NYTimes editor now admits:We were wrong to blab — al Jazeera’s pet State Department mouthpiece | Main | State Department weasel apologizes »

Un. Freaking. Believable. The NYTimes ombudsman, Byron Calame, buried a bombshell mea culpa in his column today–reversing his prior defense of the Times’ blabbermouth report on a once-secret terrorist banking data surveillance program and now admitting the paper was wrong to publish it:


The Europeanization of the Democratic Party — anti-Israel attitudes within the Democratic Party and have noted how it is increasingly taking on the characteristics of the anti-Israel bias that is pervasive in Europe.

The Europeanization of the Democratic Party
October 24th, 2006

Ronald Reagan famous declaration that he “did not leave the Democratic Party. It left me” can be made more contemporary. The Democratic Party has not only left behind many of its old principles and ideals, it now seems to be in the process of losing its moorings and leaving America entirely. We are witnessing the Europeanization of the Democratic Party, with potentially dire implications for one of the most reliable and loyal group of supporters of the Democratic Party: America’s Jewish community.

A few analysts have seen the continuing evolution of anti-Israel attitudes within the Democratic Party and have noted how it is increasingly taking on the characteristics of the anti-Israel bias that is pervasive in Europe A few noted liberal Democrats have expressed dismay about the increasing signs of anti-Semitism within the party. These include long time liberals such as Lanny Davis (President Clinton’s counsel) and Martin Peretz (publisher of the liberal magazine The New Republic, nicknamed the in-flight magazine of Air Force One during the Clinton era) who have expressed their concern regarding the increased anti-Semitism being voiced at the grassroots level.

Many recent surveys and the Congressional voting records display ominous trends that show a marked erosion of support for Israel within the Democratic Party.  Other groups have taken note of the increasing anti-Israel voting records of Democratic members of Congress. This is a departure from the traditional support the party has in the past shown for the America-Israel friendship. The times certainly do seem to be changing. As a recent advertisement by the Republican Jewish Coalition stated, “Today’s Democratic Party is not {your} father’s Democratic Party”.

Why might this be so?

A short answer might be because political parties evolve-sometimes in a radical fashion over time. [1] This is a manifestation of the dynamism that has so enriched America since its founding. In the case of the Democratic Party, there has been a sharp leftward turn; since the left has become a main source of anti-Israel ideology in the Western World it has affected the attitudes towards Israel within the party.

But there may be an added dimension to explain the erosion of support for Israel within the party. The demographic composition of the grassroots base and the type of leaders who control the party have changed. The sources of financial support for the party have also shifted. Together, these structural changes have weakened, and will continue to weaken, the traditional support the Party has heretofore shown for the American Israel alliance.

Political Bases While divining the bases of a political party is more of an art than a science, certain voting blocs are considered reliably Democratic: Jews, union members, city-dwellers, and blacks. The party’s members have increasingly become secular. Examining the role that the America-Israel relationship plays in the basket of concerns of each of these groups will provide a forecast of how the Democratic Party will increasingly view the state of Israel.

America’s Jewish Community

America’s Jewish community has been one of the most stalwart supporters of the Democratic Party since World War Two. The community is also supportive of the America-Israel alliance. However, demographics are destiny and they are unfavorable.  Jews get married later and have fewer children than the average American. Intermarriage is also a factor in the declining Jewish population in America (most children of such couples are not raised in the Jewish faith). As the population grows in America through higher fertility rates among other groups in America and by high levels of immigration, the Jewish percentage of the American population has declined from a mid-century high of 3.7 percent to somewhere between 2 and 2.5 percent – and heading downward.

Even though Jews may vote at a higher rate than the population as a whole and tend to live in states with a high number of electoral votes, this impact will diminish as the population declines. Jews will become a smaller part of the Democratic Party if for no other reason than they will become a smaller and smaller part of the American population as a whole. Therefore, the Democratic Party has will be less concerned with supporting the America-Israel alliance. This only highlights the importance of having allies among the other Democratic bases that will also support a strong America-Israel alliance. However, as the Democratic Party has evolved, the news on this front is not favorable.


Historically, unions were among the earliest and most ardent supporters of Israel. Unions such as the International Ladies Garment Workers Union (ILGWU) were heavily Jewish in their membership, and many of those members were relatively recent immigrants from Europe. Many had lost friends in family in the Holocaust.

Other unions were militantly anti-Communist and saw Israel as a bulwark against the rise of Soviet adventurism in the Middle East. The unions also had a fraternal feeling towards Israel during its early years, since Isarel followed, to some extent, policies that were favorable towards labor. Ties were developed between American labor unions and their Israeli equivalents; Israeli bonds were purchased; political support in America was offered and warmly appreciated. Leaders such as David Dubinsky of the ILGWU and Lane Kirkland of the AFL-CIO were in the vanguard of strong supporters of Israel during their tenure.

However, unions have changed. As the prejudice that barred Jews from many professions declined, and as educational opportunities opened, the number of Jews in unions declined. They are simply not there to advocate for strong ties between Israel and America. Furthermore, the Cold War is over. Unions no longer are concerned with larger geopolitical issues.

Anxiety over outsourcing has led to a decidedly anti-globalization attitude. The unions have turned inward and isolationist, concentrating on domestic concerns such as health care, increasing the minimum wage, and preventing the export of jobs overseas. The president of the AFL-CIO is John Sweeney, a member of the Democratic Socialist of America.

The head of the very fast-growing Service Employees International Union is Andy Stern who also has an activist liberal background. SEIU members have shown up to support anti-Israel demonstrations in various cities. Both Sweeney and Stern seem to have an international view that only encompasses the topic of globalization and outsourcing of labor. They do not have an interest in supporting a foreign nation (Israel). Indeed, they have become forces of isolationism in our nation. To the extent that organized labor has any interest outside our borders, it is geared towards the southern nations that are sources of immigrant labor and not to the Middle East. There are no more Lane Kirklands.

The teacher unions, in particular, have a great deal of influence over the Democratic Party. Teachers comprise up to a third of the delegates to the Democrat National Convention, provide the unpaid volunteers that man the phone banks, knock on the doors, hand out the campaign literature, and drive people to the polls to vote. The Wall Street Journal had good reasons to characterize them as an arm of the Democratic National Committee.

The teaching profession was once a popular option for Jews, given the reverence for learning and the prejudice that many Jews faced in the business world. However, the decline of prejudice throughout America has led to an exodus from the profession as Jews found more career options available to them. Not only are there fewer Jewish members in the teachers’ ranks who could educate their peers about Israel, but the teaching profession as a whole has taken on an insidious and increasingly anti-Israel bias.

At the college level, professors tend toward the most liberal end of the spectrum and have certainly adopted some of the fashionable anti-Israel attitudes that emanate from the left (anti-colonialism, anti-imperialism, anti-Westernism, anti-capitalism: all possible sources of bias against Israel). This animus towards Israel that has led to boycott and divestment calls against Israel in European and Canadian universities has migrated to American campuses. Some of the leading anti-Israel ideologues are professors: Noam Chomsky, Tony Judt, Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer (who wrote a paper on the “Israel Lobby” widely derided as anti-Semitic); the Middle Eastern Studies faculty at Columbia University has been widely criticized for its bias against Israel and Jews. [2]

Lest anyone take comfort from the fact that these anti-Israel voices are limited to a few universities (albeit, prestigious ones) and to professors who are not members of a teachers union, this ideology has migrated down to the K-12 level where unionization is prevalent. High-school textbook publishers have increasingly felt comfortable in covering Islam in a favorable light, often at the expense of Israel. The American Textbook Council has expressed deep concerns over this trend.

A subtle effort is underway in primary and secondary schools to undermine Israel. The Institute for Jewish and Community Research notes,

Groups with political agendas produce their own resources on religion and the Middle East and make these materials available for free as supplemental teaching resources for the primary and secondary grades. An anti-Israel bias has been documented in primary and secondary materials and textbooks. Often, anti-Israel bias occurs in textbooks because of oversimplification or misinformation. For instance, references to the 1973 war fail to mention that Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack against Israel on Yom Kippur.

Teacher training seminars are being held with faculty from university Middle East studies departments. Muslim educational organizations hold conferences around the country for primary and secondary educators to attend, and they include an anti-Israel bias. In fact, a series of fully funded teacher workshops, entitled, “Teaching About the Arab World and Islam,” sponsored by the Middle East Policy Council and conducted by Arab World and Islamic Resources and School Services (AWAIR), had a Fall 2002 schedule which includes workshops in California, Texas, Arizona, Georgia, and more. A recent profile of the founder and executive director of AWAIR noted that she has “had a tremendous impact on schools nationwide, speaking in 160 cities in 42 states.

There will be more instances similar to the one in Andover (MA) High School where a high-school teacher openly advocates for Hamas, expresses anti-Semitism, and indoctrinates and pays his students to join him in his efforts. When this came to light, the Teachers’ Union President praised the teacher and defended the propriety of the teacher’s actions and beliefs. The President of the union commended the teacher as a

“courageous defender of human rights. He continues to work on behalf of people who have been disfranchised from their rights as well as removed from their land”.

On the labor front, California has led the way as it so often does. Recently, the United Teachers of Los Angeles offered to a host a meeting that was designed to organize a “local boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign in support of the Palestinian people”.  We will be witnessing more of these efforts by teacher unions, part of a spectrum of activities that have increasingly politicized the profession in a direction highly unfavorable towards the American-Israel alliance.

The NEA, AFT  and other unions have increasingly devoted their members’ dues to supporting groups that have absolutely nothing to do with furthering their members’ interests. Last year alone, the NEA gave 65 million dollars of members’ dues to left-liberal groups, including to Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow PUSH, Amnesty International, (a frequent critic of Israel), and the Human Rights Campaign.  The leaders of the NEA clearly are supportive the very types of groups that all too often have anti-Israel attitudes. We will be seeing more of this type of activism in the years ahead (it is already becoming more prevalent in Canada) because, as columnist Mona Charen has pointed out, graduate schools of education are increasingly devoting their time to politically indoctrinating the future teachers of America.

The African-American community

Lamentably, the alliance between Jews and blacks in America that was so strong before and during the civil rights years has been rent asunder in the last 30 years. This has been much commented upon. The causes behind this rupture are beyond the scope of this article but it is a sad reality. The level of anti-Semitism within the black community is the highest among any community in America (3 to 4 times that of the white community).  As minorities, blacks might feel a kinship with Palestinians and Arabs in general, whom they perceive to be oppressed minorities. The increasingly large black Muslim population shares a religious bond with the wider Muslim world. Unfortunately, many current black leaders have done nothing to counter the rising anti-Semitism in the community and in some cases stoke it.

While Martin Luther King was a strong supporter of Zionism in theory and Israel in fact, his successors are cut from a different cloth. Black leaders such as Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Andrew Young, Louis Farakkhan all have records marred by a history of anti-Semitism. [3] The Congressional Black Caucus has increasingly voted against Israel in Congress. Representative Cynthia McKinney (D-Georgia) and her supporters have had a long history of anti-Semitic statements. Congressman John Conyers hosted a mock impeachment hearing featuring known anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists (while the “hearing” was proceeding, anti-Semitic literature was being distributed by activists at the Democratic National headquarters).

Congress likely will be soon welcoming its first Muslim and first black Muslim member: Keith Ellison, a Democrat from Minnesota, who has been a supporter of the Nation of Islam and its anti-Semitic leader, Louis Farrakhan.

Regrettably, the efforts that the American Jewish community made on behalf of the black community in America seems has been unappreciated and certainly has not been reciprocated in recent years. This key component of the Democratic Party will not be a strong source of support for the America-Israel alliance going forward.

Secularization of the Democratic Party

The Democratic Party has increasingly become secularized (and mirrors Europe in this regard). Numerous surveys show that the party is perceived to be unfriendly toward religion.  In their concern with ensuring the separation of church and state and their reliance on funding from the entertainment industry, the Democratic Party has lost support among the faithful.  Attendance at religious institutions correlates closely with political affiliation. Voters who say they go to religious services every week usually vote for Republicans. Those who don’t attend on a regular basis vote Democratic. 

As the frequency of attendance increases, so does the intensity of the partisanship. How will this affect the party’s approach towards the America-Israel relationship? By another simple correlation. The more religious a person is, the more likely they are to have positive feelings towards Israel, to sympathize with Israel, and to support Israel.

Various Pew surveys over the years have focused on this pronounced and deep relationship . In one recent survey, 22% of Americans said their religious beliefs were the biggest influence in determining their support for Israel. Of those who sympathize with Israel, fully one-third state that their sympathy arises from their religious beliefs. While there has been much misinformation regarding the reasons why evangelicals support Israel, there is no doubt that their support has been in a key during these perilous times.

The support is strongest precisely among the group most that is the polar opposite of your typical Democrat: white evangelicals who describe themselves as political conservatives. They are three times as likely to back Israel as were evangelicals who merely described themselves as moderates.  Foreign Affairs magazine, the magazine of foreign policy elites, has taken note of the importance of evangelicals to Israel in a major article, “God’s Country” written by Walter Russell Mead. Furthermore, the massive growth of evangelicals in overseas countries offers hope for increased diplomatic support for Israel in the future.

The “religious gap” between the two parties is reflected in the increasing gap in levels of support the two parties extend towards the America-Israel alliance. Will that gap continue to widen?

Democrat Voter Initiatives

The Democratic Party has also been engaged in initiatives that will have the effect of further silencing the voice of pro-Israel supporters within the party. The party is seeking to expand voting rights to felons, which are denied by many states (the reasoning being that criminals guilty of major crimes should not have a role in helping to select lawmakers). As has been reported many times in the media, prisons have become centers of extreme Islamic proselytizing. Does anyone think those felons will be supportive of the America-Israel alliance?

Efforts to loosen voting requirements and abolish the Electoral College will also tend to weaken the support for the America-Israel alliance within the party, and within America. This is for two reasons: states such as Florida, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania have relatively large Jewish populations, the impact of which can swing the election in that particular state to one candidate or another.

These states also have a large number of electoral votes that can determine the President. By eliminating the Electoral College, these swing voters and their impact will be rendered meaningless. The same dynamic will affect pro-Israel Christian voters in smaller, more rural states. Their votes will become much less important if the Electoral College system is abolished. Meanwhile, Democrats have capitalized on the maligned “War on Terror” and the near hysteria over civil rights issues to court the increasing number of Muslims in America. Muslims have begun organizing politically and are receptive to these overtures. Daniel Pipes, a well-known scholar on Islam, has predicted that Arabs will become increasingly a key component of the Democratic Party and that the Democratic party will “abandon its historic sympathy for Israel”.


Leaders have great powers to determine the future of parties. This has been recognized for years: Franklin Delano Roosevelt crafted an alliance of groups that sustained and empowered the Democratic Party for generations. Ronald Reagan had similar powers to transform the Republican Party. A similar process is underway in the Democratic Party today, and it will lead to a further erosion of support for Israel. Why?

The Democratic Leaders are Europeanoid in outlook. While they may have US citizenship, this is a mere technicality. In many ways they have a set of attitudes (a discomfort with people of faith, an anti-business attitude, a mania for rules and regulations, nationalized medical care, higher taxes, an appreciation for the “virtues” of international organizations) more in common with Europeans elites than your average American.

The Democrat elites certainly seem to share much of the lack of religious faith that afflicts the European continent.  Recall how Howard Dean and John Kerry had problems dealing with religion both during and after their campaign (when Dean tried to pretend a knowledge of the Bible that he clearly did not have).

The Democratic Party is constantly trying to develop ways to appeal to people of faith precisely because it does not come naturally to them. This lack of faith might account, by the way, for both the European and Democratic difficulties in appreciating the extent to which religious extremism can motivate some Muslims to commit terror. (The Congressmen who most seem alert to the dangers of religious extremism are men well-known for their own religiosity –Senators Brownback, Santorum, and Lieberman, for example.)

How did these attitudes develop and how are they sustained? 

Many of the Democratic elites (John Kerry, among them) spent considerable amounts of time during their formative years overseas or in Ivy League universities. Recall John Kerry’s summers in (where else?) France; or Clinton’s coterie of fellow Oxford graduates. They took deep draughts of the trans-Atlantic ideas that are held in common with European elites. Ivy League universities are clones in many ways of European universities: they often exchange professors from time to time, teach from the same material, and have the same ideological mindset that they inculcate in their students. This commonality has been deepened after college by frequent attendance at international conferences, ceremonies, and cocktail parties. The echo chamber and group think effect has taken hold; in this small universe a common mind-set developed. This process can be called in homage to one of the factors that facilitated the process, the Concorde convergence.

However, the Europeanization of the Democratic Party elites goes beyond this dynamic. In many ways, the coastal cities and the rarified environs that the elite play in are very similar to Europe’s major cities. The brilliant urban theorist Joel Kotkin calls these generally East coast cities Euro-America . He writes,

“Euro-America has always existed in pockets, most particularly among the East Coast’s intellectual, cultural and social elites”.

He traces this strengthening trend from the early 1800s to contemporary America. He continues,

“Today the embrace of European values and perspectives also reflects profound economic and social similarities between Euro-America and the continent.”

While they may be losing population and stagnating,

“neither Europe, nor its America simulacra, should be dismissed. Resting on great accomplishments of generations past, they enjoy a near monopoly in major media and top universities”. 

Kotkin also noted that these Democratic powerhouses are becoming increasingly estranged from the political and cultural norms of the rest of America. [4] We can call these elite leaders not metrosexuals, as Howard Dean might; instead we can call them trans-Europeans. As Kotkin says, they seek “inspiration from abroad.” (or approval from abroad, as in John Kerry’s “Global Test”)

How might this effect the America-Israel alliance?

Europe has been anti-Israel for decades. Whether these policies derive from a desire to curry favor with wealthy Arab oil nations, keep their growing Muslim populations mollified, residual anti-Semitism, guilt over their colonial past, a prevailing moral relativism that refuses to see acts by Arab terrorists as immoral (such as refusing to list Hezbollah as a terror organization) [5] is irrelevant.

What is relevant is the long history of European pressure on Israel to appease Arab extremism. There is a litany of acts that are hostile to Israel and that have endangered her people: arms bans, refusal to permit US aircraft to refuel in military bases or over fly European airspace in order to re-supply Israel in the 1973 War, BBC bias in their news reporting,  boycotts, legal actions against Israeli leaders, diplomatic arm twisting (recall the French Ambassador to England who characterized Israel as a “shitty little country”).  There has been an appeasement orientated ideology that has become the paramount principle in Europe’s approach towards the Middle East and a reliance on the United Nations as a “mediator” between Israel and its foes.

This has also become the mantra of the Democratic Party. Whether it is the repeated calls to rely on our friends overseas to guide our conduct (epitomized by John Kerry’s “Global Test” to vouchsafe our foreign policy actions) or the deference to multilateral institutions and purported human rights groups that tend to be very biased against Israel, [6] the Democratic Party seems to approve of one type of outsourcing: our foreign policy.

The Democratic Party has made a fetish out of the United Nations, believing it to be the paramount guide to international relations. This is perilous for Israel, for if there were any international group that has greater animus towards Israel than the Arab League it would be the United Nations. The data available to document the UN’s actions against Israel is enormous and ever-growing: from endangering her safety in 1967 by removing its forces that separated Egyptian armed forces from Israel, to endless rounds of denunciation and obloquy, to the creation the only refugee body geared towards a single group (the Palestinians), to the outrages that Israel has had to endure (Yasser Arafat addressing the United Nations General Assembly with a gun in his belt), to UNIFIL aiding and abetting Hezbollah in its terror attacks against Israel, to the UN Relief and Works Administration  blasé attitudes towards having Hezbollah members on its payroll and from having its buildings used to hide terrorists…well, the list is endless.

One overlooked fact about the United Nations is the extent to which it serves to promote worldwide anti-Semitism. The global reach of the United Nations, its immense financial resources, the patina of prestige that it enjoys have given it great power (especially outside of America). The UN Conference on Racism in Durban, South Africa became an anti-Semitic hate fest reminiscent of Nuremberg rallies. While the US withdrew, other nations stayed, including those nations that would judge us under John Kerry’s “Global Test”. Professor Anna Bayefsky noted in a Wall Street Journal column that the UN’s “dirty little secret” is that it not only condones anti-Semitism but also has encouraged its growth.  Another column by the same author noted that at one UN Conference experts found that Jews themselves cause anti-Semitism.

This latter article needs to be read to be believed, but one of the arguments made by an “expert” was that “superimposing the Jewish symbol of the Magen David on the Nazi swastika is not anti-Semitism”. When the Bush Administration finally pressured the UN to call a conference on anti-Semitism in 2004 (its first) the conference again was transformed into an anti-Israel auto de fe that highlighted Islamophobia as being the problem besetting the world. Exactly one mention of anti-Semitism was inserted into the resolution on religious intolerance. Fifty-four nations refused to support even that token gesture.

Further examples of Bayefsky’s research can be found on the website of an organization which she heads, Eye on the UN, and in an interview she gave, the title of which says much about the organization that the Democratic Party idolizes: “The United Nations: Leading Global Purveyor of Anti-Semitism”.

The General Assembly of the United Nations conjures up imagery of a mob in action.

When has a mob ever helped Jews?

Financial Support for the Party

The financial supporters of a party have an impact on the policies that the party follows. While the McCain-Feingold act may have “reformed” campaign financing in some ways, loopholes exist and these are being exploited by groups and people with an anti-Israel agenda-some of which have been also tainted by anti-Semitism. [7] When limits were placed on contributions to candidates and parties, other groups have arisen that can engage in political activism to help in campaigns.

These are so-called 527 groups (named for a section of the IRS code). They have heretofore been a major strength of the Democratic Party compared to the Republican Party. They can accept money without limits from donors. They can also accept donations from foreigners who otherwise are banned from giving directly to candidates.

A recent development has been the rise of similar 501©(4) groups that do not even have to list their donors. Are Arab petrodollars finding their way to these groups, as they have towards colleges and think tanks and to an ownership stake in News Corporation (owner of Fox News)? The single biggest donor to 527 groups has been investor/currency speculator George Soros, who spent his formative years and early adulthood in Europe and certainly imbibed some of his guiding philosophy from there (as he admits). He also admits he is anti-Israel and blames Jews for anti-Semitism . Soros is a hedge fund manager whose hedge fund is registered in the Netherlands Antilles, thus cloaking its investors in complete anonymity. The fortune that Soros has made depends on investors in his hedge fund. He can funnel profits from his management fees back into America. Might there be Arab investors in his hedge fund that might influence his anti-Israel activity in America. [8]

George Soros is reported to be involved, along with liberal activists, in plans to create a lobby to try to influence US policy towards the Middle East. [9] This should give one pause. Soros is anathema to the Republican Party so this effort will be clearly directed toward the Democratic Party. Soros is a renowned investor who waits until he senses an opportunity and then pounces with all his might. He apparently believes that the Democratic Party will be receptive to his anti-Israel overtures. Given his investment record, would anyone care to bet against him?

The Democratic Party has historically been supportive of Israel. But other groups have also been supportive of Israel in the past, only to abandon it: the French and the United Nations, for example. The moral being  that times and parties change. 

Tectonic forces are moving within the Democratic Party that are pushing it towards a European view of the world. [10] This will influence many areas of American life. One of the more immediate effects will be support for the America-Israel alliance.

This transformation will be occurring during perilous times: Iran supports Hezbollah which routinely attacks Israel, and Iran is developing nuclear weapons and boasts of its plans to destroy half the world’s Jewish population (for starters).

Will the Democratic Party toe the “European line” that refuses to consider Hezbollah a terrorist group (or in Dingell’s phraseology, “refuses to take sides between Hezbollah and Israel”) and fecklessly deal with Iran, permitting them to have the time they need to develop a nuclear arsenal?

Given their fetishization of the United Nations this seems increasingly likely. For American supporters of the America-Israel alliance, it may be necessary to take off rose-colored glasses and fire up the long-range radar. The Democratic Party is changing and the American Jewish community must respond to these changes. Our lives depend on it.


[1] An increasing number of long-time liberals have realized that the party has changed: Peter Beinart, editor and chief of The New Republic; Christopher Hitchens-former columnist for the left-wing The Nation magazine. See also: Scoop Jackson Democrats Fade Away.  During the Civil War and for generations afterwards, the Republican Party, not the Democratic Party, could reliably count on the support of the black community. Within a few generations, these relationships were switched.

[2] Arab petrodollars certainly play a part in the increasing academic bias against Israel. Professors occupy endowed chairs funded by Arab oil potentates; academic centers dealing with the Middle East are funded by huge “gifts” (nee investments) at universities such as Georgetown and Harvard –both of which have faculty members well-known for being apologists for Islamic extremism (Esposito at Georgetown, Stephen Walt at Harvard) or have engaged in screeds against Israel that have been characterized as intellectually flawed and anti-Semitic (Harvard). Have they compromised their standards or given vent to their emotions and ideological bias? After all, 54 percent of professors say U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East is partially responsible for the growth of Islamic militancy http://www.jewishresearch.org/Book-College.htm

[3] Two, Jackson and Sharpton, have been presidential candidates in the past and as recently as two months ago were welcomed on the podium as Ned Lamont delivered his victory speech after he defeated Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary for Senator.

[4]  Both areas also suffer from low fertility rates. This can be traced to people choosing not to have children; having children later in life; or choosing to have fewer children. The Roe-Effect may play a part. Abortion is more generally accepted among Democrats that dominate in these cities, leading to a lower population.  Some have traced Europe’s aversion to the use of military force to a demographic deficit. Having fewer children has two results: the pool to for the military to draw from is small and there is a reluctance to risk the children they do have in military conflict. The same reasoning may be applicable to Democratic elites here.

[5] As Europe refuses to put Hezbollah on its list of terror organizations (despite frequent attacks on Israelis, despite attacks against America and France that have killed hundreds, despite attacks against Jewish targets in South America, and despite a charter that calls for the destruction of a people) long-time Democratic Representative John Dingell refuses to take sides between Hezbollah and Israel. European-style moral relativism at work.

[6] Federal judges (usually Democrat-appointees) are increasingly using or referring to European legal precedent to form their decisions. European legal scholars have been well represented in the International Court of Justice: a “judicial body” that has become a fierce and unrelenting critic of Israel. Do we want a Congress dominated by Democrats to confirm these types of judges who will decide how we deal with the specter of Islamic terror? After all, a Clinton appointee just gave terror supporter Lynne Stewart a token sentence for aiding and abetting terror mastermind Sheik Omar-Abdel Rahman.

[7] See this and this.

[8] Recently, George Soros gave his largest political donation for this year to former (and future) presidential candidate Wesley Clark . Afterwards, Clark gave a speech at the University of Alabama during which he stated that US support for Israel in its war with Hezbollah was a mistake A taste of things to come?

[9] Most recently, Senator Barack Obama has suggested we work with Syria and Iran over Iraq. Those are precisely the two nations that will gain power in such a “negotiation: They are also both sworn enemies of our ally, Israel. [10] Observing the Canadian political landscape may provide a glimpse into our future. There, the Liberal Party (comparable to the Democratic Party) has become increasingly anti-Israel. One of its most powerful leaders, and a candidate for the top leadership post, was a former professor from Harvard University (a big Euro-American pocket) and he has accused Israel of war crimes. However, this is only one instance of its attacks against Israel: another Liberal Member of Parliament called Israel a state sponsor of terrorism and called for closer relations with Hezbollah . leaving the Liberal party.

Ed Lasky is news editor of American Thinker.

Ed Lasky

The Secrets of Scientology The Church of Scientology is a rich and vengeful religious cult, or as one critic puts it, “a cross between the Moonies and the Mafia.” But it would be a mistake to dismiss its underlying technology as harmless or ineffective. Scientologists know a great deal about thought control, social control, rhetorical judo (defeat by misdirection, deft use of logical fallacies) and high pressure sales, though as victims of their own technology, they wouldn’t characterize it that way

The Secrets of Scientology

The Church of Scientology is a rich and vengeful religious cult, or as one critic puts it, “a cross between the Moonies and the Mafia.” But it would be a mistake to dismiss its underlying technology as harmless or ineffective. Scientologists know a great deal about thought control, social control, rhetorical judo (defeat by misdirection, deft use of logical fallacies) and high pressure sales, though as victims of their own technology, they wouldn’t characterize it that way.Despite its extensive advertising campaign, including half-hour TV infomercials for Dianetics, the Church has been careful to maintain a veil of mystery about its teachings, in part by outlawing any meaningful discussion or analysis of them. (See the policy bulletin prohibiting verbal tech.) To learn the inner secrets of the cult requires years of strict obedience and large monetary donations.

In return, Scientology promises its adherents “total freedom”. The Internet, through sites like this one, is going to make good on that promise. This web site is dedicated to exposing the various technical tricks behind Scientology, until all its secrets have been laid before the public at no charge.


In Iraq, Stay the Course – but Change It Interesting concept

In Iraq, Stay the Course – but Change It

by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
October 24, 2006

As coalition policy reaches a crisis, may I resurrect an idea I have been flogging since April 2003? It offers a way out of the current debate over staying the course (as President George W. Bush has long advocated) or withdrawing troops on a short timetable (as his critics demand).

My solution splits the difference, “Stay the course – but change the course.” I suggest pulling coalition forces out of the inhabited areas of Iraq and redeploying them to the desert.

This way, the troops remain indefinitely in Iraq, but remote from the urban carnage. It permits the American-led troops to carry out essential tasks (protecting borders, keeping the oil and gas flowing, ensuring that no Saddam-like monster takes power) while ending their non-essential work (maintaining street-level order, guarding their own barracks).

Beyond these specifics, such a troop redeployment would imply a profound and improved change of course. It means:

  • Letting Iraqis run Iraq: Wish the Iraqis well but recognize that they are responsible for their own country. Or, in the words of a Times of London headline, “Bush to Iraqis: you take over.” The coalition can help but Iraqis are adults, not wards, and need to assume responsibility for their country, from internal security to writing their constitution, with all due urgency.
  • Seeing violence in Iraq as an Iraqi problem: The now-constant violence verging on civil war is a humanitarian tragedy but not a strategic one, an Iraqi problem, not a coalition one. The coalition should realize it has no more responsibility for keeping the peace between Iraqis than it does among Liberians or Somalis.
  • Terminating the mammoth U.S. embassy in Baghdad: The American-created “Green Zone” in Baghdad is too high profile already, but work now underway to build the biggest embassy in the history of mankind, a 4,000-employee fortress in the heart of Baghdad, will make matters significantly worse. Its looming centrality will antagonize Iraqis for years or decades to come, even as it offers a vulnerable target for rocket-wielding enemies. Scheduled to open in June 2007, this gargantuan complex should be handed back to Iraqis, the over US$1 billion spent on it written off as a mistake of war, and a new, normal-sized, embassy built in its stead.
  • Ending the coddle: The inept, corrupt, and Islamist leadership in Baghdad discredits the Bush administration’s integrity; conversely, Washington’s embrace makes it look like a stooge. Other Iraqi institutions – my pet peeve is the National Symphony Orchestra in Baghdad – also suffer from the patronizing embrace of American politicians. Muslim sensitivities about rule by non-Muslims makes these rankling offenses.
  • Reducing coalition ambitions for Iraq: From the start, “Operation Iraqi Freedom” was too ambitious and too remote from American interests (“Operation Coalition Security” would have been a better moniker). Give up on the unattainable goal of a democratic, free, and prosperous Iraq, a beacon to the region, and instead accept a stable and decent Iraq, one where conditions are comparable to Egypt or Tunisia.

The situation in Iraq has become a source of deep domestic antagonism in the coalition countries, especially the United States and Great Britain, but it can be finessed by noting that the stakes there are actually quite minor, then adjusting means and goals on this basis. Do you, dear non-Iraqi reader, have strong feelings about the future of Iraq? I strongly suspect not.

Iraqis want possession of their country; and peoples in countries providing troops serving in Iraq have wearied of the hopeless effort to transform it into something better than it is. Both aspirations can be satisfied by redeploying coalition troops to the desert, where they can focus on the essential tasks of maintaining Iraq’s territorial integrity, keeping the fossil fuels flowing, and preventing humanitarian disasters.

The idea has developed since World War II that when the United States protects its interests by invading a country, it then has a moral obligation to rehabilitate it. This “mouse that roared” or “Pottery Barn rule” assumption is wrong and needs to be re-evaluated. Yes, there are times and places where rehabilitation is appropriate, but this needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis, keeping feasibility and American interests strictly in mind. Iraq – an endemically violent country – fails on both counts.

From http://www.danielpipes.org | Original article available at: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/4066

Congress yesterday sent the bill to build 700 miles of fencing on the U.S.-Mexico border to President Bush, who will sign it in a ceremony Thursday morning in the White House Roosevelt Room.

Support American snipers I am not in the mood to hear about how CNN is justified in broadcasting “great footage” of American soldiers getting picked off by Iraqi snipers because it’s “great footage.”

Best GOP Hope: Scare ‘Em Silly

Best GOP Hope: Scare ‘Em Silly
By Dick Morris
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 24, 2006

With only two weeks left ’til Election Day, Republicans won’t save themselves with phony optimism – pathetic claims that, somehow, they’re mounting a comeback. They need to sound a note of alarm and fill the airwaves with specifics of exactly what will happen if the Democrats triumph. But inside-baseball talk about a Nancy Pelosi speakership won’t do the job. The GOP needs to focus on the concrete ways in which a Democratic victory would threaten our safety. Here’s one possible ad: We see and hear a wiretapped conversation, with a terrorist revealing his worst plans to his associate – and, inadvertently, to government eavesdroppers, too. Then, when he’s about to spill the beans on when and where the next attack is going to come, the line should go dead, with a dial tone, with a machine voice saying “This wiretap terminated in the name of privacy rights by the Democratic U.S. Congress.”

The announcer can then say, “If the Democrats win, the National Security Agency will never be able to listen in as the terrorists are plotting to attack us.”

Republicans are doomed unless they can get their base back. But the GOP base is the best informed group of voters in the nation, with educational levels consistently higher than their Democratic counterparts’. They follow politics closely and are the easiest voters to reach via the news media, cable TV and talk radio.

A message like this could have a snowballing effect on the Republican base. The word could percolate through the clutter, reminding voters of their true priorities.

Otherwise, we know what is going to happen. All the borderline GOP incumbents will lose, while Democrats like Sen. Bob Menendez, a scandal waiting to happen, survive.

But if the Republicans frankly address their deserting base and speak plainly of the need to hold steady in the face of the terrorist threat, the base can come back.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

U of Nebraska’s Political Litmus Test From now on, your annual evaluations will include being graded on the extent to which you have contributed (or not) to a climate of “inclusiveness” and the extent to which you have participated in “campus programs to improve climate …”

U of Nebraska’s Political Litmus Test
By Dwayne Ball and Gerard Harbison
Daily Nebraskan | October 24, 2006

University of Nebraska-Lincoln faculty members need to read and comment on the proposed UNL Strategic Plan for Diversity [pdf] by Halloween. The timing is utterly appropriate. Here is what should frighten you:

1. From now on, your annual evaluations will include being graded on the extent to which you have contributed (or not) to a climate of “inclusiveness” and the extent to which you have participated in “campus programs to improve climate …”

“Inclusiveness” is not defined in the document, nor is the nature of these programs specified. Thus, these words can mean whatever your department chairperson or others in the administration want them to mean – and can’t we all guess?

Does anyone doubt that all this constitutes a politically based litmus test for continued employment? Simply expressing disagreement with affirmative action, or with UNL’s implementation of it, could easily be cast as contributing to a “non-inclusive climate.” Having the “wrong” book on your bookshelf or the “wrong” cartoon on your office door could be judged “non-inclusive.”

This vague standard violates your rights under the First Amendment and your rights as a public employee. It also violates the spirit and the letter of academic freedom, both as generally understood and as codified in the University of Nebraska Regents’ bylaws, section 4.2. If you think you are immune because you hold the “correct” opinions, you might want to take a close reading of the document and imagine how it could be used against you by a hostile department chairperson.

2. All potential new hires must be grilled on their willingness and ability to “contribute positively” to the “campus climate.”

As a candidate, if you slip up during an interview and reveal that you think the diversity emperor has no clothes, you’ve lost your chance at a UNL job – based on your political opinions.

Let no one think this doesn’t happen. At other institutions, faculty candidates have been asked if they’d read books such as “America in Black in White” (critical of affirmative action) or “The Bell Curve” (deemed racist). Simply admitting to have read such a book has cost them a job.

3. All academic units will have “diversity curricula” and an assessment of their effectiveness. This asserts administrative hegemony over one of the very few areas over which faculty members still maintain some control: curriculum. This is a direct violation of the academic freedom of faculty members.

4. There are to be recruitment “targets” for female and minority faculty. Deans and department chairpersons will be graded on their ability to meet those targets. The administration will thus force lower and mid-level administrators and faculty search committees into illegal reverse discrimination.

If you plan to join a search committee, keep in mind that you may therefore be called upon to display “non-inclusive” behavior. That is, you may be required or “encouraged” to exclude non-Hispanic white male applicants. Thus, you will be in violation of the other parts of the plan that require you to be “inclusive.”

In the High-Orwellian Newspeak of diversity, exclusivity is inclusive! Naturally, the authors of the plan will protest they meant no such thing as unconstitutional hiring and employment practices nor violations of free speech and academic freedom.

If so, why have they left critical terms open to interpretation? Why have they provided no explicit protections for free expression of ideas even if those ideas imply some sort of “non-inclusiveness?” Why have they not explicitly protected faculty members and employees who will say out loud that “diversity” has become a pathetic caricature? Why is “diversity of ideas” unprotected?

Precisely, perhaps, because the authors intend harm to people based on their political viewpoints. For shame.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

Death to the Apostates — An Afghan citizen named Abdul Rahman, you may recall, made international news last spring, when his conversion from Islam to Christianity led to his arrest, with the intention of putting him on trial for apostasy. At that time he was spirited away to safety in Italy. Now jihadists in Afghanistan are demanding his return to Afghanistan in exchange for a kidnapped Italian journalist, Gabriele Torsello. “We want this issue resolved before the end of Ramadan,” his captors demanded, but no resolution seemed imminent as the holy month drew to a close.

Death to the Apostates
By Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 24, 2006

An Afghan citizen named Abdul Rahman, you may recall, made international news last spring, when his conversion from Islam to Christianity led to his arrest, with the intention of putting him on trial for apostasy. At that time he was spirited away to safety in Italy. Now jihadists in Afghanistan are demanding his return to Afghanistan in exchange for a kidnapped Italian journalist, Gabriele Torsello. “We want this issue resolved before the end of Ramadan,” his captors demanded, but no resolution seemed imminent as the holy month drew to a close. It is safe to say that if Italian authorities agreed to turn over Abdul Rahman to the kidnappers, the convert would almost certainly be killed for his crime of apostasy from Islam. Yet at the time of Abdul Rahman’s arrest, puzzled Western analysts pointed to what they thought were guarantees of freedom of religion and of conscience in the new Afghan Constitution: after all, didn’t the document pledge “respect” for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Didn’t it say, “followers of other religions” were “free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law”?  Indeed it did, but what were the “limits of the provisions of law”? The Constitution itself made the answer abundantly clear: “In Afghanistan,” it stipulated, “no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.” It mandated that the President swear an oath to “obey and safeguard the provisions of the sacred religion of Islam,” and only secondarily “to observe the Constitution and other laws of Afghanistan and supervise their implementation.” What’s more, it stated that “the provisions of adherence to the fundamentals of the sacred religion of Islam and the regime of the Islamic Republic cannot be amended.” Most non-Muslim observers missed the significance of these provisions, and especially the danger they posed to converts like Abdul Rahman and to the freedom of conscience in general. This is understandable, however, since so many Muslims in the West maintained that Islam contained no provision against apostasy. Typical of this was “Leaving Islam is not a capital crime,” a Chicago Tribune article published by M. Cherif Bassiouni, a professor of Law at DePaul University and President of the International Human Rights Law Institute, when Abdul Rahman was arrested. “A Muslim’s conversion to Christianity,” Bassiouni wrote, “is not a crime punishable by death under Islamic law, contrary to the claims in the case of Abdul Rahman in Afghanistan.” Several Muslim spokesmen have insisted the same thing to me in radio debates, excoriating me as “Islamophobic” for pointing out that many Islamic texts do indeed call for apostates to be killed. Yet the idea that the death penalty for apostasy has always been an element of the “fundamentals of the sacred religion of Islam” is something that some Muslims have made no effort to deny or conceal. IslamOnline, a site manned by a team of Islam scholars headed by the internationally influential Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, explains, “if a sane person who has reached puberty voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be punished. In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (or his representative) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.” And if someone doesn’t wait for a caliph to appear and takes matters into his own hands? Although the killer is to be “disciplined” for “arrogating the caliph’s prerogative and encroaching upon his rights,” there is “no blood money for killing an apostate (or any expiation)” – in other words, no significant punishment for the killer. 

These laws are rooted in the words and deeds of Islam’s prophet, as I explain in my new book, The Truth About Muhammad. When he “forced his entry” into Mecca, according to his ninth-century biographer Ibn Sa‘d, “the people embraced Islam willingly or unwillingly” (Ibn Sa‘d, II.168). The Prophet of Islam ordered the Muslims to fight only those individuals or groups who resisted their advance into the city – except for a list of people who were to be killed, even if they had sought sanctuary in the Ka‘bah itself. One of those was Abdullah bin Sa‘d, a former Muslim who at one time had been employed by Muhammad to write down the Qur’anic revelations; but he had subsequently apostatized and returned to the Quraysh. He was found and brought to Muhammad along with his brother, and pleaded with the Prophet of Islam for clemency: “Accept the allegiance of Abdullah, Apostle of Allah!” Abdullah repeated this twice, but Muhammad remained impassive. After Abdullah repeated it a third time, Muhammad accepted.


As soon as Abdullah had left, Muhammad turned to the Muslims who were in the room and asked: “Was not there a wise man among you who would stand up to him when he saw that I had withheld my hand from accepting his allegiance, and kill him?”


The companions, aghast, responded: “We did not know what you had in your heart, Apostle of Allah! Why did you not give us a signal with your eye?”


“It is not advisable,” said the Prophet of Islam, “for a Prophet to play deceptive tricks with the eyes.”


Apostasy from Islam had always been for Muhammad a supreme evil. When he was master of Medina, some livestock herders came to the city and accepted Islam. But they disliked Medina’s climate, so Muhammad gave them some camels and a shepherd; once away from Medina, the herders killed the shepherd, released the camels and renounced Islam. Muhammad had them pursued. When they were caught, he ordered that their hands and feet be amputated (in accord with Qur’an 5:33, which directs that those who cause “corruption in the land” be punished by the amputation of their hands and feet on opposite sides) and their eyes put out with heated iron bars, and that they be left in the desert to die. Their pleas for water, he ordered, must be refused.


The traditions are clear that one of the main reasons that the punishment was so severe was because these men had been Muslims but had “turned renegade.” Muhammad legislated for his community that no Muslim could be put to death except for murder, unlawful sexual intercourse, and apostasy. He said flatly: “If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.”


It stains credulity, in light of all this, that Islamic apologists in the West assert that, in the words of one Ibrahim B. Syed, President of the Islamic Research Foundation International of Louisville, Kentucky, “there is no historical record, which indicates that Muhammad (pbuh) or any of his companions ever sentenced anyone to death for apostasy.” This kind of assertion may be comforting to non-Muslims who would prefer to believe that the capital charges levied against Abdul Rahman were some sort of anomaly. Unfortunately, this claim simply does not accord with the facts of Muhammad’s life. That such assertions pass unchallenged only underscores the need for Westerners to become informed about the actual words and deeds of Muhammad – which make the actions of Islamic states and jihad groups much more intelligible than do the words of Islamic apologists in the West.

 The kidnappers’ demand that Abdul Rahman be returned to Afghanistan illustrates the hollowness of the arguments we hear all the time – about how we must support self-proclaimed moderate Muslims like Bassiouni by refraining from noting the flimsiness and weakness of their presentations. While we’re being polite to alleged “reformers,” Muslim hardliners are cheerfully implementing the elements of Islamic law that bemused non-Muslims are nodding their heads and agreeing don’t exist. It’s good that the Italian government shows no sign that it is considering returning Abdul Rahman to Afghanistan. It would be better if the United States government, on which the Afghan regime depends for its continued survival, called upon the Afghans to drop the Sharia provisions from the nation’s Constitution, and affirm in unequivocal terms freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. For the kidnappers’ action has placed the Afghan government in a peculiar position. What can Afghan officials say? That they don’t want the kidnappers to get hold of Abdul Rahman, because they want to kill him themselves? The kidnappers’ demand is an unpleasant reminder that United States has deposed one Shari’a regime in Afghanistan, that of the Taliban, only to replace it with another. The State Department should call upon the Afghans to seize on the occasion of this demand to call for a searching reevaluation of the role of Islam in Afghan public life. But this, of course, is even less likely to happen than Abdul Rahman’s return to Afghanistan. One certainty is that people will continue to suffer for freedom of conscience in Afghanistan – under the indifferent eye of the U.S. military.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

Why Muslim Immigration is a Threat to Western Democracy

Why Muslim Immigration is a Threat to Western Democracy

Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
(Bertold Brecht)

I have warned earlier, especially (in the essay Electing a New People: The Leftist-Islamic Alliance), against Islamic infiltration of Leftist parties in the West, most recently demonstrated in Belgium, and the threat this poses to Western democracy. This is part of the reason why I advocate containment of the Islamic world and an end to Muslim immigration. Pundit Ohmyrus makes some of the same observations. But there is also another way in which Muslim immigration threatens our Western society.

In Policy Review, Lee Harris reviews Andrew G. Bostom’s excellent book The Legacy of Jihad. In his acknowledgments, Bostom expresses the wish that his own children and their children may “thrive in a world where the devastating institution of jihad has been acknowledged, renounced, dismantled, and relegated forever to the dustbin of history by Muslims themselves.”

But, as Harris asks,

“Why should Muslims renounce and dismantle an institution that, while it may have been devastating to those who have been its victims, has nevertheless been the historical agent by which Islamic culture has come to dominate such a vast expanse of our planet? […] Indeed, what is most striking about the collective project of jihad has been its immense and, with few exceptions, permanent success. Once Islamic culture sank in, it became virtually impossible for any foreign cultural influence to make any headway against it.”

He warns against those who dismiss the idea that Jihad constitutes a serious Islamic threat to the West because we are technologically superior to the Islamic world:

“Jihad has demonstrated an astonishing adaptability to different historical and material conditions. Yet the secret of the success of the Arab bands lay less in their own warlike qualities than in the weakness and decadence of the empires they overthrew. […] The jihadists are not interested in winning in our sense of the word. They can succeed simply by making the present world order unworkable, by creating conditions in which politics-as-usual is no longer an option, forcing upon the West the option either of giving in to their demands or descending into anarchy and chaos.
It is tempting to call this approach the crash of civilization.
It does not take a modern, sophisticated army to bring down a fragile and delicately balanced political order. Those who have no interest in preserving order, who are eager to destroy it, will welcome disorder for its own sake.”

Accordingly, says Harris, Muslims

“do not need to achieve the same degree of force that is the monopoly of the established order. In the crash-of-civilization paradigm – contrary to Clausewitzian warfare – the enemy of a particular established order does not need to match it in organizational strength and effectiveness. It needs only to make the established order reluctant to use its great strength out of the understandable fear that by plunging into civil war it will itself be jeopardized. This fear of anarchy – the ultimate fear for those who embrace the politics of reason – can be used to paralyze the political process to the point at which the established order is helpless to control events through normal political channels and power is no longer in the hands of the establishment but lies perilously in the streets. […] The jihadists do not need to ‘win’ in the battle against the West; it is enough if they can force the West to choose between a dreaded plunge back into the Law of the Jungle and acceding to their demands. This is a formula that has worked many times before and may work again.”

Muslims can thus undermine Western democracy in two ways: By massive immigration and infiltration of established, especially Socialist, parties until they can be turned to serve the Islamic agenda, or by simply creating a climate of fear and distrust that gradually makes the democratic system unworkable. In Western Europe right now, they are making significant headway on both accounts.