Fred Thompson Presidential Announcement Next Week?

Fred Thompson Presidential Announcement Next Week?


By Nancy Streets
Jun 23, 2007
 

Fred Thompson is still not officially in the presidential race but is already the frontrunner a recent poll from Rasmussen reports claims.  But all that may change soon, According to WSMV, Thompson will jump in next week.   The news room at WMSV is citing “a source close to the campaign planning that claims that Thompson planned to announce his candidacy

Fred Thompson Presidential Announcement Next Week?
Fred Thompson Presidential Announcement Next Week?

on the steps of the historic Fall School Building Tuesday, but Thompson campaign officials deny that Tuesday’s announcement is an official run for the White House.

***

“Everything’s in place for Tuesday,” the source told WSMV. “There are three major events built around his announcement.” But Bob Davis, the Tennessee Republican Party Chairman, and Thompson’s former Chief of Staff says “There will not be an annoucement Tuesday.”

Earlier reports have speculated that Thompson would announce in July, close to the Independence Day Holiday.  The source cited that the Thompson campaign has obtained the lease for that building to turn it into a national campaign office.  It sounds as if caution is the order of the day as that doesn’t necessarily mean he will announce his candidacy on that day, though.  Plus he seems to be getting good traction and he is pulling in lots of money with no formal announcement.

Iraqi Army Making Strides In Baquba

Iraqi Army Making Strides In Baquba

Many of the Sunni Arabs welcomed the Iraqi soldiers who followed U.S. infantrymen through the dusty, bomb-scarred streets, which shimmered in the blazing heat. One man offered them glasses of water on a tray, and a woman wept at the sight of them.

iraqi army

Arrowhead Ripper Progress Report:

By Alexandra Zavis
June 24, 2007

BAQUBAH — Lt. Qusai had his doubts last week when he took his men into an insurgent haven in the western part of this city for the first time.

“Honestly, I thought this operation would never be successful because I had information that Al Qaeda had big guns and RPGs,” rocket-propelled grenades, said the Iraqi army commander who provided only one name. “We thought that all the people here are terrorists and everyone is bad, even the women and children.”

To his surprise, many of the Sunni Arabs welcomed the Iraqi soldiers who followed U.S. infantrymen through the dusty, bomb-scarred streets, which shimmered in the blazing heat. One man offered them glasses of water on a tray, and a woman wept at the sight of them.

(Read More)

Kill the Bill: Call the GOP wafflers and sign the Secure Borders Now petition Update: Hutchison to oppose shamnesty? Update: The no’s are rolling in

Obama campaign politicizing tax-emept churches

Obama campaign politicizing tax-emept churches

Ed Lasky
The New York Times has gleefully reported on troubles encountered by Christian consevraive organizations when churches have been used for political purposes. It would undoubtedly attack any GOP politicians who used a church for political purposes. Yet here

it reports deadpan an Obama political event in a church:

Lessons Learned as Obama Shepherds a Following
By MICHAEL COOPER

It was just an organizational meeting for Senator Barack Obama’s New York volunteers, but the gathering this month jammed every pew of a church in the East Village, and the crowd spilled over into not one but two overflow rooms.

All told, 710 people showed up, even though the closest they would get to Mr. Obama, the Illinois Democrat and presidential candidate, that night would be to view a campaign screening of a biographical DVD. They cheered wildly anyway. Many had already formed their own volunteer groups in New York: Brooklyn for Barack, NYC4Obama, the Audacity of Park Slope. Quite a few already had Web sites, neatly designed logos, newsletters and regular meetings.

Posted in Uncategorized. Leave a Comment »

Contrary to popular opinion, Israel is the good guy

Contrary to popular opinion, Israel is the good guy

[Given the need for conspiracy theories, otherwise known as propagating “alternate realities”, this is timely. It supports Israpundit’s efforts to challenge conventional thinking in most places as regards, Israel and Serbia.]

“Blaming the Middle Eastern conflict on the Jewish state is an error that could see many people unwittingly complicit in one of history’s worst injustices”, writes Chief Rabbi Warren Goldstein of South Africa in the Sunday Times.

SOMETIMES we make the most fundamental errors. When large numbers of people make mistakes — even monumental ones — it is almost impossible to challenge the resultant prevailing view. It was once the conventional wisdom that the Earth is flat. In ancient times, if anyone dared to claim that the earth was round, they would have been denigrated as being detached from reality. When, in the 16th century, Nicolaus Copernicus dared suggest that the sun was the centre of the solar system and not the Earth, he was regarded as a heretic.

In today’s world, any attempt to explain the Arab-Israeli conflict in terms other than “Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian land” and the “denial of Palestinian nationalist aspiration” is often regarded like a declaration that the earth is flat and the centre of the universe. But what if this view is wrong? What if, in terms of understanding the Arab-Israeli conflict, we are living in pre-Copernican times? What if the Jewish state that is considered to be the root of all evil in the Middle East were instead the victim?

What if the apartheid of the Middle East is really one directed against the Jews? And what if Israel is the ANC of the Middle East?

In South Africa, our conflict was caused by a white racist apartheid regime. The ANC was always ready to talk peace, but the regime refused to talk and so the conflict could not be resolved, and the ANC was forced into an armed struggle. Like the ANC, the Israeli government has always been ready to talk peace but has been forced since the birth of the Jewish state into an armed defensive struggle because the anti-Semitic Arab world has not been prepared to talk peace.

The ANC had to wage an armed struggle for many years until white South Africans were ready to talk, and then the long-standing conflict was resolved relatively quickly. Unlike the ANC, Israel has not found genuine negotiating partners, and so its struggle continues, and peace remains a distant dream.

What if Zionism is not colonialism but rather an ancient people’s deep connection to their native, historical and covenantal land? What if the real colonialism is Arab expansionism, which contests a Jewish state on even 1/520th of the area of Arab lands? Nearly 4000 years, ago the forefathers of the Jewish People, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, lived in the land of Israel, which God had promised to them and to their descendants forever. That promise was confirmed at Mount Sinai, and was delivered upon by G-d through Joshua, after the death of Moses, more than 3300 years ago, when the Jewish People entered the land after being liberated from Egyptian slavery and oppression.

About 3000 years ago, King David established Jerusalem as the capital city of the Promised Land. The Jewish people lived in the land of Israel for 850 years until their expulsion by invading Babylonians. They returned in large numbers 70 years afterwards and remained for many centuries until their eviction by the Roman Empire. Despite unremitting antisemitism and persecution, some Jewish communities managed to remain in Israel during the long interval between the Roman dispersion and the re-establishment of the Jewish state in 1948.

What if the dispute has never been about Palestinian statehood but really about the destruction of the Jews and the only Jewish state on Earth? In 1917, the Balfour Declaration, confirmed later by international law through the League of Nations, declared the British Mandate of Palestine to be a national homeland for the Jewish people, recognising 4000 years of Jewish connection to the land, and the injustice of the destruction of ancient Israel by the Romans and the forced removal of the Jewish people.

In 1922 the British took 76% of the land designated for a Jewish state and allocated it instead to the Arabs, creating east of the Jordan River a new country called Transjordan, later to be known as Jordan, which to this day has a Palestinian majority.

In 1947, the United Nations voted to establish two states — one Arab and one Jewish — west of the Jordan river on the remaining 24% of the original portion of land allocated for a Jewish state by the international community. In spite of this reduction to their original portion, the Jews accepted the offer, which was then rejected by the Arabs. This was the beginning of a long history of Arab rejectionism.

And so, in 1948, the newly reborn state of Israel was invaded by Arab armies from Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and the Arab Legion, all of which made it quite clear that they intended to destroy the tiny Jewish state at its rebirth and to massacre its citizens, many of whom were Holocaust survivors.

Israel survived the war, and from 1948 to 1967, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were in Arab hands and there was no “occupation” of these territories . If the cause for the Arab-Israeli conflict is the “occupation” of the West Bank and Gaza, then why did the conflict rage throughout these years unabated, with continued Arab refusal to recognise Israel and to make peace with its Jewish neighbour?

Why was it that in mid-1967, just before the Six Day War, and before the West Bank and Gaza fell into Jewish hands, Arab leaders called for the destruction of Israel? What “occupation” was at issue? Why did Syrian President Hafiz al-Assad order his soldiers to attack Jewish civilian targets to “pave the Arab roads with the skulls of Jews”?

For the 19 years that Jordan controlled the West Bank and Egypt the Gaza Strip, the Arab world had the opportunity of establishing another Palestinian state in those territories, and chose not to. Why not? If the conflict is about Palestinian statehood, then why was there no talk whatever of a Palestinian state for all those 19 years? After the Six Day War, Israel immediately tried to enter into negotiations with the Arab world about the political future of the West Bank and Gaza. The response came from the Khartoum Conference of all the Arab States on September 1 1967, in the form of the infamous three nos : “No peace, no negotiation, no recognition.” And so, when in 2000 at Camp David, Yassar Arafat rejected without making a counter-offer at all, Israel’s proposed 95% of the West Bank and Gaza as well as land compensation for the remaining 5%, his rejection was wholly consistent with Arab rejectionism of any Jewish presence at all.

If the Arab-Israeli conflict is about a Palestinian state, then there has always been an obvious solution of two states living in peace side by side. The conflict is more fundamental and therefore, all the more intractable, and is really about Arab rejection of the very presence and existence of a Jewish state, and probably any Jews at all, in the heart of the Middle East. And so the very charter of Hamas calls for the murder of all Jews, worldwide. And rockets from Gaza continue to target Israeli civilians even after Israel’s evacuation. And threats of genocide and a second Holocaust, together with denial of the first, emanate from Iran. And the Arab world is awash with the most rabid and pernicious antisemitism.

What if the war directed against Israel is really the global war of fundamentalist tyranny against freedom and democracy? Then indeed, all of those who believe, with the best of intentions, that they are defending a vulnerable victim, are actually being complicit in one of the worst injustices in the history of human civilisation. They will have sided with the forces of death and destruction, of fear and prejudice. What if the world is siding against the only beacon of freedom and democracy in the Middle East, thereby endangering us all, because the fate of Jews is often a sign portending the future? Hitler came after the Jews first, and then he attacked the world. Suicide bombings began in Jerusalem and then migrated to New York, Bali, Madrid, London and Nairobi.

We need clarity to understand these tumultuous times. We also need an ultimate vision of peace and reconciliation between Arab and Jew. The conflict in the Middle East is between brothers, and that is the real tragedy. We are all the children of Abraham; Jews are the children of his son Isaac, and Arabs the children of his son Ishmael. The Talmud tells us that, although the sons of Abraham fought for many years, when Abraham was buried in Hebron, Isaac and Ishmael were reconciled at his grave. Let us all pray to God that we will merit to see the day when brother will once again be reconciled with brother in the Middle East.

Posted by Ted Belman @ 9:18 am |

Our Terrorists Are Better Than Your Terrorists


Our Terrorists Are Better Than Your Terrorists
Supporting Fatah, the Bush administration makes a deal with the devil.

By Andrew C. McCarthy

President Bush’s stirring post-9/11 message that regimes the world over have to choose between aligning with civilization or with terrorists should officially be interred in war-torn “Palestine.” Seriousness about the doctrine is the only realistic way to defeat our enemies, and now we make a mockery of it. A mockery built on the trifecta-fiction that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is an avatar of peace, that his Fatah faction has aligned with civilization, and that the Palestinian people — the ones who freely chose to install Hamas as their parliamentary majority and who have trademarked “Intifada” as an instrument of statecraft — are somehow worth prostituting ourselves over.

In the Palestinian civil war, the Bush administration has unabashedly cast its lot with Fatah. The United States, in the midst of its own global war against Islamic radicalism, is promising additional millions in foreign aid for a cabal which maintains its own jihadist wing, and which is so thoroughly corrupt — having pocketed much of the foreign aid billions that poured in over the last two decades — that Palestinians opted for the more transparent Hamas terrorists when given the option.

Fatah is the creation of the late terror master, Yasser Arafat. It is currently led by Abbas, formerly Arafat’s close aid. When last we left Abbas, the administration’s favorite “moderate,” he was laying a wreath at The Great Man’s grave — the Palestinians, by the way, have turned the site into an Arafat shrine, telling us everything we need to know about them.

Abbas proceeded to urge a throng of 50,000 Palestinians to re-aim their guns at the “occupation” (that would be Israel) instead of turning them on each other: “[W]ith the will and determination of its sons, Fatah has and will continue,” he brayed. “We will not give up our principles and we have said that rifles should be directed against the occupation…. We have a legitimate right to direct our guns against Israeli occupation….”

That was less than six months ago — despite administration assertions on Monday that Abbas is “a partner who is committed to peace.” And none of it was a surprise. When Abbas was seeking election in 2005, he declared to a cheering mob in Gaza that Palestinian terrorists being sought by Israel were “heroes fighting for freedom.”

FATAH’S CONSTITUTION
And just what are these Fatah principles that the moderate was referring to at the founder’s tomb? Abbas’s American boosters don’t talk about them much, but Fatah itself is not so bashful. They are spelled out, for all to see, in the Constitution of Fatah (the name, by the way, means “Conquest” … and would anyone want to take a wild guess against whom?).

Here is what we’re getting for millions in U.S. taxpayer dollars:

… We all must sacrifice ourselves, our effort and time; these are the weapons of honest patriots. Don’t, therefore, dear brother bring your march to a halt! Proceed in your march, armed with the patriots’ resolution, the true believers’ determination, and the fighters’ patience… Let’s not forget for a while that our enemy is strong, and that the fight is fierceful [sic] and long… Consequently, determination, patience, confidentiality, commitment, and abiding by the revolution’s goals and principles keep our march unremittingly steady and makes [sic] our road to victory much shorter. Proceed, then my brother, forward… to the revolution. Long live Palestine, a free Arab state.

FATEH is a national, revolutionary movement and its membership is top confidential. … The Palestinian struggle is part and parcel of the world-wide struggle against Zionism, colonialism and international imperialism. … The Zionist Movement is racial, colonial and aggressive in ideology, goals, organisation and method. … The Israeli existence in Palestine is a Zionist invasion with a colonial expansive base, and it is a natural ally to colonialism and international imperialism. … Liberating Palestine and protecting its holy places is an Arab, religious and human obligation. … Palestinian National Liberation Movement, “FATEH, is an independent national revolutionary movement representing the revolutionary vanguard of the Palestinian people. … The crowds which participate in the revolution and liberation are the proprietors of the Palestinian land.

[Our “Goals” include:] Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence. … Establishing an independent democratic state with complete sovereignty on all Palestinian lands, and Jerusalem is its capital city[.]
(Bold in original, emphasis in bold-italics added.)

Sure, Fatah, like Arafat, makes the occasional feint at peace-making, or, to be more precise, at the “Peace Process,” invoking the biggest snow-job of all time — one that enriched Fatah leaders with piles of cash while “the Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence” received the bulging body-count of a second Intifada.

But we oughtn’t be fooled: Fatah is still avowedly dedicated to the destruction of its neighbor (or, by Fatah’s lights, its trespasser) by any means necessary, including terrorizing, inducing outside political pressure on, and gradually out-breeding the Israelis. For the purpose, Fatah-controlled school systems and media continue without surcease to inculcate a virulently anti-Semitic martyrdom culture in the young. (See, e.g., this report from Palestinian Media Watch on the stunning curriculum through which Fatah, in the rhetoric of radical Islam, delegitimizes Israel and Jews.)

And, of course, Fatah maintains its own terrorist wing, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, in addition to maintaining close ties to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terror organization — both of which are Iran-friendly, Hezbollah-friendly, and formally designated as foreign terrorist organizations by the United States.

SECULAR MODERATES?
These ties put the lie to the myth that Fatah is a moderate political movement that is secular in nature. Yes, Fatah is not a self-identified Muslim fundamentalist movement as Hamas is. But it demonstrates vibrant streaks of Islamic radicalism, as illustrated, for example, by its Brigades named for the al-Aqsa mosque in coveted Jerusalem, and the frequent admonitions on Fatah websites that prying that city from Zionist clutches is a religious obligation.

The terror ties also reveal the illogic of the Bush administration rationale (echoed in a recent National Review Online editorial, here) that Fatah, whatever its flaws, merits our support because its rival, Hamas, is in the pocket of Iran. There are divisions within Fatah, and it may be freely conceded that some of them, historically, have been anti-Iranian. But, on balance, Fatah’s ties to Iran are longstanding, and operational. It is no wonder that the al-Aqsa Brigades, beneficiaries of Iranian largesse, speak glowingly of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his call to wipe Israel off the map.

Fatah may not love Iran, but it will work with Iran. After all, it has a lot more in common with the mullahs than it does with us — beginning, of course, with their mutual goal of eliminating our ally, Israel. The wager that, if Fatah ultimately beats back Hamas, Iran will have suffered a serious set-back is wishful thinking, not strategy. What Iran cares most about is Israel, not Hamas. To terrorize Israel it will work with whoever is left standing.

Finally, even if, with several grains of salt, we were to accept the stop-Iran line of argument as well as the party line that Abbas himself has evolved into a trustworthy peace partner, there is still the 800-pound gorilla in the equation: the Palestinian people.

Such is the delusional U.S. looking-glass on Palestinian society that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the administration’s staunchest Abbas booster, told columnist Cal Thomas last October, “[Y]ou can look at any opinion poll in the Palestinian territories and 70 percent of the people will say they’re perfectly ready to live side by side with Israel because they just want to live in peace.”

Come again? As it happens, recent polling actually turns out to be more reflective of common sense, which says that when you systematically rear a people on hatred and a cult of death, as Fatah has been so instrumental in doing, they grow up to be hateful and instinctively resort to savagery to settle their disputes.

Thus we find that up to 93 percent of young Palestinian adults (aged 18 to 25) deny Israel’s right to exist — as compared with “only” 75 percent when the total population is factored in. Thus we find, moreover, that when not brutalizing Israelis, Palestinians now brutalize each other. The cold truth is exactly the opposite of the idyllic picture painted by the administration — and given the bile that Abbas’s Fatah spoon-feeds Palestinian children, how on earth could it be otherwise?

ENABLING TERROR
Why is the administration supporting Fatah without demanding that it shred its Constitution and unambiguously recognize Israel’s right to exist, as Israel, in perpetuity? Why isn’t President Bush demanding that Abbas not only order the disarming of Hamas in the West Bank (which Abbas did only because Hamas is fighting Fatah, not because Hamas is a terrorist organization), but that he also disarm the al-Aqsa Brigades and Palestinian Islamic Jihad? Because Abbas would be finished the minute he tried any such things. They are not what Palestinians want.

The Palestinians are a backward people, indoctrinated toward brutality. They don’t rate a sovereign state or anyone’s help until they civilize themselves. Sovereignty is a privilege that implies acceptance of civilized norms — that is why we speak of states like Iran and North Korea as “rogues.” Regardless of whether there really are scattered Palestinian moderates, it is a dangerous fantasy to assume the Palestinian people, as a whole, are ready to be anyone’s peace partner.

We are enabling their hatred when we provide support without insisting that the Palestinian people — not just Abbas and Fatah, but the people — convincingly foreswear revolution, terrorism, violence, ethnic-cleansing, and the goal of eliminating Israel. We are a generation or more, at least, from any hope of such developments. In the meantime, as long as we subsidize the hatred, we shall be buying more of it, while giving the Palestinians no incentive to reform.
Andrew C. McCarthy directs the Center for Law & Counterterrorism at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Kudos To The President – - That Is, President Klaus

Kudos To The President – - That Is, President Klaus
By Austin Hill
Sunday, June 24, 2007
I might embarrass myself with this, but nonetheless I have an admission to make: I came of age, politically speaking, during the presidency of Jimmy Carter.

Oh sure, I have plenty of memories (both good and bad) of Nixon and Ford. But my experience of the ways in which White House policy can impact one’s day to day life first emerged while Carter was in office.

Much of this experience was garnered through observing my own parents. I remember very well their shame over the Iranian hostage crisis; their anxiety over the economic stagflation of the times; and perhaps most vividly, their worries over the threat of future Soviet domination.

Fortunately the world changed, we learned how to grow our free-market economy, and the threat of Soviet domination dissipated. But the earliest years of my childhood and the influence of my parents left me with at least two profound convictions about the world: A) the grip of communism is a tight one; and B) the future of free, virtuous, and prosperous societies is anything but guaranteed.

Because of these convictions, I tend to view the former Soviet Bloc nations with tremendous hope, but also with a tentative, “let’s wait and see” kind of outlook.

And given all this history that has unfolded just within my lifetime, it’s a bit amazing to me that I must now make this admission: my worldview and sensibilities more closely resemble those of a current Eastern European head of state, than those of many of my fellow Americans.

Vaclav Klaus, the President of the Czech Republic, has weighed-in on the notion of “global warming.” Unlike many people here in the United States who unquestionably accept the dogma of it all and participate in the frenzy over the alleged “crisis,” President Klaus has the good sense to ask questions, and to put it all in perspective.

He quite correctly relates the proposed weather “remedies” to a concept that, unfortunately, is quite abstract for many in the contemporary Western world – - the concept of personal and economic liberty. But because he makes this connection, he ends up saying many of the same things that I’ve been thinking – - and that really amazes me.

Writing in The Financial Times journal, President Klaus noted some objective facts about the weather – - the fact that during the past century the average global temperature increased only .6 percent, and the fact that “all of us have noticed that even during our life times temperature changes occur (in both directions).”

President Klaus further noted that many powerful people around the world, including British Prime Minister Tony Blair, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, authorities at the United Nations, and the Academy Award Winning Al Gore, all have the audacity to – - literally – - try and change the weather.

After making these observations, President Klaus states what is really going on here: “The dictates of political correctness are strict,” he writes, “and only one permitted truth, not for the first time in history, is (being) imposed upon us. Everything else is denounced.” He also insists that “rational and freedom-loving people have to respond.”

Now, why is it that here in the wealthiest nation on earth, Al Gore can say things like “the earth has a fever,” and “the debate (on global warming) is over,” and millions of Americans believe it without question – - while a man who heads-up a democracy that is less than twenty years old has enough “Yankee spirit” in him to doubt, question, and even contradict the environmental orthodoxy?

The answer lies in his personal background.

“As someone who lived under communism for most of his life,” Mr. Klaus writes, “I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.”

In short, Mr. Klaus knows first-hand what it is like to live under oppression – - and he knows what rhetorical and propagandizing lengths oppressors will go to in order to impose their oppression.

With this in mind, he goes on to make some observations that are for many of us obvious, and yet are elusive for far too many Americans; that small climate changes do not require far-reaching restrictive measures; that the suppression of freedom and democracy should be avoided; and that we shouldn’t “scare ourselves with catastrophic forecasts, or use them to defend and promote irrational interventions in human lives.”

In reality, the threat of “irrational interventions in human lives” will never go away. Still I am comforted to know that at this moment in time, President Klaus is with us as a voice of reason for the Czech Republic – - and for many misguided Americans, as well.

Posted in Uncategorized. Leave a Comment »

An Unmighty Film

An Unmighty Film
By Debbie Schlussel
FrontPageMagazine.com | June 18, 2007

I went to the screening of “A Mighty Heart”– Brad Pitt’s and Angelina Jolie’s movie on the Al-Qaeda murder of Daniel Pearl–expecting a movie with an agenda.

And that is exactly what I got. That, plus a Lifetime Channel damsel-in-distress movie of the week. Muslims are the heroes–NOT the perpetrators--in this “Can’t we all just get along?” kumbaya film ostensibly about terrorism.

As one would expect from the Jolie-Pitts, “A Mighty Heart” is mostly NOT about the Al-Qaeda murder of Daniel Pearl, killed in cold blood specifically because he was a Jew. In fact, the movie minimizes that, instead repeatedly blaming America for its treatment of Guantanamo Bay prisoners as the reason Pearl was cut into the ten pieces like a slaughtered chicken, the state in which his body was found. (That’s no surprise, given that the Jolie-Pitts hired as “A Mighty Heart’s” director, Michael Winterbottom, who also directed the propaganda fake-umentary, ” The Road to Guantanamo.”) In “A Mighty Heart,” we see no depiction at all of Pearl’s captivity or even kidnapping by Qaeda thugs, but for a few re-enactments of tiny parts of the famous Pearl video.

Most shocking, we get an onscreen repeat of the oft-told Muslim myth that 4,000 Jews didn’t show up for work at the World Trade Center on 9/11, because the Jews planned the attacks. The movie provides no refutation of this myth or any indication that it is invalid. (It shouldn’t be shocking, though, given Jolie’s anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian activities.)

And instead of depictions of Daniel Pearl’s treatment at the hand of Muslims, Jolie/Pitt repeatedly hit you over the head with a baseball bat that the hero–not the murderers–in the Daniel Pearl story is a Muslim, a Pakistani Police Captain. We see him admonishing a Qaeda Pearl suspect that he is not “a good Muslim.” The movie also stresses that Pearl’s friend, Asra Nomani, is a feminist Muslim who also is upset and worried for Daniel Pearl. And don’t forget the cheerful, hijab-encrusted full-time, diligent housekeeper and her cute little Muslim baby boy–both of whom we constantly see, in-your-face-style, throughout the movie.

That’s all nice and dandy. But these Muslims wouldn’t be involved, but for the fact that oodles of their fellow co-religionists–the ones who follow the dominant Sunni strain of their religion, Wahhabism–kidnapped and murdered Pearl in the name of their religion, an undisputable fact that is minimized as much as possible in “A Mighty Heart.”

The long, boring, disjointed movie is less about an Al-Qaeda kidnapping and live crude dissection murder of an American Jew, and more a mixture of MTV’s “The Real World” (or CBS’ even worse reality show “Big Brother”) and a Lifetime Network movie of the week. Short on Qaeda info, it is long on scenes of Angelina Jolie, as Mariane Pearl, wandering, brooding, and whining as she roams a cool looking, modern house in what is supposed to be Pakistan.

Mostly, we see her speaking–and whining–in a really, really bad “Saturday Night Live” version of a French accent (that’s in addition to the brief, terrible Israeli accent of the actor playing Judea Pearl, Daniel’s father).

We see Jolie, uh . . . Pearl, roaming around a cool modern house interacting with friends and associates and constantly uttering meaningful, poignant lines, like: “Sh*t, Sh*t, Sh*t;” “Bullsh*t, Bullsh*t, Bullsh*t;” “F*ck, F*ck, F*ck.” Actually, most of the American characters in this film have those obscenity-laced lines, too.

On top of that, we’re treated to dialogue by Mariane’s Muslim friends, like this:

    “What do Americans really know about Afghanistan and Pakistan . . . other than bombing them?”

In addition to blaming America’s ‘Gitmo detention of terrorists’ for Pearl’s murder, the movie also blames the Wall Street Journal for providing the CIA computer files it obtained, giving insight into the operation of shoe bomber Richard Reid, his Al-Qaeda connection, and his scoping out of Israel. By doing that, in Jolie/Pitt/Mariane Pearl’s eyes, the Journal confirmed Qaeda’s assertion that Pearl is a CIA agent.

Any reason, any excuse to grab for Pearl’s inexcusable, horrific murder–other than Muslims hate a Jew and barbaricly kill him for it–and the movie grabs onto it. Even prior to making the movie, last year, Brad Pitt a/k/a Mr. Jolie–producer of this film–lectured us that:

     “We hope the film can increase understanding between people of all faiths and portray the story and the people involved . . . without anger or judgment.”

In other words, don’t judge the Muslims. Don’t judge the people who barbaricly killed Pearl because he was a Jew. Don’t even think that’s why they killed him. Understand the murderers. Understand that it’s not right for us to keep murderous terrorists in detention with three gourmet halal meals a day and every religious article they’d ever want. Understand that the Wall Street Journal should never help the CIA with intelligence to counter terrorists.

And those are the messages of this movie. That’s why, instead of scenes of Muslims beating, interrogating, torturing, beheading, and dissecting Daniel Pearl, we see Muslim Asra Nomani crying and anguishing over Danny. We see Muslim police officers very concerned about Pearl. Mariane tells us of the beauty of Muslim Eid Al-Adha sacrifices of lambs. We see a scene of Mariane, a French Afro-Cuban/Dutch Buddhist, bowing down to the ground meditating. Then, it shows Muslims also bowing down to the ground praying to Allah. Forget the butchering Muslim murderers. We are all the same. We all care. We all pray in a similar manner. That’s the message of this movie.

And then there are the even sillier parts of this movie. Woven in with the earnest, concerned Muslim detectives and police officers, we see caricatures of the Americans, which are such comedic parodies, you wonder how they made it into what is supposed to be a serious movie about an execution of an American Jew. They appear stolen from the editorial cartoons of Islamist newspapers in Egypt and Saudi Arabia and propaganda dramas on Hezbollah’s Al-Manar.

We see a useless lesbian FBI agent who does nothing but sound and appear officious in a Rosie O’Donnell know-it-all way. No, the movie doesn’t say she’s a lesbian, but trust me, they picked the most butch-looking actress possible. Clearly, she plays for the other team.

Then, there’s Randall Bennett, a mysterious “security official” from the U.S. Embassy in Karachi. Played by Will Patton, who often plays criminals, bad guys, and bizarros, the CIA-esque Bennett constantly wears sunglasses indoors and gushes and drools over Pakistani torture of suspects.

And don’t forget Wall Street Journal reporter Steve Levine, played by Gary Wilmes, the most stereotypically Jewish-looking actor they could cast–a living embodiment of the angst-ridden, sweaty big-nosed, glasses-wearing Jew you’d find in “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” picture book for kids.

Yup, that’s how the Muslim world–and Pitt and Jolie–see America: bizarre, drooling torturers in sunglasses, lesbian FBI agents, and big-nosed, bespectacled Jews who dominate the media.

So much for Pitt’s exhorting us to be “understanding” and “without judgment.”

At the end of the movie, we are told in Jolie/Mariane’s voice that:

    “Ten Pakistanis were killed this month by terrorists. They [Pakistanis and Muslims] are suffering as much as we are.”

Are they really? How many of the Americans were killed because they were from rival terrorist groups? How many Pakistanis were blown to smithereens because they were on airplanes or in the two tall towers they flew into?

The problem with the film is that the Jolie-Pitts do have judgment–against us and not the terrorists or their Islam–and that they have very selective understanding–lenience only for those, ie., Muslims, who hate Jews and hate Americans, looking for that tiny fringe of moderation that’s barely on the far, outer margin.

In the many print and broadcast interviews in the mounting PR campaign for this summer movie, Jolie tells the press that

   ” Mariane is a person who has every right to be full of hate, and yet she’s completely the opposite. She wants to have a dialogue.”

And there are Jolie’s and Pitt’s lectures that the hero of this movie is a Muslim Pakistani Captain . . . . Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Jewish–they all came together, all of them becoming great friends.

The problem is not with whether or not Mariane Pearl hates those who butchered her husband to death or whether those who helped investigate it were a tiny number of Muslim friends and police who don’t represent the dominant anti-Semitic, pan-terrorist thought on the Muslim street.

The problem is that those who butchered her husband were dominated by hate and that they are Muslim. And a propaganda film whitewashing that by a beautiful actress and her metrosexual boyfriend won’t make them hate us any less or make Islam any less extremist.

Until we face those facts, there will be many more Daniel Pearls. Onscreen Valentines to terrorists and their hateful religion, a la “A Mighty Heart,” only enable their murderers.

If your heart is so big that your head is buried in the sand, it’s not “A Mighty Heart.” It’s a weak heart, soon to be in cardiac arrest.

The human rights outrage in Iran…and a challenge to Rosie O’Donnell and her ilk

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers