight abnormality. With the intravenous tube finally in my arm, things quickly began to improve. My stomach muscles were finally getting a much needed break, and my body was getting some much needed liquid.

    A little while later, a nurse appeared and said that the doctor had ordered my blood retaken. I said that I was supposed to wait until the following day, but she assured me it was to be done now. When my IV was removed that evening, I was again told that I should come back the next day for blood work. I explained that it had already been done and the doctor just shook his head. Another mix-up, it would seem.

    More strange things occurred that day, but nothing left its mark more than watching nurse after nurse after nurse come into the waiting area and call somebody’s name, only to have everyone just stare at her. It would seem that there are too many waiting rooms and that nobody knows exactly where anyone is supposed to be.

    The next day, I was told that I would have to sign back in at Emergency. There in front of me was the same bubbly girl who had mixed up my bracelet the day before. In front of her was a written statement by another patient stating that he was covered by health insurance. It seems that he was from out of province and had to sign a surety that he was covered at home. The girl looks up at me, while she has my ONTARIO health card in her hands and says to me ‘Oh, you’re from Newfoundland.’

    ‘No, honey’, I politely replied, ‘not today’. Isn’t it good to know she wasn’t a nurse? On that note, let me say that there are good nurses at Oshawa and good doctors as well. They simply aren’t the majority.

    The day got worse, but I think you get the point. If you ever happen to be driving through Durham and are stricken with illness or injury, do your best to make it back to the city for help. Your chances are so much better.

    Visit MoveOff Network Members

    Judge the Arabs by what they do.

    Judge the Arabs by what they do.

    By Ted Belman

    Ami Isseroff, in his article, Palestinian Unity Agreement: Significance for Israel and Peace, writes,

      If the agreement succeeds in bringing unity, it is a big victory for Saudi Arabia, and may make the Saudis the prime godfathers of the Palestinian Authority. That would certainly be a positive step, as it would wean the Palestinian Authority from Iranian influence. Ending Hamas-Fatah rivalry is, in the long run, good for Israel and good for peace. Those who think Israel gains anything from the chaos in the West Bank and Gaza are sorely mistaken. The rivalry is also expressed in persistent contests between the groups to see who can be the most anti-Israel. It ensures that no Palestinian leader can make any concessions, because he (and not she in this case – PC has not come to Muslim society) will be branded a traitor. The illogic of anti-Zionist propaganda inevitably blames Israel for the situation at well, and reports that the “occupation” is responsible for Palestinian deaths and Palestinian misery.

    It requires a giant step to conclude that this agreement “would wean the Palestinian Authority from Iranian influence.” How so? The Iranians and Syrians are still in the picture and probably were involved in working out the agreement. If Ami is right, the agreement would never have been reached.

    As for his take that chaos is bad for Israel and peace I have to disagree. Ami believes that peace is possible. Even if we agree to the Saudi Plan we won’t have peace but we will be much weaker to fight the next battle. Why does he assume that the unity government will make concessions. The anti-Zionist propaganda will continue and probably increase.

    The longer there is chaos in the territories, the less likely Palestine will be created and the more likely Israel will decide to annex tJudea and Samaria.

    But he correctly concludes,

    It is almost certain that various Fatah groups as well as Hamas and Islamic Jihad will still have their own arms, and the Hamas Charter will still call for eradication of Israel. The renewed eruption of internecine fighting, as well as renewal of extensive terror attacks, is therefore not precluded, and it is unlikely that Hamas will agree to any peace deal with Israel.

    As long as each group has its own armed capability, there is no way for the Palestinian authority to live up to any agreement it makes to stop terror.

    [..] The agreement is designed as an enabler, to eliminate the Western sanctions against the Palestinians, without really changing any policies. It is a masterful implementation of the disastrous concept, “creative ambiguity,” which is another name for saying nothing. Therefore, it “allows Saudis to say” that the Palestinians support the Arab peace initiative. Conversely, it also “allows Hamas to say” that they do not agree to peace with Israel and will never agree to it. It allows the Palestinians to say that they “respect agreements” including the quartet roadmap, and it is supposed to allow the Quartet to say that the Palestinians are now in compliance. However, it will also allow the Palestinians to continue armed resistance. Everyone can say what they like. It is only what they do that matters.

    The problem arises because from the beginning, Israel and the Quartet had incorrect criteria for the new government. It doesn’t matter what they say, it matters what they do. Even if Hamas agrees to “commit” to past agreements, it is not necessarily meaningful. PLO signed the same agreements and is “commited” to them, but doesn’t fullfil its obligations under those agreements. Despite repeated pledges of Fatah leaders to end violence, the Fatah Al-Aqsa brigade sent people to blow themselves up in Israel. Despite repeated agreements to unify security commands, they were never unified – not under Arafat, not under Abbas, and certainly not under the Hamas government. Despite repeated pledges to recognize the existence of Israel, PLO and Mr. Abbas still insist on full right of return for Palestinian refugees, which would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state.

    Support for the Palestinian Authority and the peace process should be based on actions, and not on words.

    Posted by Ted Belman @ 10:28 am |

    Political and Moral Dissolution

    Political and Moral Dissolution

    Liberals’ head-in-the-sand urge to pull troops out of Iraq is nothing new.  Western democracies, entranced with liberal Progressivism, have failed repeatedly to preserve social and political stability.

    Read More…

    function showHide(entryID, entryLink, htmlObj, type) { if (type == “comments”) { extTextDivID = (‘comText’ + (entryID)); extLinkDivID = (‘comLink’ + (entryID)); } else { extTextDivID = (‘extText’ + (entryID)); extLinkDivID = (‘extLink’ + (entryID)); } if( document.getElementById ) { if( document.getElementById(extTextDivID).style.display ) { if( entryLink != 0 ) { document.getElementById(extTextDivID).style.display = “block”; document.getElementById(extLinkDivID).style.display = “none”; htmlObj.blur(); } else { document.getElementById(extTextDivID).style.display = “none”; document.getElementById(extLinkDivID).style.display = “block”; } } else { location.href = entryLink; return true; } } else { location.href = entryLink; return true; } }
    In words that apply to public opinion today, Walter Lippmann, in The Public Philosophy (1954), described his dismay in the summer of 1938, when war in Europe seemed inevitable.

    …there was no sure prospect that France and Great Britain would be able to withstand the [German] onslaught that was coming.  They were unprepared, their people were divided and demoralized.  The Americans were far away, were determined to be neutral, and were unarmed….. I began writing, impelled by the need to make more intelligible to myself the alarming failure of the Western liberal democracies to cope with the realities of [the 20th] century.

    Today we are armed, albeit at only about half the strength level prevailing when Bill Clinton slashed defense spending to reap the “peace dividend” for new welfare-state spending programs.  But we are again disastrously divided and demoralized, just as were Hitler’s adversaries in 1938.

    There is a causal connection between moral dissolution in the 20th century and the end of the 19th century’s Pax Britannica, a period of unmatched social and economic progress, coupled with remarkable political stability.

    The great social movements that outlawed slavery in the non-Muslim world, created free public education, and ameliorated working and living conditions were all originated by Judeo-Christian religious groups, notably the Methodists in England.  Those impulses, based on the Bible’s instruction, were strongest in the first half of the 19th century.

    Economic individualism resting on the moral sentiment of benevolence, identified by Adam Smith as the source of national wealth, led to an unparalleled rapidity of growth in world commerce that raised everyone’s living standard.  Coupling economic laissez-faire with the Protestant ethic of hard work, saving for the family’s future, and applying money to God’s work, led to the rise of Great Britain and the United States as the dominant world powers. 

    By mid-century, however, the growing influence of amoral, atheistic, and materialistic doctrine, masquerading as science, began blunting the Judeo-Christian impulse.  Auguste Comte’s socialistic Religion of Humanity in the 1820s preached that human reason alone (exercised by intellectuals, of course) was the route to social perfection.  Materialism took a more dangerous turn in the 1840s and 50s, when Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels called for armed revolt by the workers to forge a new and perfected human character in the fires of revolution.

    The violence of the French Revolution and Marx’s Communist Manifesto took hold on the Continent in the revolutions of 1789, 1830, 1848, and the Russian Revolution of 1917.

    Not infected with socialism until after mid-century, England and the United States followed the non-revolutionary path laid out by Comte’s Religion of Humanity.  Both here and there, the agency of diffusion for this morally-relativistic materialism was education in the colleges and universities. 

    By the end of the 19th century, Western intellectuals were confident that civilization was inevitably marching down the path of Progress to social perfection.  Liberal governments were replacing autocracies; czarist Russia, the most autocratic of all, had abandoned the strictures of feudal serfdom in 1861.

    Intellectuals understood this progress to be the result of abandoning Judeo-Christian religion and turning to the putative science of Comte’s Religion of Humanity.  Scriptural dictates of morality, from the Ten Commandments and the Mosaic law to the teaching of Jesus Christ, were regarded as limitations on the human spirit and hindrances to Progress.

    Human freedom was equated with the breakdown of Victorian principles of morality.  As the Ethical Culturalists say, deeds not creeds.  John Stuart Mill expressed it crisply in his 1859 essay On Liberty. By adopting the morally relativistic principle of tolerance for all viewpoints (today’s multi-culturalism), intellectuals in theory would liberate humanity for an explosion of creativity and entry into a new world of social harmony.

    Scientism, in the garments of 1859’s Darwinian evolution, taught that life itself and all life forms were the result of random chance, responding only to materialistic forces via the process of natural selection.  Darwin and his early followers declared that God had no role in the process, and morality was a fiction; life was merely a matter of survival of the fittest, in which there was no such thing as sin.

    In the ivory towers of academia, such doctrine was a heady brew that fired the imagination of social and political theorists.  They hubristically presumed to reshape human nature and perfect the institutions of society.  Progress was to be achieved by regulating the material conditions of human life so as to accelerate and channel the randomness of natural selection.

    It is this doctrinal background that leads liberals today to attack evangelical Christianity as a worse enemy than Islamic jihad.  The intensity of liberal emotions reflects the secular religious nature of their faith.

    It is thus hardly surprising that every time a liberal Democratic Party administration takes office, we suffer a resurgence of this social fantasy, as we see now in the new Congress. 

    In their materialistic world, devoid of spirituality, liberals are confident that Islamic jihad is, at bottom, analogous to labor unionism, aimed at securing a bigger slice of the public welfare pie.  They are equally confident, as were the Progressives in 1914 on the eve of World War I and again in 1938 at the outset of World War II, that diplomatic discussions at international conferences will satisfy belligerents and insure peace.

    The common element in these recurrent, wishful delusions is an inaccurate understanding of human nature. 

    Contrary to the liberal view, God is not dead.  Most people everywhere have spiritual longings, and everywhere instinctively perceive themselves to be creatures of a Being of infinite force and extent.  People everywhere and at all times have sought revelations of spiritual truth as the source of order in political societies. 

    Voluntary compliance with the rules of social order historically flows from perception by the masses that those rules are grounded in God’s truth.  The average citizen will not give the same measure of respect to orders from Washington bureaucrats as he will to the Word of God.  True social freedom and order come from individuals’ self-discipline oriented by knowledge that their conduct will be judged in the Hereafter. 

    In contrast, the bloody 20th century demonstrates the failure of imposing social order via unaided human reason alone, manifested in the arbitrary regulatory force of intellectuals’ continually changing social and economic theories.  In the USSR and National Socialist Germany, it was disastrous.  In a spiritless world of Darwinian randomness, where survival of the fittest replaces morals, anything goes.

    Wed to atheistic materialism, liberals still fail to recognize that, however misguided, Islamic jihadists are driven by spiritual urges, not material desires.

    What Eric Voegelin termed the search for order is a metaphor for civilization itself.  The critical question is whether the ordering principles of political societies are to come from a liberal elite, living in ivory towers far above the multitudes, or whether the ordering principles are to come from philosophical study of the human soul and from Divine revelation.

    The development of Western civilization, from the time of Constantine in the 4th century AD, until the end of the 19th century, was guided by the Bible and Judeo-Christian instruction.

    The horrors of both World Wars, the Russian Revolution, and Hitler’s National Socialism could only have come about after dismissal of the moral strictures of Judeo-Christianity and the accession to power of atheistic and materialistic state-planners, for whom the liquidation of a few million people was merely an unfortunate step along the pathway of Progressivism.

    Liberals, unfortunately, are once again the untrustworthy gatekeepers at a critical turning point in Western history.

    Visit MoveOff Network Members

    [Video] Teach Hate, Wahabbi Style

    Hillary Clinton: A National Security Risk

    Hillary Clinton: A National Security Risk

    by Bill Levinson

    We previously described how Hillary Clinton accepted campaign contributions from the shadowy international financier and convicted inside trader George Soros, who is morally albeit not legally a domestic enemy of the United States. Soros is the individual who uses his enormous wealth (some allegedly acquired through collaboration with genuine Nazis during the Second World War, see below) to denounce the United States as a menace to world peace while saying that Israel causes anti-Semitism.

    It now turns out that Hillary Clinton has also accepted campaign contributions from Jane Fonda, who once posed in a North Vietnamese gun emplacement. Every Vietnam veteran needs to be aware that Hanoi Jane Fonda is funding Hillary Clinton’s political career, and that Hillary Clinton is knowingly and willfully accepting Fonda’s support. Hillary Clinton has also taken money from filmmaker Michael Moore, who has praised the terrorists who are murdering our men and women in uniform while cutting the heads off helpless prisoners like Margaret Hassan “Minutemen.” In combination with Bill Clinton’s credibly-alleged acceptance of illegal campaign contributions from a hostile foreign power (China), Hillary Clinton must be regarded as a security risk to the United States.

    http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/ provides a convenient way of finding out who is taking money from whom, and it is quite instructive. http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/George_Soros.php
    shows that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Ned Lamont (the opponent of “Jew Lieberman” as MoveOn.org calls him), Barbara Boxer, and numerous other prominent left-wing Democrats have recently accepted campaign funds from George Soros. The same goes for Joseph Biden, who recently praised Barack Obama as a credit to his race (mighty white of Biden for doing that, eh?).

    http://www.newsmeat.com/celebrity_political_donations/Jane_Fonda.php
    shows that Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, and MoveOn.org (a tentacle of the Soros-Occupied Government) have also accepted money from Hanoi Jane Fonda,

    Next we come to Jabba the Moore. Hillary Clinton, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Edward (Ned) Lamont are on record as accepting this individual’s money. For the record, this is what Moore said about the terrorists who have murdered more than two thousand of our soldiers in Iraq:

    The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not “insurgents” or “terrorists” or “The Enemy.” They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win.

    More recently, Moore posted the following at his Web site:

    Wednesday, November 29th, 2006
    Cut and Run, the Only Brave Thing to Do …a letter from Michael Moore

    …So I don’t want to hear another word about sending more troops (wake up, America, John McCain is bonkers), or “redeploying” them, or waiting four months to begin the “phase-out.” There is only one solution and it is this: Leave. Now. Start tonight. Get out of there as fast as we can. As much as people of good heart and conscience don’t want to believe this, as much as it kills us to accept defeat, there is nothing we can do to undo the damage we have done.

    …This is what we demand:

    1. Bring the troops home now. Not six months from now. NOW. Quit looking for a way to win. We can’t win. We’ve lost. Sometimes you lose. This is one of those times. Be brave and admit it.

    We seem to recall that Lord Haw-Haw was hanged as a traitor for broadcasting this kind of thing during wartime. It is one matter to criticize the war or the manner in which it is being waged, and there is plenty to criticize. It is another to express a wish for the enemy’s victory as Michael Moore has done, praise terrorists as “Minutemen” as Michael Moore has done, and encourage the enemy as Michael Moore has done above. No matter what Hillary Clinton says about supporting our troops, her acceptance of Michael Moore’s money shows that this is really what she stands for. Meanwhile, we remind Jabba the Moore that Hillary Clinton was just as jingoistic as President Bush in agitating for this war, along with John Kerry and other prominent MoveOn.org Democrats.

    Maybe Hillary Clinton, despite her efforts to reinvent herself as pro-military for political advantage, also thinks the terrorists are “Minutemen.” Now on to the character and ethics of her other political sugar daddy, George Soros:

    On December 20, 1998, there appeared this exchange between Soros and Steve Kroft on “60 Minutes”:

    Kroft: “You’re a Hungarian Jew …”

    Soros: “Mm-hmm.”

    Kroft: “… who escaped the Holocaust …”

    Soros: “Mm-hmm.”

    Kroft: “… by posing as a Christian.”

    Soros: “Right.”

    ….Kroft: “My understanding is that you went … went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

    Soros: “Yes, that’s right. Yes.”

    Kroft: “I mean, that’s—that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?”

    Soros: “Not, not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don’t … you don’t see the connection. But it was—it created no—no problem at all.”

    Kroft: “No feeling of guilt?”Soros: “No.” … I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn’t be there, because that was—well, actually, in a funny way, it’s just like in the markets—that is I weren’t there—of course, I wasn’t doing it, but somebody else would—would—would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the—whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the—I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.

    These are the ethics of a common thief: “If I hadn’t stolen it, someone else would have.” Soros’ argument that he did what he had to do to survive breaks down in light of the fact that, once the danger was over, he never made the slightest effort to return the property (or its equivalent in money) to the people from whom it was taken, or their families. If Soros really thinks the United States requires “de-Nazification,” his renunciation of his U.S. citizenship and his immediate departure for some other country–maybe Argentina–would be a good start.

    Finally, let us not forget very credible allegations that Bill Clinton accepted illegal campaign contributions from a hostile foreign power, and allegedly gave that hostile foreign power technology with military applications in exchange. In most countries, this would be defined as treason. The U.S. Constitution, however, defines treason as either levying war against the United States or aiding its enemies during time of war.

    WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, May 23) — Republicans are keeping up the pressure on President Bill Clinton to explain questions about possible links between 1996 Democratic campaign contributions and decisions to share U.S. satellite technology with the Chinese government.

    …”How did it come about that highly sensitive technical information was given to the Chinese? Why did the president ignore the national security experts who counseled against this deal? What damage has been done to our national security?” Goss asked.

    We know that Chinese officials chose to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in the 1996 re-election of the Clinton administration. What we don’t know is what they expected to gain from that investment,” Goss said.

    We don’t know what America-haters George Soros, Jane Fonda, and Michael Moore expect to gain from their investment in Hillary Clinton, and the voters had better make damned sure that we never find out.

    Posted by Bill Levinson @ 1:03 pm |

    Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

    Join 55 other followers