Searching for the Gipper

 

Searching for the Gipper


by Doug Patton

 

Is there another Ronald Reagan on the horizon for 2008, a leader who can rally the coalitions that gave Reagan an eight-year mandate? Let’s examine (in alphabetical order) some of the most frequently mentioned Republican presidential candidates. Just for fun, let’s create a one-to-ten “Gipper meter.” Ten would be a Republican leader of Reagan’s experience, stature, vision and charisma. One would be Lincoln Chaffee.

 

Sam Brownback – The young congressman from Kansas who replaced Bob Dole in the U.S. Senate has championed the cause of social conservatism in the upper body of the congress. This has made him a hero among so-called values voters, who find precious few senators from either party willing to fight for their issues. Compared with Reagan, Brownback would rate at least a seven or eight for ideology, but would only get a two or three for experience and charisma, thereby rendering him a mediocre five overall at best.

 

Bill Frist – The now-retired U.S. Senator from Tennessee has created about as much excitement as a potential presidential candidate as he did as senate majority leader. In other words, he is boring and has accomplished little. His rating on the Gipper meter: two.

 

Newt Gingrich – The former speaker of the house probably comes closer than anyone on the current scene to living up to the experience, stature and vision of Ronald Reagan, and what Newt lacks in charisma, he more than makes up for in knowledge and debate skills. I would give him an eight on the Gipper meter.

 

Rudy Giuliani – America’s mayor, as he was dubbed in the days following the 9/11 attacks, is greatly admired for his courage and leadership during that time, and as the man who cleaned up New York City. In stature and charisma, he rates a ten on the Gipper meter. For vision, he would get a five. Ideologically, especially on social issues, he is very liberal and therefore rates a zero in that area. His electability in a general election campaign is probably off the charts. In the primaries, however, he will never make the grade.

 

Chuck Hagel – The senior senator from Nebraska has so alienated his core constituents by imitating his hero, John McCain, that he probably could not get reelected to his current position, let alone win a Republican presidential primary. He thinks he is a Reagan conservative. Voters will let him know otherwise if he runs for president. He has charisma, and little else, except ego. I give him a one on the Gipper meter.

 

Mike Huckabee – The slimmed-down governor of Arkansas shares much of Reagan’s vision, as well as his values, but his charisma, experience and stature are lacking. Overall, a three on the meter.

 

John McCain – The architect of the incumbent protection act (laughingly called campaign finance reform) and of the senate’s gang of fourteen, which prevented the GOP leadership from exercising the constitutional option that would have shut down Democrat filibusters of judicial appointments, the senior senator from Arizona has spit in the eye of the Republican base just once too often. His political experience is strictly as a congressional compromiser. He is irritating and visionless. I would give McCain a two on the Gipper meter.

 

George Pataki – The governor of New York is Rudy Giuliani without the charisma. A zero on the meter.

 

Mitt Romney – The governor of Massachusetts is an unknown entity to most of the country. He has the charisma, the experience (Americans tend to elect governors to the presidency) and the vision. If he turns out to be as conservative as he wants us to believe he is, and if he can overcome the fact that he is a Mormon with evangelical voters, he could position himself as the next Ronald Reagan.

 

Come to think of it, there was only one Ronald Reagan, and we may never see his equal again.

 

© Copyright 2006 by Doug Patton

 

Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a political speechwriter and public policy advisor. His weekly columns are published in newspapers across the country and on selected Internet web sites, including Human Events Online, TheConservativeVoice.com and GOPUSA.com, where he is a senior writer and state editor. Readers may e-mail him at dougpatton@cox.net.

 

The opinions expressed in this column represent those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, or philosophy of TheRealityCheck.org

The cease fire ends when it began. Olmert must go.

The cease fire ends when it began. Olmert must go.

DEBKAfile Exclusive: Hamas hardliner Khaled Meshaal’s deposits in Cairo a list of tough, non-negotiable ultimatums for a ceasefire and Palestinian unity
November 26, 2006,

Meshaal’s consent to finally travel to Cairo last week raised some hopes that he had come around to accepting a Palestinian unity government and discussing the release of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilead Shalit. He soon dashed those hopes. Our sources learn he has left Cairo leaving behind a list of tough demands and headed for Yemen to lead a secret Hamas conference called to plot the next Palestinian-Israeli war.

These demands (terms of surrender) are disclosed here by our military sources:

    1. To procure Shalit’s release, Israeli must free 1,400 jailed Palestinians in three stages, including all Hamas, Fatah and other terrorists, such as Marwan Barghouti, who was convicted to six life sentences for murdering six Israelis.For the first batch of 400 women and minors, the Israeli soldier will be handed to Egypt. After the second batch of 500 (including the murderers) is released, Shalit’s parents and Israeli representatives will be allowed to see him.

    2. Israel must halt all military operations in the Gaza and West Bank, including preventive detentions.

    3. For his consent to a Palestinian unity government, the Hamas politburo chief wants a mechanism for opening the Palestinian Liberation Organization umbrella to Hamas membership and appointing him permanent chairman in place of Mahmoud Abbas.Meshaal will thus acquire total control of the Palestinian movement and its resources worldwide.

    4. Hamas will retain treasury, interior and foreign affairs in the unity government.

    5. Within six months, Israel must withdraw to the June 4, 1967 borders and an independent Palestinian state established, else the Palestinians will wage a third intifada.

DEBKAfile’s military sources seriously question the wisdom of prime minister Ehud Olmert’s alacrity in accepting Mahmoud Abbas’ assurance of a missile ceasefire binding on all the terrorist groups.

Olmert, foreign minister Tzipi Livni and defense minister Amir Peretz, who decided on acceptance, must have realized that the ceasefire on offer would not hold. First, because Meshaal instructed Hamas to hold out for its extension to the West Bank as well as the Gaza Strip; and, second, because Hamas transferred a large quantity of Qassam missiles to the Iran-sponsored Jihad Islami and the Fatah al Aqsa Brigades and other terrorist branches. They were directed to keep the missiles coming and so make a sham of the purported ceasefire declared for 06:00 hours Sunday, Nov. 26. By precipitately pulling the Israeli units away from their successful counter-missile operations in N. Gaza, the Olmert government made way for the missile crews to return to their firing sites and keep up the barrage against Israeli civilian locations without pause. Thirteen were fired – most exploding in Sderot before 10:00 am Sunday. Their pretext? A number of suspected terrorists was detained in Hebron, West Bank, early Sunday. Olmert responded by urging “restraint” to give the Palestinians another chance.

Posted by Ted Belman @ 9:19 am |

Compromise vs Moral Relativism

Monday, November 27, 2006

Compromise vs Moral Relativism

Between the Constitution as written and the liberal paradigm, no compromise is possible.  Every concession to liberal policies entails sacrificing individual political liberty.

 

When people share common principles, compromise is possible.  But when the founding principles of society, expressed in the Constitution, are attacked by liberal moral relativists bent upon destroying those principles, acceding to their demands is, not compromise, but surrender.For that reason, demands by liberal media and by voters that Congress compromise and “get something done” are really demands that we continue slowly to dismantle the Constitution.  The analogy is to heat yourself in the winter by tearing your house down, piece by piece, to burn in the fireplace.

The Constitution created a government of limited power for a religious and moral people.  Political power was to be curbed by citizens’ God-given, inalienable, natural-law individual rights to life, liberty, and private property.  As the English Glorious Revolution of 1689 established, when a ruler arbitrarily contravenes those rights, he has broken the social compact and thereby forfeited his right to rule.

The paradigm of American liberal-progressive-socialists, in diametric contrast, is an authoritarian government that has both the right and the duty to determine how people should live their lives and even what thoughts are to be permitted expression in education and public forums.  In the government envisioned by liberals, the “public good,” as defined by liberals, always trumps individual rights.

In this liberal paradigm, political-state planners are the source of economic and social well-being.  The welfare state is thought to be essential, because private individuals and private businesses are, according to liberal theory, incapable of doing the job.

Liberals are atheists or agnostics (or people who, in ignorance, believe themselves to be Christians) who believe that Judeo-Christian religious beliefs should be eliminated from government and education.  Many liberals insist that the First Amendment’s ban on establishing an official religion means that the United States should be free from spiritual religion altogether.  Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., our first socialist Supreme Court member, wrote that morality should play no role in the law.  This, despite Tocqueville’s observation in 1832 that Christianity was the most influential single factor in America’s uniquely successful republican democracy.

At the same time that individual political liberties are steadily curtailed, liberalism advocates no-holds-barred personal hedonism.  Liberals want an amoral society that accepts, even welcomes, foul language, flouting social custom, abortion, sexual promiscuity, same-sex marriage, and an endless list of things designed to corrode and erode the social compact upon which the Constitution was based.  Imposing hedonism, usually by judicial fiat, is a curtailment of individual political liberty.

Compromise with liberals thus necessitates accepting moral relativism, the idea that there are no timeless, religious or philosophical principles of morality flowing from the relationship between humans and God, the Creator of the universe.  One might as well say the 2 + 2 = 4 applies as a principle only when that answer serves the interests of the observer.

Historically, political societies that abandoned their early core beliefs and pursued the course of moral relativism thereafter fell victim to outside aggressors or slowly declined in economic well-being.  Not content with that inevitability, liberals want to accelerate the process by subordinating the Constitution to so-called international law and a world government under the UN.

Incursions at US-Mexico Border Create Tension

Incursions at US-Mexico Border Create Tension




by Jim Kouri, CPP

 

Customs and Border Protection Bureau officials conceded that Border Patrol agents crossed into Mexico while pursuing drug smugglers, but they also said the incursion was only about 27 feet and the agents acted while in hot pursuit of armed drug traffickers.

Law enforcement officials this writer spoke with say they are appalled at outrage expressed by the Mexican government and some lawmakers on Capitol Hill over the incident.

“The agents were following their adrenaline and dealing with a tense situation following a drug trafficking attempt,” Border Patrol spokesman Doug Mosier told AP.

“We’ve always had a very good working relationship with Mexico. We’re perplexed.”

The incident has caused many to call the Mexican government hypocritical since Mexican police and soldiers have entered the US on several occasions. Mexican officials characterized US border agents chasing suspects “a breach of Mexican sovereignty.” They said that the Mexican federal police have started a full investigation into this one incident.

The case involved agents chasing a pickup truck full of marijuana that was driven across the Rio Grande and got stuck in the mud on the Mexican bank. The suspects abandoned the vehicle and ran into Mexico. They are still at-large in their home country since the Mexican police are investigating the Border Patrol instead of hunting for the drug smugglers.

Several Border Patrol agents — Mexico claims there were 15 — started picking up drug bundles that had fallen off the truck and some that were still inside the truck, according to officials. The international boundary is an imaginary line through the center of the Rio Grand.

Police officers from the village of Guadalupe Distrito Bravos, some of whom wore no uniforms, arrived at the scene openly displaying their firearms, officials on both sides of the border said. The American agents drew their guns which led to a tense standoff.  According to officials, the US agents cautiously withdrew to their side of the border.

Border Patrol officials initially reported that they were skeptical that their agents had set foot into Mexico. However, after a preliminary investigation, Robert Gilbert, Border Patrol chief for the El Paso sector, said last Monday night that there had been an incursion of perhaps 25 feet. He also stressed that the incursion resulted from drug smugglers attempting to enter the US with a large shipment of marijuana.

“Agents had been acting on instinct when trying to secure the vehicle for their own safety,” Gilbert said.

“In the past, these events have had the potential to turn violent and so officers must take steps to minimize any threat. Agents instinctively secure vehicles for officer-safety reasons after perpetrators flee,” he said.

Border Patrol officials said they were not considering disciplinary action against the agents for the moment but continued to look into the matter. They said they were surprised by the Mexican public reaction.

“They should be surprised at Mexico’s blatant hypocrisy. I wish I had a buck for everytime Mexican cops and soldiers who work for the drug cartels illegally enter the United States armed to the teeth,” said an Arizona police officer who requested anonymity.

“And for our own leaders to remain silent when Mexican [cops] enter the US, while they try to appease the [Mexican] government when our guys chase bad guys, is outrageous,” he added.

For example, last January, Hudspeth County, Arizona sheriff’s deputies accused the Mexican military of taking part in a standoff and a possible incursion over an abandoned drug load. Yet US government officials denied the Mexican incursion in order to quell the tension between the US cops and renegade Mexican soldiers.

During a congressional hearing into the Hudspeth County incident, Border Patrol Chief David Aguilar said that there had been 144 documented incursions by possible Mexican officials into the United States between 2001 and 2005. But he claimed many of them were “unintentional” violations of US sovereignty.

Also common are attacks on Border Patrol agents from south of the border — with rocks, flaming bottles and bullets. In once incident an agent near Fort Hancock was shot in the leg by assailants in Mexico.

According to an AP story, the last time Mexican officials decried an American incursion in the El Paso area was in 2002, when FBI agents allegedly went a few feet into Mexico at Anapra to retrieve two wounded agents who had been dragged through a hole in the border fence by Mexican train robbers.

In this last incident, Border Patrol agents retrieved about 300 pounds of marijuana from the pickup and Mexican police unloaded another 1,441 pounds, according to officials from various agencies. The truck itself, a gray Chevrolet, had been reported to police stolen in El Paso, Texas in May 2006, which means the suspects had been inside the US committing crimes even then.

Meanwhile, the Bush Administration remains silent, as do lawmakers from both political parties.
 


Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org). He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations.  He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.   Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and PHXnews.com.  He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com.   He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.  His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri’s own website is located at http://jimkouri.us
 

The opinions expressed in this column represent those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, or philosophy of TheRealityCheck.org

Democrats, the Fed, and Milton Friedman

Democrats, the Fed, and Milton Friedman

by Thomas E. Brewton

 

Liberal Democrats are economic ignoramuses and they hope that the voters are too.

 

Neither the Democratic Party left wing, nor the Fed has learned the fundamental truth documented by the late Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz in A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960.

 

Mr. Friedman, who died November 16, 2006, effectively eviscerated Keynesian economics, which was the academic foundation of New Deal socialistic statism and remained the economic orthodoxy of the Democratic Party after World War II.

 

One of Professor Friedman’s messages is that, when the government attempts to regulate the economy it almost always does more harm than good. Another is that the economy will grow faster and more steadily when the Fed acts to keep the money supply in a stable relationship to GDP. This promotes price stability, i.e., the absence of inflation.

 

The real economy grows and more jobs are created, not as a consequence of management by government planners, but because private businesses make long-term investments to produce more goods and services. As we saw in the 1930s Depression, businesses don’t make long-term investments when taxes are being raised, inflation is rampant, and they are continually harassed by harmful rounds of government regulations.

 

Nonetheless, within the last few days the press has been full of reports that the liberal-progressive-socialists in the Democratic Party intend to impose a new, state-planning straitjacket for the economy to narrow the gap between top and bottom income groups.

 

To do as they propose, Democrats must be willfully ignorant of the economic surges from tax cuts by presidents Kennedy, Reagan, and George W. Bush. They must also deny the disintegration of the economy and of American society produced by President Lyndon Johnson’ Great Society, the most extreme degree of socialistic planning yet imposed upon us.

 

The announced aims of liberal Democratic committee chairmen amounts to grave-digging to exhume the old Keyesian hypothesis that private business can never raise production enough to create full employment at acceptable wages, that only government welfare-state spending can do that.

 

English economist John Maynard Keynes and his Harvard economics department acolyte Alvin Hansen were primary sources of these now discredited socialistic policies that exacerbated an ordinary recession into eight years of the Great Depression under President Franklin Roosevelt, a period when, at its lowest, unemployment never averaged less than three times today’s level under President George W. Bush.

 

Twenty years later, confident that they finally had deciphered the gnostic content of history, Keynesian liberal economists declared that the new era of permanent prosperity was at hand. Within months their hubris, and the economy, collapsed. We were mired deeply in the worst economic conditions since the Depression: the stagflation of the 1970s, with its large-scale unemployment, bankrupt manufacturing businesses in what became the Midwestern “rust bowl,” and the worst inflation in our history. Men were forced to “moonlight” with two or three jobs and mothers were forced into the full-time workforce, just to pay the rent and grocery bills.

 

Never forget that our two worst economic and social periods – the Depression and the 1970s stagflation – were caused by liberals’ social engineering.
 

Following the Friedman prescription, President Reagan after 1980 revitalized our moribund economy by trying to get government off people’s backs. He cut taxes, curbed unions’ self-centered power to paralyze industrial production, reduced regulation, and took the political heat to stop inflation.

 

President Reagan stood behind the Fed’s new Chairman Paul Volcker, who understood Professor Friedman’s demonstration that inflation is no more than too much money chasing too few goods and services, that the way to curb inflation is to control the money supply.

 

In a PBS interview in more recent years, Mr. Volcker described it this way:
 

Well, the Federal Reserve had been attempting to deal with the inflation for some time, but I think in the 1970s, in past hindsight, anyway, [it] got behind the curve. It’s always hard to raise interest rates.

 

By the time I became chairman and there was more of a feeling of urgency, there was a willingness to accept more forceful measures to try to deal with the inflation. And we adopted an approach of doing it perhaps more directly, by saying, “We’ll take the emphasis off of interest rates and put the emphasis on the growth in the money supply, which is at the root cause of inflation” – too much money chasing too few goods …- “so we’ll attack the too-much-money part of the equation and we will stop the money supply from increasing as rapidly as it was.”

 

And that led to a squeeze on the money markets and a squeeze on interest rates, and interest rates went up a lot. But we didn’t do it by saying, “We think the appropriate level of interest rates is X.” We said, “We think the appropriate level of the money supply or the appropriate rate of the money supply is X, and we’ll take whatever consequences that means for the interest rate because that will enable us to get inflation under control, and at that point interest rates will come down,” which, of course, eventually is what happened.

 

Since then the Fed has reverted to the old, completely discredited Keynesian belief that government planners can fine-tune the economy in order to attain full employment, price stability, steady GDP growth, all while expanding the money supply essentially without limit to finance ever-growing welfare-state expenditures and Congress’s massive pork-barreling.

 

The Fed officially acknowledges that it has abandoned Chairman Volcker’s policy of controlling the money supply in order to reduce and to forestall inflation. A 1997 policy memorandum titled Understanding Open Market Operations, published by the New York Federal Reserve Bank, states the following:

 

As the nation’s central bank, the Federal Reserve System is responsible for formulating and implementing monetary policy. The formulation of monetary policy involves developing a plan aimed at pursuing the goals of stable prices, full employment and, more generally, a stable financial environment for the economy. In implementing that plan, the Federal Reserve uses the tools of monetary policy to induce changes in interest rates, and the amount of money and credit in the economy. Through these financial variables, monetary policy actions influence, albeit with considerable time lags, the levels of spending, output, employment and prices.


 

The formulation of monetary policy has undergone significant shifts over the years. In the early 1980s, for example, the Federal Reserve placed special emphasis on objectives for the monetary aggregates as policy guides for indicating the state of the economy and for stabilizing the price level. Since that time, however, ongoing and far-reaching changes in the financial system have reduced the usefulness of the monetary aggregates as policy guides. As a consequence, monetary policy plans must be based on a much broader array of indicators.

 

Translation: instead of focusing on maintaining sound money by controlling the money supply, the Fed’s liberal-economics brain-trusters can’t resist presuming to control the entire economy.

 

This, at the same time that Democrats aim to re-impose Keynesian socialism via raising taxes, fixing wages, and grossing up welfare spending by nationalizing health care under socialized medicine.

 

Look for inflation to surge while business tanks.


 

 

Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

 

His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776

http://www.thomasbrewton.com/

 

The opinions expressed in this column represent those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, or philosophy of TheRealityCheck.org

“Bankrupt” By David Limbaugh: Understanding The Democrats

“Bankrupt” By David Limbaugh: Understanding The Democrats


by Christopher Adamo

 

It might seem excessive to invoke a term as a harsh as “Bankrupt” to characterize the nature of the modern Democrat Party, and thus it is a tall order to defend that descriptor. Yet from the opening pages of his new book to its close, best selling author David Limbaugh incontrovertibly makes just such a case.

 

With the depth of thoroughness for which he has become well known (he has previously authored two best-sellers), he pursues an all-encompassing examination of the blinding lust for power that totally consumes the American left. This latest work affords the reader with not only an insightful current analysis of today’s Democrats, but the scope of research with which it is written will make this book a veritable library of resource material for years to come.

 

In what may have been a valiant effort to avert disaster by forewarning the public as to the dangers it would face in the hands of a Democrat controlled Congress, “Bankrupt” was released a few months prior to the election. Of course America did not listen, and the country now faces at least two years of languishing in the “wilderness” under the corrosive influence of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

 

Yet, far from rendering this work futile, the current grim circumstances cause the importance of reading Limbaugh’s book to be more, and not less of a necessity.

 

Though America would not heed his clarion call, the gravity of the consequences about which he forewarned make it essential to thoroughly understand the dark, liberal forces that now dominate our nation’s government. In order for conscientious Americans with heartfelt concerns for the country and its future to be intellectually armed, this book is an absolute must.

 

During the past few days, the nightly news has been replete with alarming stories regarding the possible pursuit of Democrats’ radical and unquestioningly leftist ideology, followed shortly by the total refutation of any intention to implement those policies. In some cases, the necessity for “damage control” has been so acute that notable Democrat mouthpieces are being employed to counter any claims of an ultra-liberal agenda being promoted by the Democrats.

 

None other than Nancy Pelosi herself has had to officially deny rumors that the Democrat-controlled Congress will now press forward with plans to impeach the President. Ditto for “cut and run,” threats of reinstituting the draft, and Hillary’s twisted dreams of socialized “health care.” The number of such proposals that have been floated in the past few days, only to be hastily renounced and abandoned, is truly surprising. But it is also revealing.

 

Democrats are slowly coming to the painful realization that being an opposition party, which merely catcalls and criticizes those who are actually governing, is far easier than being a leadership party that must formulate and implement ideas, and which is henceforth held accountable for them. For the past several years, Democrats have basked in the luxury of “Monday morning quarterbacking,” without ever needing to present substantive alternatives to the Republican actions they relentlessly attack.

 

With seemingly prophetic accuracy, David Limbaugh made his case prior to the elections that this is exactly the realm in which the Democrat Party operates. Yet his insight was not the product of political clairvoyance, but rather the result of a meticulous case built from an enormous and thoroughly researched database of Democrat commentary.

 

By their own words, Limbaugh establishes the Democrat Party as a cabal of political animals, devoid of any interest other than their own advancement within the power structure of government.

 

Admittedly it is a severe indictment, but one which he willingly and capably supports. From the terror war, to the decimation of the courts (and thus, the Constitution), to the manipulation of the electorate through such abominable means as “race baiting,” Limbaugh portrays a Democrat Party with the potential to inflict enormous harm on the nation.

 

And this is by no means a comprehensive list. The topics mentioned here give but a glimpse into the wealth of information and analysis contained in “Bankrupt.”
 

Hopefully, a sufficient number of Americans will read his book and become informed as to the dangers they face in the hands of the upcoming Congress. Only by so doing can the disastrous consequences of shortsighted and self-serving behavior, now the core of the modern Democrat Party, be averted.

 

Perhaps, if enough people become so informed, and word gets out to a sufficient degree between now and 2008, the advancement of liberalism through abominable and fraudulent tactics can be stopped in its tracks in the next election, and thereby neutralized for the foreseeable future.

 

The “earthquake” that engulfed Capitol Hill after Election Day, and the current resulting chaos and confusion that is the “new order” there, clearly proves the Democrats to be “Bankrupt” of any worthy guiding principles. For a comprehensive education as to what is really going on within the bowels of the Democrat Party, David Limbaugh’s “Bankrupt” is essential reading.

 

Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer and staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He lives in southeastern Wyoming with his wife and sons. He has been active in local and state politics for many years.

 

The opinions expressed in this column represent those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, or philosophy of TheRealityCheck.org

All in the name of Stability

All in the name of Stability

Monday, November 27, 2006 1:19 PM

As anyone who has read my posts can tell I am anti-Islamic. I am a Christian who is supportive of the Jewish state of Israel. Not because of any millennial belief but because they are a free democracy in the sea of despotism that is constantly nipping away at their borders. I am also not one to compromise my principles. I am no longer a younster just trying to find my way. I am old enough to have learned that sacrificing principles and espousing relativity results in having no self identity. I refuse to make deals with people that I have learned to not trust. I refuse to invite in my house those who would wish me ill. When I make a decision I know is right, I refuse to compromise and will face any consequences that may occur. Wouldn’t it be nice if we had a government that does the same.

For forty years I have heard people complain about how we make deals with evil despotic leaders at the expense of their people just so we can make a buck. President Bush does his best to put an end to that and these same people want us to go back to dealing with these evil despots at the expense of their people. Does anybody else see something wrong here? What valid reason is there for sitting down at a table with Iran or Syria? This paper argument of stability is pathetic. Would you consider stability more important than your families future? Would you consider living as a slave acceptable as long as there was stability? Would you agree to live in a nation that allows your house to be raided at midnight to take away your father or mother acceptable in order to have stability in a region? Would you sit by and watch your wife or daughter be raped and declare that at least there is stability?

This is the world we live in. Rapist, pedophiles, and murderers get a pass just so we can have stability. This is worse than putting our heads in the sand. How many Americans would agree to live by the standards that presently exist in the Islamic nations? Give up your $50,000 car, $200,000 house, IPOD, DVD player,and Air Conditioning and live on a dirt floor in a polluted bombed out area hoping that terror gangs don’t get too horny when your daughter is doing the laundry at the river. Stability is overrated. Peace is a non sequitur.

Because our country has split itself between those that are willing to fight for freedom and those who would rather concede defeat we are on the verge of losing stability. As far as I am concerned, if you’re not willing to fight, you don’t deserve freedom. Not the anarchical freedom that people are trying push on us. I am talking responsible freedom. Freedom without responsibility is death. Half of our nation is committing cultural suicide and smiling as they do it.

The Middle East was never stable. It has been a constant state of flux since Rome decide to expand its empire east. The Byzantines and the Ottomans gave an outward appearance of stability but there was internal rumblings the whole time. Iran and Syria are gameplayers that are willing to sacrifice the whole region to attain the power they want. At some point they will be forced to turn on each other. This will only happen after they have defeated the west. If things keep going as they are, this won’t be too far away.

Simple answers. Who is the enemy? Islamists and their enablers. How do you defeat the enemy? Kill them wherever they are. When do you have true peace? When God comes back or man is wiped from the planet. How do we survive until then? Kill the enemy and be on the constant lookout for burgeoning evils.

A simple schmucks take on life.

Whose obsession?

Whose obsession?

I’ve just been watching the Fox News special called ‘Obsession‘, which is about the threat of ‘radical Islam.’ To tell you the truth, it was too revolting to watch all the way through, but I watched it in part, as much as I could stomach.

The thing I noticed, and which I fully expected, was that throughout, the ‘talking heads,’ the pundits, like Steve Emerson and Daniel Pipes, were very careful to use the PC construction, ‘radical Islam’ or ‘Islamists’, rather than speaking of Islam itself; the point being, of course, that it is just a ‘minority of extremists’, aka ‘Islamists’ who are the threat.

Some of the footage of the various Moslem TV programs and the rabble-rousing speeches by the mullahs and sheiks, was absolutely chilling. There was absolute cold evil in their eyes, the tone of their voices, and of course, most importantly, the words they were speaking. And it’s clear that to them, there are no ‘good Americans’, no decent infidels. They see the world in stark black and white, and they, in their twisted minds, see themselves as ‘good’ and us as ‘evil.’ They don’t trouble themselves with any niceties such as saying that ‘there is only a tiny minority of extremists’ in America who are their enemies; no, they say that America, all of it, is the cause of all evil and trouble.

This is all, of course, not news to anybody who pays attention to recent events in the world and who is semi-educated about Islam; it may, however, open the eyes of some of the more somnolent people who don’t bother themselves to keep up with world events, or who are satisfied with the PC view of the news as fed to us by the old media. I do hope that some people in that category were truly shocked by watching ‘Obsession’ and that they will realize the profound threat we are under, all of us in the West.

There has recently been quite a controversy, although seemingly a contrived one, about the administration’s use of the term ‘Islamofascists’; the quibblers say that the ‘fascist’ part of the term may be an inaccurate usage. That’s as may be, but to me, the problem with the word is, that like the made-up term ‘Islamist /Islamism’, or ‘radical Islam’, it is a way of splitting hairs. It is a way of drawing a distinction which is one of those ‘distinctions without a difference.’ All of the above terms imply that there is an aberrant or mutant form of Islam which is militant, and which preaches violence. And it’s distinguished, supposedly, from generic Islam, or ‘real’ Islam, which is that fabled ‘Religion of Peace’, which has ‘benevolence at its heart’, as Condi Rice said. This may be a convincing line of argument for those who haven’t taken a look at the Koran, or at an honest history book. Simply reading history books shows us that there were what are now termed ‘Islamofascists’ before there was such a thing denoted as ‘fascism.’ And a cursory reading of the Koran shows beyond any doubt that Islam is a violent religion, suffused with incitements to violence, saturated in the idea of killing and butchering the infidel in some instances, subjugating and enslaving him when killing is not prescribed. The Koran as well as the Hadiths, the sayings of Mohammed, are chockfull of violent and hateful rhetoric and dogma.
The fact is, Islam, unlike Christianity, does not posit the existence of a merciful God whose grace gives us a way to salvation; the only sure ‘salvation’ for a Moslem is via martyrdom, via killing infidels and martyring oneself in the process.
And the fact is, jihad is enjoined on all believers. And yes, we have been told that ‘jihad’ merely means ‘inner struggle’, but we also know that there is an Islamic practice called ‘taqiyya’, deceiving and lying to the infidel. So their explaining away the idea of jihad is not terribly convincing.

Still, the official line on Islam is that it is a mild, peaceful religion which is merely misinterpreted by a ‘tiny minority.’ Now the problem remains: how on earth do we infidels discern who is part of that dangerous ‘tiny minority’ who want to kill us, and destroy our country, and the ‘good Moslems’, the peaceful, law-abiding ones? If they present a meek and mild demeanor, does that guarantee they are benign? There have been countless incidents of Moslems who have been law-abiding people until they strap on a bomb belt and kill people, or until they hijack a plane or get into a car and mow down strangers, or get a gun and start shooting at random infidels. It’s happened. Someone, perhaps Robert Spencer, wryly coined the term ‘sudden jihadi syndrome’ for the people who, out of the blue, commit murder and mayhem, and in some cases, martyr themselves in doing so. There is no certain way to predict who among us will suddenly turn murderous in the name of ‘allah.’

As another example of the difficulty of discerning the harmless from the dangerous is the presence of some prominent Moslems who are ‘on our side.’ In the ‘Obsession’ documentary, they were represented by Nonie Darwish and Walid Shoebat, among others. These people are always cited as proof positive that most Moslems are decent, law-abiding people, just like us. They are held up as examples of how Moslems can be exemplary citizens, who assimilate to America or the West.
Many people who seem absolutely desperate to be PC and to appear ‘tolerant’ eagerly seize on the fact that such friendly Moslems exist, and cling to these people to convince themselves, perhaps, that Moslems are basically just like us, and that these Moslems are simply being corrupted by a few evil pied pipers like Abu Hamza, the hook-handed mullah living in the UK, and others like him.

It’s well to remember, on this subject, what the late Oriana Fallaci said:

There is not good Islam or bad Islam. There is just Islam. And Islam is the Qur’an. And the Qur’an is the Mein Kampf of this movement. The Qur’an demands the annihilation or subjugation of the other, and wants to substitute totalitarianism for democracy. Read it over, that Mein Kampf. In whatever version, you will find that all the evil that the sons of Allah commit against themselves and against others is in it.”

Nevertheless, despite the evident threat of Islam, it is obviously all-important to a lot of Americans to show that they are not ‘prejudiced’ against Islam. Even the tough-talking, ex-military pundit Ralph Peters has written a few diatribes defending ‘good’ Islam and lambasting ‘Islamophobes and bigots.’ This idea that we must lean over backwards in order to be ‘fair’ and tolerant has been beaten into our heads for decades now, to the point that we have started to deny the plain evidence of our senses and of common sense itself. We force ourselves to ignore many egregious acts by Moslems and focus on the few rare exceptions, like Nonie Darwish, like Walid Shoebat, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and the few others who have denounced the religion of their birth. But the fact is, they are anomalous within Islam; they are not typical, nor should we try to convince ourselves they are. To do so is dangerous self-delusion.

I will go further, and say something which no one seems willing to say: the presence of the few ‘good Moslems’ like Darwish, Shoebat, Ali, or whoever, makes us more vulnerable to the terrorists. The presence of those ‘law-abiding’ peaceful Moslems, that friendly Moslem neighbor or co-worker, enables the presence of the terrorists among us. Now, I am not saying they knowingly enable terror; not at all, but their presence does. The presence of the good, law-abiding Moslem enables us to say, ‘see, they really are just like us, and we can’t condemn them all. Maybe we can bring democracy to the Islamic world after all, and surely they can assimilate to the West. ‘ And thus we close our eyes to the threat of the Abu Hamzas or whoever else is among us fomenting terror. We pretend they don’t exist, or we turn a blind eye to them because of the benign Moslems we respect.

The terrorists surely know this; they know they can effectively hide among the law-abiding Moslems. The presence of large enclaves of Moslems in the West, made up of mostly unthreatening people, provides cover and camouflage for the bad guys. The good guys are essentially the sugar coating on the poison pill of terrorism.

Still, we focus on that sugar coating and deny the harmful ingredients inside the pill.

I am certain that during World War II, there were many decent, law-abiding Germans and Japanese people, yet I don’t think our government insisted that we ignore the threat of the Axis powers because they had good citizens in their midst. Thank goodness we didn’t have the politically correct albatross around our necks then, as we do now. The wartime propaganda was no doubt harsh and tended to caricature (or to ‘demonize’, as the leftists like to say) the enemy. Had we wrung our hands and said, ”but, but the Germans and the Japanese are mostly good, law-abiding people, and their governments have been hijacked by Nazis and ‘extremists’,” no; we recognized a mortal threat and acted on it. There is no way to declare war on just part of a population, when there is no way to distinguish who is dangerous and who is not. One has to act on the presumption that all may be dangerous. Unfair? Probably, but life is not fair. And it would have been unfair to ourselves to be so squeamish that we could not act effectively to win the war as quickly as possible.

Nowadays, we are a different people than our parents and grandparents. ‘The past is another country’, and in the new country that has taken the place of vanished America, we can’t act to protect ourselves by deporting or repatriating people. Niceness and tolerance trump survival. So we accept mass immigration from terrorist-sympathizing countries, with the implicit calculus that we will accept a certain number of terrorists for the sake of being open to the ‘majority’ of law-abiding Moslems. The same bizarre logic is at work with the illegal invasion: the government has all but said that yes, there are and will be a certain number of criminals entering: murderers, rapists, thieves, molesters — but never fear; it’s only a minority of them. The majority are ‘hard-working folks’ so we have to take a few bad apples in order to get those ‘good-hearted folks’ so beloved of our President. And if those bad apples among the Mohammedans or the Mexicans happen to kill or maim Americans, well, that’s just the luck of the draw, and what’s a few thousand lives here and there, as long as we are diverse and tolerant? And if we give up some basic freedoms and conveniences so as to protect our safety while still welcoming the threat among us, then that’s just the price we pay for this wonderful diversity.

I wonder if the title ‘Obsession’ might just as easily describe our current regime’s obsession with ‘tolerance, inclusion and diversity’? What other word describes the willingness to court death and destruction in the name of some goal, if not the word ‘obsession’? We in the West are as obsessed as the Moslems are, in our own way: our obsessive ‘niceness’ and passivity provides the perfect complement to their need to conquer and subjugate. Obsession indeed.

The ‘Obsession’ special ended with the mandatory politically correct disclaimer, spoken by E.D. Hill. I knew it was coming all along; still, I had to groan when she intoned those familiar words, something like ‘We must remember, the majority of our Muslim citizens are peaceful and law-abiding people.’

I mean, what’s up with that disclaimer? Do our elites in the media and government think so little of us that they believe we will take up torches and head towards the nearest mosque, after watching ‘Obsession’? Even though they have just succeeded in showing us just how malevolent Islam can be, we are not supposed to take it to heart. And the implicit message is: ‘yes, Islam is a scary belief system that seriously unhinges many of its followers, who become rabid killers, but don’t fret about it; there’s not a blessed thing you can do anyway. Have a nice day.
Oh, and don’t forget: celebrate diversity, because it’s our strength.’

Pope Rage in Turkey

Pope Rage in Turkey

2006_11_26t174028_300x450_us_pope_turkey.jpg
ra565108251.jpg
r2715660220.jpg
capt.20bfd809319c4c749e8c9e1dbc7e2006.turkey_pope_protest_ist121.jpg
capt.cd12c79f7f5e42aaafd514e55990a9dd.turkey_pope_protest_ist109.jpg
r1016989892.jpg

Recurring themes: displacement of responsibility (“CRUSADES: What a very peaceful walk!”), assertions of Islamic theological supremacism (“Jesus is not Son of God. He is a prophet of Islam” and “We as Muslims…accepted Jesus as our prophet”), along with a nice nod to Edvard Munch.

Posted by Robert at 08:24 AM | Comments (110)
Email this entry | Print this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us

Thousands denounce papal visit to Turkey

Tiny Minority of Extremists Update from modern, secular Turkey. From AAP, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

Tens of thousands of protesters denounced Pope Benedict XVI as an enemy of Islam at a rally that highlighted the deep strains in Turkey before hosting the pontiff this week.Chants of “No to the Pope!” rose among the nearly 25,000 demonstrators at every mention of the pope’s remarks on violence and the Prophet Muhammad. Many protesters wore headbands with anti-pope slogans and waved placards that included a depiction of Benedict as the grim reaper.

The protest, organised by an Islamist political party, was the largest mass gathering so far against Benedict’s four-day visit scheduled to begin Tuesday – his first papal journey to a mostly Muslim nation. The outcry also was designed to rattle Turkey’s establishment.

Turkish officials hope to use the visit to promote their ambitions of becoming the first Muslim nation in the European Union and showcase their secular political system. But pro-Islamic groups – which have been gaining strength for years – perceive Benedict as a symbol of Western intolerance and injustices against Muslims.

“The Pope is not wanted here,” said Kubra Yigitoglu, 20, who attended the rally in a headscarf, ankle-length coat and cowboy boots.

Nearby, a large banner was raised amid a sea of red flags of the Saadet, or Felicity, party. It called the Vatican “a source of terror”.

Sure. That’s why those 19 Catholic priests flew those planes into the World Trade Center towers.

The UN’s Jew-Obsession

The UN’s Jew-Obsession

By Michael I. Krauss and J. Peter Pham

Every single day, hundreds of African tribesmen are killed in Darfur by militias acting with the blessing of Sudan’s Arab Islamist government. Each day, Hamas bombs from Gaza deliberately target innocent Israeli civilians in Sderot: although the weapons are crude, they occasionally find their mark — last week a Qassam killed Fatima Slutsker, a 57-year-old (Muslim) Israeli woman who was waiting for her (Jewish) Israeli husband at a bus stop. Hezbollah, backed by Iran and Syria, has ratcheted up its campaign of violence this week, assassinating a Maronite Christian cabinet minister in Lebanon in a blatant attempt to provoke a constitutional crisis. (As of this writing, under the Byzantine Lebanese constitution, the terrorist group needs to eliminate only one more minister to bring about the collapse of the government.) The life-span of Zimbabweans is 34 years, and 550,000 have died over the past three years due to deliberate policies of the Mugabe dictatorship.

All of these barbaric crimes are human and moral tragedies that call for international action, prioritization, even obsession.  But that self-proclaimed source of international legitimacy, the United Nations is not obsessed or even particularly concerned with any of them. None of these abuses of human rights by authoritarian regimes or movements was the object of the General Assembly resolution “condemning the military assaults…which have caused loss of life and extensive destruction…of property…in particular the killing of many… civilians, including children and women.” For none of these violations of the right to life did the UN summon righteous indignation to “emphasize the importance of the safety and well-being of all civilians” and demand “the immediate cessation of military incursions and all acts of violence, terror, provocation, incitement and destruction.”
Rather, since November 7, the UN has been obsessed with one accident, committed in self-defense, by the world body’s favorite pariah, the democratic State of Israel.
A brief reminder of uncontoverted facts is in order:

  • In August 2005 Israel disengaged from the entire Gaza strip, after pledges by the Palestinian Authority (PA) that it would not use the area to wage war on Israel, and that it would remain faithful to the “roadmap for peace.”
  • Immediately after Israeli disengagement the Palestinians broke their word. Hamas-backed terrorists have fired more than 1,000 Qassam rockets at Israeli civilians like Mrs. Slutsker. Via arms smuggling operations in southern Gaza, terrorists have brought in more than 30 tons of high explosives. This massive smuggling of lethal weapons from Egypt has taken place with the silent complicity of Cairo (Egypt had promised to seal its border against terrorist traffic under an international accord brokered Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice), and with no effort by PA police to prevent the transit. Indeed, the Palestinian government itself essentially declared war on Israel with the election of Hamas. The kidnapping of an Israel soldier and killing of two others by forces the PA clearly harbors if not supports is another transparent act of war.
  • Bombs fall regularly on Sderot and Ashkelon, Israel, from northern Gaza in general and from the village of Beit Hanoun in particular. Hamas spokesmen have admitted that one of their key objectives is to force the evacuation of all Israeli towns and villages around the Gaza Strip.  Obliged to protect its own civilians, Israel initially used its intelligence to target the locations of individual murderers, but both because of intelligence failures and the craven use of Palestinian women and children as human shields, the Jewish state has put these targeted killings on hold.
  • Israel’s remaining recourse, short of re-occupying Gaza (which doubtless will incur the indignant wrath of the world community…) is to launch missiles at the sites of rocket launchers. This it has done. Because of equipment failure, one single missile missed its mark, landing instead on an apartment house and tragically killing nineteen women and children. Israel expressed extreme regret immediately for this event (one searches in vain for such contrition from Hamas).  But of course the Hamas murderers are the ones who bear ultimate moral responsibility for these deaths.
  • Angry residents screamed at the car that brought UN Commission on Human Rights Louise Arbour under heavy security to Sderot early Tuesday. The day before, Québécoise law professor had slammed Israel for “intolerable violations” of Palestinian human rights during a visit to Gaza’s Beit Hanoun.

Therein lies the rub, the incredible rub, the impossible-to-explain-otherwise-than-as-anti-Semitism rub. The one Israeli missile that struck the Beit Hanoun apartment house was: 1) launched in justifiable self-defense; 2) reasonably produced and targeted; and 3) absolutely not intended to kill civilians.  The daily Palestinian bombs, meanwhile, are 1) acts of aggressive war; 2) callously launched without any effort to aim them accurately at military targets (in fact, legal experts long ago concluded that the use of the notoriously inaccurate Qassams are ipso facto a war crime since they simply cannot be targeted); and 3) in fact meant to kill and terrorize civilians.
This asymmetry is well understood by Palestinians. The Jabaliya Refugee Camp in Gaza was the scene of Palestinian celebrations earlier this week. Locals celebrated the victory of female “human shields” in thwarting an air strike against the home of murderous terrorist Wail Barud.  Note the implications of this celebration: it demonstrates that Palestinians know that Israel does not seek to kill civilians wholesale. Palestinians do not believe their own propaganda about the Zionist thirst for blood — otherwise they would not have been able to recruit those human shields. Human shields are worthless in the face of the heinous enemy Israel is supposed to be.  If Israel placed “human shields” in front of Hamas, they would be mowed down.
In the face of this asymmetry, how does the international community react? Why, by blaming the Jews, as Ms. Arbour has done.  For fourteen days, despite all the tragedies in the world, the UN has done virtually nothing but condemn Israel for its reasonable act of self-defense.
Consider:

  • The General Assembly convened a special emergency session on November 17 to censure Israel. Were the circumstances of Beit Hanoun not so tragic, this episode would read like a satirical farce. The session was called by none other than Fidel Castro’s mouthpiece at Turtle Bay, Cuban Ambassador Rodrígo Malmierca Díaz, acting as chair of the “Non-Aligned Movement.” Diaz was seconded by Senegalese envoy Paul Badji, chair of the “UN Committee for the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People.” (There is no committee for the rights of the Jews, Christians, Bahais, Darfurians, Tibetans, or members of other faiths in Muslim countries.) Next to the podium was none other than the ambassador of that country of free and fair elections, Ilgar Mammadov of Azerbaijian, chair of the “Organization of the Islamic Conference.” Israel’s UN representative, Ambassador Dan Gillerman, was diplomatically understating it when he said the General Assembly was being “used, abused, and hijacked.”
  • The special emergency session’s anti-Israel resolution passed by 156 votes to 7. Only Australia, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, and Palau joined Israel and the United States in opposition. (Canada, Côte d’Ivoire, Papua New Guinea, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu abstained.) The resolution called, inter alia, for the establishment of an international mission under the personal supervision of UN chief Kofi Annan to probe the “circumstances of the incident,” as well as a demand that the UN defend the Palestinian population. American media reported that former US President Jimmy Carter might instead head the probe committee. (Carter’s latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, slams Israel as an “apartheid state,” undoubtedly to establish his “expert credentials” to undertake assignments on behalf of the international lynch mob.) Fortunately, resolutions of the General Assembly, while bothersome, are not legally binding.
  • Only a U.S. veto, wielded by Ambassador John Bolton, avoided a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel which would have been legally binding, opening the way to sanctions.  Ambassador Bolton was furious at the blatant perfidy of the international body. His remarks are worth quoting at some length. “This type of resolution serves only to exacerbate tensions by serving the interests of elements hostile to Israel’s inalienable and recognized right to exist,” he noted.  “This deepens suspicions about the United Nations that will lead many to conclude that the organization is incapable of playing a helpful role in the region.” “In a larger sense, the United Nations must confront a more significant question, that of its relevance and utility in confronting the challenges of the 21st century. We believe that the United Nations is ill served when its members seek to transform the organization into a forum that is a little more than a self-serving and a polemical attack against Israel or the United States,” Bolton continued. “The problem of anti-Israel bias is not unique to the Human Rights Council. It is endemic to the culture of the United Nations. It is a decades-old, systematic problem that transcends the whole panoply of the UN organizations and agencies.”  [This is the man the Democrats want to eliminate as our UN ambassador – we think he should win the Nobel Peace Prize.]
  • Last week the laughable UN Human Rights Council held its third special session in less than six months focusing on Israel alone.. In its entire existence the Human Rights Council has failed to pass one resolution on any country other than Israel, events taking place in Burma, North Korea Cuba, and the states mentioned to at the beginning of this essay notwithstanding. (See our article earlier this year on the Human Rights Council.)

Meanwhile, back in the real world, ninety-two percent of respondents in a recent poll of one thousand adult Egyptians characterize Israel as an enemy state. Only 2 percent see Israel as “a friend to Egypt.”  These sentiments express themselves in many ways, including a popular song entitled “I Hate Israel,” venomously anti-Semitic Egyptian political cartoons, bizarre conspiracy theories, and terrorist attacks against visiting Israelis. Egypt’s leading democracy movement, Kifaya, recently launched an initiative to collect a million signatures on a petition demanding the annulment of the March 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty. (One wonders if they intend to return the Sinai to Israel, since it was relinquished in consideration of peace?)
Mark Steyn muses on the blatant double standard of the international community in an essay in the Jerusalem Post:

“The Zionist Entity is for the moment permitted to remain in business but, like Aaron Lazarus, it’s not entitled to the enforceable property rights of every other nation state. No other country – not Canada, not Slovenia, not Thailand – would be expected to forego the traditional rights of nations subjected to kidnappings of its citizens, random rocket attacks into residential areas, and other infringements of its sovereignty….

“…by ensuring that the ‘Palestinian question’ is never resolved one is also ensuring that Israel’s sovereignty is also never really settled…. The Jew is tolerated as a current leaseholder but, as in Anthony Hope’s Ruritania, he can never truly own the land. Once again the Jews are rootless transients, though, in one of history’s blacker jests, they’re now bemoaned in the salons of London and Paris as an outrageous imposition of an alien European population on the Middle East…. With hindsight, even the artful invention of the hitherto unknown ethnicity of ‘Palestinian’ can be seen as the need to demonstrate that where there is a Jew there is the Jew’s victim. It’s a very strange feeling to read 19th century novels and travelogues and recognize the old psychoses currently reemerging in even more preposterous forms. These are dark times for the world: we are on the brink of the nuclearization of ancient pathologies.”

The threat of a second Holocaust grows more acute by the day. The mutation of the world’s oldest hatred, in a West that stood by during the first Holocaust, cries out for immediate response. Who, apart from America, is willing to furnish one?
Michael I. Krauss is professor of law at George Mason University School of Law. J. Peter Pham is director of the Nelson Institute for International and Public Affairs at James Madison University. Both are adjunct fellows of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/11/the_uns_jewobsession.html at November 27, 2006 – 12:54:36 PM EST