FBI terror probe targets group funded by Obama President, Bill Ayers channeled money to ‘anti-Israel’ organization

JERUSALEM – President Obama and Weather Underground terrorist group founder William Ayers provided funds in the 1990s to an Arab group whose executive director had his home raided last week in a terror probe by the FBI.

“The [search] warrants are seeking evidence in support of an ongoing Joint Terrorism Task Force investigation into activities concerning the material support of terrorism,” Steve Warfield, spokesman for the FBI in Minneapolis, told reporters.

Warfield was referring to the FBI’s raid of seven homes Friday, including that of Hatem Abudayyeh, the executive director of the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN.

Obama Caves to Islamic Group’s Dictates

Obama Caves to Islamic Group’s Dictates

Thursday, April 8, 2010

After over a year of prodding by terrorism apologists and radicals, President Barack Obama and his national security team are bending to their wishes.

For example, yesterday the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, released a statement that they “welcomed an announcement that the Obama administration will remove ‘loaded’ terms linking Islam to extremism” from a newly revised national security document.

The Obama White House claims the change would remove terms like “Islamic radicalism” from the National Security Strategy, a document that was created by the previous administration to outline the Bush doctrine, which CAIR and other suspicious groups opposed.

“We welcome this change in language by the Obama administration as another step toward respectful and effective outreach to Muslims at home and abroad,” said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad.

“We hope this positive change in language will lead to policies that will deal more effectively with important issues such as peace with justice in the Middle East and withdrawal of our nation’s forces from Iraq and Afghanistan.” [NOTE: Any time you see “peace and justice” together, you know that the group is against the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. The main thrust of all Moslem organizations in America, CAIR included, is to turn American policy against Israel. It appears to be working.]

He recommended that media professionals and commentators adopt similarly neutral and objective language and avoid “loaded” terminology. Awad noted that “CAIR has been calling for changes in the use of terminology falsely linking Islam to terrorism for a number of years.”

“CAIR is always playing the victim card,” said a decorated police officer.

“In other words, soldiers, cops and politicians are supposed to ignore common sense so as to not hurt the feelings of terrorists? Catholics did not fly planes into the World Trade Center. Protestants didn’t attempt to blow up a plane in Detroit. Jews didn’t plot terrorist attacks on the New York City subway system and its passengers,” said former intelligence officer and police detective Mike Snopes.

Not long ago, the Transportation Security Administration announced a new training program — some may call it an indoctrination program — that would be mandated for more than 45,000 security officers and supervisors at airports throughout the nation. This CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) endorsed training program was billed as “Muslim Sensitivity Training.” In 2007, the Justice Department labeled CAIR an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorist finance case in U.S. history. That’s when the organization changed its name to the Council on American-Islamic Relations Action Network.

According to a report from the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security: “The Council on American-Islamic Relations and its employees have combined, conspired, and agreed with third parties, including, but not limited to, the Islamic Association for Palestine , the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, the Global Relief Foundation, and foreign nationals hostile to the interests of the United States, to provide material support to known terrorist organizations, to advance the Hamas agenda, and to propagate radical Islam.”

“The Council on American-Islamic Relations, and certain of its officers, directors, and employees, have acted in support of, and in furtherance of, this conspiracy,” said the Senate report.

Dr. Daniel Pipes, a foremost expert on radical Islam and terrorism cites several criminal cases involving CAIR officials:

A senior staff member, Randall Royer a/k/a “Ismail” Royer, pled guilty and was sentenced to twenty years in prison for participating in a network of militant jihadists centered in Northern Virginia. He admitted to aiding and abetting three persons who sought training in a terrorist camp in Pakistan for the purpose of waging jihad against American troops in Afghanistan. Royer’s illegal actions occurred while he was employed by CAIR.

Their Director of Public Affairs, Bassem Kafagi was arrested by the US due to his ties with a terror-financing front group. Khafagi pled guilty to charges of visa and bank fraud, and agreed to be deported to Egypt. Khafagi’s illegal actions occurred while he was employed by CAIR.

Ghassan Elashi, a founder of CAIR Texas chapter and founder of the Holy Land Foundation was arrested by the United States and charged with, making false statements on export declarations, dealing in the property of a designated terrorist organization, conspiracy and money laundering. Ghassan Elashi committed his crimes while working at CAIR, and was found guilty.

CAIR Board Member Imam Siraj Wahaj, an un-indicted co-conspirator in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, has called for replacing the American government with an Islamic caliphate, and warned that America will crumble unless it accepts Islam.

Whenever CAIR is accused of wrongdoing, their spokesmen are quick to tell Americans that its leadership have been guests at White House and that they are regularly consulted by U.S. officials on matters involving homeland security.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a columnist for The Examiner (examiner.com) and New Media Alliance (thenma.org). In addition, he’s a blogger for the Cheyenne, Wyoming Fox News Radio affiliate KGAB (www.kgab.com). Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty.

I weep as I witness outrageous verbal attacks on Israel. What makes these verbal assaults and distortions all the more painful is that they are being orchestrated by President Obama.

April 12, 2010 | Ed Koch

I weep as I witness outrageous verbal attacks on Israel. What makes these verbal assaults and distortions all the more painful is that they are being orchestrated by President Obama.

For me, the situation today recalls what occurred in 70 AD when the Roman emperor Vespasian launched a military campaign against the Jewish nation and its ancient capital of Jerusalem. Ultimately, Masada, a rock plateau in the Judean desert became the last refuge of the Jewish people against the Roman onslaught. I have been to Jerusalem and Masada. From the top of Masada, you can still see the remains of the Roman fortifications and garrisons, and the stones and earth of the Roman siege ramp that was used to reach Masada. The Jews of Masada committed suicide rather than let themselves be taken captive by the Romans.

In Rome itself, I have seen the Arch of Titus with the sculpture showing enslaved Jews and the treasures of the Jewish Temple of Solomon with the Menorah, the symbol of the Jewish state, being carted away as booty during the sacking of Jerusalem.

Oh, you may say, that is a far fetched analogy. Please hear me out.

The most recent sacking of the old city of Jerusalem – its Jewish quarter – took place under the Jordanians in 1948 in the first war between the Jews and the Arabs, with at least five Muslim states – Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq – seeking to destroy the Jewish state. At that time, Jordan conquered East Jerusalem and the West Bank and expelled every Jew living in the Jewish quarter of the old city, destroying every building, including the synagogues in the old quarter and expelling from every part of Judea and Samaria every Jew living there so that for the first time in thousands of years, the old walled city of Jerusalem and the adjacent West Bank were “Judenrein” — a term used by the Nazis to indicate the forced removal or murder of all Jews..

Jews had lived for centuries in Hebron, the city where Abraham, the first Jew, pitched his tent and where he now lies buried, it is believed, in a tomb with his wife, Sarah, as well as other ancient Jewish patriarchs and matriarchs. I have visited that tomb and at the time asked an Israeli soldier guarding it – so that it was open to all pilgrims, Christians, Muslims and Jews — “where is the seventh step leading to the tomb of Abraham and Sarah,” which was the furthest entry for Jews when the Muslims were the authority controlling the holy place? He replied, “When we retook and reunited the whole city of Jerusalem and conquered the West Bank in 1967, we removed the steps, so now everyone can enter,” whereas when Muslims were in charge of the tomb, no Jew could enter it. And I did.

I am not a religious person. I am comfortable in a synagogue, but generally attend only twice a year, on the high holidays. When I entered the tomb of Abraham and Sarah, as I recall, I felt connected with my past and the traditions of my people. One is a Jew first by birth and then by religion. Those who leave their religion, remain Jews forever by virtue of their birth. If they don’t think so, let them ask their neighbors, who will remind them. I recall the words of the columnist Robert Novak, who was for most of his life hostile to the Jewish state of Israel in an interview with a reporter stating that while he had converted to Catholicism, he was still a cultural Jew. I remain with pride a Jew both by religion and culture.

My support for the Jewish state has been long and steadfast. Never have I thought that I would leave the U.S. to go and live in Israel. My loyalty and love is first to the U.S. which has given me, the son of Polish Jewish immigrants, so much. But, I have also long been cognizant of the fact that every night when I went to sleep in peace and safety, there were Jewish communities around the world in danger. And there was one country, Israel, that would give them sanctuary and would send its soldiers to fight for them and deliver them from evil, as Israel did at Entebbe in 1976.

I weep today because my president, Barack Obama, in a few weeks has changed the relationship between the U.S. and Israel from that of closest of allies to one in which there is an absence of trust on both sides. The contrast between how the president and his administration deals with Israel and how it has decided to deal with the Karzai administration in Afghanistan is striking.

The Karzai administration, which operates a corrupt and opium-producing state, refuses to change its corrupt ways – the president’s own brother is believed by many to run the drug traffic taking place in Afghanistan – and shows the utmost contempt for the U.S. is being hailed by the Obama administration as an ally and publicly treated with dignity. Karzai recently even threatened to join the Taliban if we don’t stop making demands on him. Nevertheless, Karzai is receiving a gracious thank-you letter from President Obama. The New York Times of April 10th reported, “…that Mr. Obama had sent Mr. Karzai a thank-you note expressing gratitude to the Afghan leader for dinner in Kabul. ‘It was a respectful letter,’ General Jones said.”

On the other hand, our closest ally – the one with the special relationship with the U.S., has been demeaned and slandered, held responsible by the administration for our problems in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. The plan I suspect is to so weaken the resolve of the Jewish state and its leaders that it will be much easier to impose on Israel an American plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, leaving Israel’s needs for security and defensible borders in the lurch.

I believe President Obama’s policy is to create a whole new relationship with the Arab states of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, and Iraq as a counter to Iran – The Tyrannosaurus Rex of the Muslim world which we are now prepared to see in possession of a nuclear weapon. If throwing Israel under the bus is needed to accomplish this alliance, so be it.

I am shocked by the lack of outrage on the part of Israel’s most ardent supporters. The members of AIPAC, the chief pro-Israel lobbying organization in Washington, gave Secretary of State Hillary Clinton a standing ovation after she had carried out the instructions of President Obama and, in a 43-minute telephone call, angrily hectored Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Members of Congress in both the House and Senate have made pitifully weak statements against Obama’s mistreatment of Israel, if they made any at all. The Democratic members, in particular, are weak. They are simply afraid to criticize President Obama.

What bothers me most of all is the shameful silence and lack of action by community leaders – Jew and Christian. Where are they? If this were a civil rights matter, the Jews would be in the mall in Washington protesting with and on behalf of our fellow American citizens. I asked one prominent Jewish leader why no one is preparing a march on Washington similar to the one in 1963 at which I was present and Martin Luther King’s memorable speech was given? His reply was “Fifty people might come.” Remember the 1930s? Few stood up. They were silent. Remember the most insightful statement of one of our greatest teachers, Rabbi Hillel: “If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?”

We have indeed stood up for everyone else. When will we stand up for our brothers and sisters living in the Jewish state of Israel?

If Obama is seeking to build a siege ramp around Israel, the Jews of modern Israel will not commit suicide. They are willing to negotiate a settlement with the Palestinians, but they will not allow themselves to be bullied into following self-destructive policies.

To those who call me an alarmist, I reply that I’ll be happy to apologize if I am proven wrong. But those who stand silently by and watch the Obama administration abandon Israel, to whom will they apologize?

Obama’s Ire, Not U.S. Interests, Direct Israel Policy

Obama’s Ire, Not U.S. Interests, Direct Israel Policy

By Jonathan F. Keiler

It is now beyond cavil that Barak Obama personally dislikes Israel and harbors an affinity for the Muslim/Arab world, to include the so-called Palestinian Arabs.  This is no surprise given Obama’s background and associations, which range from school days in Muslim Indonesia to close friendships with Palestinian militants, radical leftists, and his conversion to the idiosyncratic anti-American and anti-Zionist Christianity of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
Obama, like any American, is entitled to his personal preferences and prejudices.  He was elected by the American people in spite of them, and for some of his supporters, particularly on the hard-core left, because of them.
However, President Obama has a duty to act in the best interests of the American people, regardless of his personal prejudices.  In the case of his administration’s relations with Israel, the Arabs, and Iran, these prejudices are damaging American interests and indeed, putting the American people and military personnel in harms way. 
Obama is not the first president to have differences with Israel.  For example, supporters of Obama point to President Eisenhower’s intervention in the 1956 Suez Crisis to justify the Administration’s recent hard line with the Jewish state.  The comparison is, however, unjustified.  In 1956 America faced simultaneous crises in Hungary and Suez, and in an increasingly bi-polar world Eisenhower saw the multilateral Anglo-French-Israeli action as interfering with American prerogatives in the Middle East and vis-à-vis the Soviet Union.  Eisenhower pressured the Anglo-French to abandon Suez, which they did promptly.  It took a year of American threats, guarantees of Israeli access to the Straits of Tiran, and the demilitarization of the Sinai, force Israel to withdraw. 
Even so, this American “success” only resulted in eventual disaster.  Nasser, instead of being grateful for American intervention, fell even further into the Soviet camp, dragging Syria and much of the Arab world with him.  Eleven years later Nasser made a hash out of Eisenhower’s guarantees by booting U.N. peacekeepers from Sinai and blockading the Straits of Tiran.  In 1967, with little or no help from America, Israel retook Sinai from Egypt and expelled hostile Syrian and Jordanian forces from the Golan and the West Bank.  The Johnson and Nixon administrations, seeing the error of Eisenhower’s policies, allied the United States with Israel for the first time, and replaced France as its principle supporter and arms supplier. 
Still, Eisenhower acted against Israel not out of any personal animosity but from the sincere, if mistaken, belief that American interests required a return to the status quo in the area.  Since 1967, other American presidents have had occasional policy differences with Israel, as one would expect when an ally in a tough, dangerous neighborhood vital to U.S. interests, must sometimes act in its own interests.  Nonetheless, U.S. presidents have for the most part, pressured or confronted Israel only when international circumstances and important American interests seemed at stake. 
Nixon and Ford got tough at times in the context of the Cold War and 1973 oil crisis.  Carter, no friend of Israel, acted (mostly) to secure the critical peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, aggrandize himself, and (however incompetently) in the context of the Soviet Afghan invasion and the 1979 oil shock — venting his full anti-Israel animosities after leaving office.  Reagan initially condemned Israel for its strike on the Osirik reactor in Iraq, although he privately recognized (“boys will be boys”) it was a boon to the free world.  Reagan also mistakenly got drawn into the aftermath of the first Lebanon War following the hysterical international reaction to the Christian Phalangist attack on the Palestinian camps of Sabra and Shatila that also caused U.S.-Israel tensions.
Neither George H.W. Bush nor his principal advisors were personally inclined toward the Jewish state, but pressured her (justifiably) to stay out of the Gulf War, and thereafter in the mistaken belief (Madrid) that after America’s Gulf victory, a comprehensive Middle East peace beckoned. 
Clinton, like Carter, sought to finalize accords (Oslo) negotiated outside American ambit and glorify himself, but in so doing critically misjudged (as did many Israelis) the true intentions of Yasser Arafat. 
Finally, George W. Bush, the president most personally sympathetic to Israel, nonetheless balanced American interests in the region and became the first American president to publicly call for the establishment of a Palestinian state.     
Obama, on the other hand, came into office at a time of relative quiescence in the area.  The two most radical Arab forces (Hezb’allah and Hamas) were at least temporarily cowed by Israeli offensives, as was Syria thanks to an Israeli strike on a clandestine nuclear facility.  The somewhat less radical Palestinian Authority was making strides toward establishing a functioning proto-state and talking directly to Jerusalem.  Only Iran posed a real threat to stability in the area and rationally Obama should have directed American pressure and wrath against Tehran.   
But Obama’s personal prejudices and desires direct policy.  Instead of focusing on Iran, Obama almost immediately called for a freeze on Israeli construction in the West Bank, without making corresponding demands on the Palestinians.  The Palestinians predictably sat back — as they do still — anticipating American pressure against Israel will allow them to pocket gains without giving anything in return.  The resulting stalemate irked Obama and his largely amateur and often buffoonish coterie of close advisors who, following the leader, blamed Israel for the impasse. 
Obama struck over the silly issue of Jerusalem housing permits, a matter over which no great power ought care one whit, never mind the fact that the construction was perfectly legal and aligned with mutually articulated understandings and promises between the two countries. 
No critical American interests were at stake, so Obama and his crew invented a blood libel.  First, Vice President Biden accused Israel of putting American servicemen in harms way via apartment construction — a charge he now unconvincingly denies.  
In addition the White House stood idly by when a blogger for Foreign Policy incorrectly claimed that General David Petraeus said something similar during a classified Pentagon briefing in January that was forwarded to the White House.  Testimony by Petraeus before the Senate Armed Services committee was also widely mischaracterized in the tumult.  But when close Obama advisor and political hack David Axelrod was asked directly on ABC’s “This Week” whether the libel concerning danger to U.S. personnel was true, he did not deny it, and heaped more calumny on Israel. 
The White House allowed Petraeus to dangle in the wind for several days while critics from the left and right assailed him for comments he never made.  He clarified the situation in a press briefing, phoned Israel’s friendly and cooperative Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, and even sent Ashkenazi a supportive blog post by writer Max Boot.
The only fair way to describe the affair is malfeasance on the part of the White House.  Obama deliberately created a severe crisis with a close and key ally where no vital American interests were at stake.  He compounded the wrongdoing by knowingly and falsely implying that such interests were at risk, most notably a direct danger to American service personnel.  And finally, he exposed the country’s most decorated and important Army general to unwarranted attack because it served his own narrow, personal prejudices.

Is Iraq a Jewish Conspiracy?

Is Iraq a Jewish Conspiracy?

By Vasko Kohlmayer
FrontPageMagazine.com | 7/3/2008

Last week on Time Magazine’s website Joe Klein wrote this about why America is in Iraq today:

The notion that we could just waltz in and inject democracy into an extremely complicated, devout and ancient culture smacked – still smacks – of neocolonialist legerdemain. The fact that a great many Jewish neoconservatives – people like Joe Lieberman and the crowd over at Commentary – plumped for this war, and now for an even more foolish assault on Iran, raised the question of divided loyalties: using U.S. military power, U.S. lives and money, to make the world safe for Israel.

In other words, America has been manipulated into the war by Jews. Lumping together the liberal Lieberman with Jewish neoconservatives raises the spectre of a pervasive plot that transcends even the ideological schisms within the American Jewry. To some this may sound all too plausible, since according to the stereotype Jews always band together to take advantage of the society in which they live. This time they are using America’s military assets and lives for the benefit of their Israeli brethren.

Some things apparently never change. In the 1930s Adolf Hitler kept telling everyone who would listen that Jews had dragged Germany into War World I in order to advance their own interests.

Many believed then — and today similar accusations still find eager hearers. Intimations that the Iraq War is the result of a Jewish plot are not confined only to the far fringes, but are bandied around even by such media pundits as Pat Buchanan and Chris Matthews.

But those who entertain conspiratorial suspicions would do well to consider this: Most American Jews oppose this war. In 2005 the Annual Survey of Jewish Public opinion found that 70 percent of Jews in America disapproved of the Iraq war. Two years later a Gallup poll found that 77 percent believed the war was a mistake. As a point of comparison, only 52 percent of the American public held this belief at the time.

Last year Gallup – after carrying out an in-depth analysis of survey data from the previous two years – concluded that “among the major religious groups in the United States, Jewish Americans are the most strongly opposed to the Iraq war.” So palpable is this opposition that in February of 2007 Israel’s oldest daily Haaretz ran on its website a post titled Why Do American Jews Oppose The Iraq War More Than Everybody Else?

Many American Jews feel very strongly on this point. Last year at the launch of a grassroots organization called Jews against the War dedicated to “ending the Iraq war and preventing one with Iran,” one of its spokesmen, Aryeh Cohen, said this:

We couldn’t continue to remain silent on one of the most catastrophic, immoral and tragic foreign policy decisions in the history of our country.

Opposition to the war is also evident on the highest levels of the very government whose strings are allegedly pulled by the Jewish cabal. Out of thirteen senators with Jewish roots only three have been consistently supportive of the war effort. Five went against the overwhelming majority to oppose the joint Congressional resolution to authorize the use of military force against Iraq. Barbara Boxer later said that it was the “the best vote of my life.”

Jewish support for the war is even more tepid in the House. Out of more than thirty Jewish congressmen, one would be hard pressed to find a single stalwart supporter of the Iraq enterprise.

Not only do most of Jewish lawmakers oppose war, but some of them are among its fiercest critics. Senator Russ Feingold, for instance, has repeatedly and scathingly denounced the administration’s Iraq policies and called not only for censuring the President but also those who advised him.

Many prominent Jewish figures outside the government have likewise voiced their strong opposition. Noam Chomsky, one of the world’s leading academics, has referred to the war as a criminal enterprise. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said that “Iraq may end up being one of the worst disasters in American foreign policy.” The financier George Soros has poured millions of dollars of his own money into groups and organization that seek to reverse the administration’s policies in Iraq.

The insinuation that the Iraq War is the product of some Jewish conspiracy simply does not square with reality. The evidence consistently shows that American Jews are divided on the merits of this conflict with a majority leaning against it. If anything, it would be more reasonable for the conspiracy-minded to suspect a plot in the opposite direction.

But contradicting evidence is not the only thing that escapes the notice of conspiracy theorists. There is great irony in the fact that some of the most articulate and passionate opponents of the war belong to the very group accused of promoting it.

Rather than their ties to Israel, the best predictor of Jewish people’s reaction to the war is party affiliation. Most of those who identify themselves as Democrats tend to oppose it, while those who are Republican tend to support it. We can see this dynamic played out almost perfectly in Congress — with Senator Lieberman as a notable exception.

The War on Terror is complicated enough even without the distraction of far-fetched conspiracy theories. Rather than sidetracking ourselves with meritless insinuations, we would do better to focus our energies on tackling the existential threat before us.

Times Echoes

Times Echoes
November 4th, 2006

A distinct subculture, a belief system if not a religion, exists in the United States. Its members draw their instruction on what to believe and how to live from the New York Times. I call them the Times Echoes. They exist in urban social ecosystems all across American.

There are certain people you never forget.  One is a man I knew who was an anomaly in more ways than one.  He was a politically conservative Jewish septuagenarian living in Westchester County, NY, within the gravitational pull of the Den of Iniquity (that would be NYC).  Possessing a genius IQ and intrepidity to match, on more than one occasion he told me of a technique he used when debating liberals. 

He’d say, “I can tell you what you believe on any issue.  Name for me any issue, and I’ll tell you what your position is.”  Not that he claimed powers of divination.  He explained, “I can do this because I know they get their beliefs from the New York Times.  All I have to do is open the Times, and that’s what they believe.”

This came to mind when I read Clay Waters’ piece on Timeswatch, “Richard Berke Bashes Blogs that Criticize the Times.”  Reporting on an event called Times Talk, at the New York Historical Society in Manhattan, Waters writes,

 . . . what struck me was the condescending and sometimes paranoid liberalism of the audience questioners. Of the seven or eight audience members who addressed the panel, none said anything that could be remotely construed as Republican or even moderate. Instead, the panelists got foreboding questionings of whether Bush believed in democracy and whether Red State folk are as ignorant as they are because they don’t read the New York Times.

Don’t think this is unusual.  For instance, I remember another septuagenarian, a woman I engaged in a political debate.  She was an avid reader of the Times and when I asked her if she believed everything contained therein, her response was “yes.”  When I asked why, I was informed that it was because the people who write for them are “very intelligent.”

To Times Echoes, the Times isn’t merely an information source.  It isn’t even just the newspaper of record.  It is an oracle, an inerrant purveyor of wisdom, compared to which the Bible pales.  But the Times Echo is most certainly human.  Although, if Christian theology is correct that it’s intellect and free will that separate man from the animal kingdom, perhaps just barely so.

If you’re offended by the Times Echo’s query about ignorant Red Staters, don’t be.  Despite their delusion that they’re possessed of sophistication, Times Echoes are the most callow, provincial of creatures.  You see, they don’t actually interact with people from the hinterlands and consider sufficient study of the latter’s culture to be a screening of Deliverance.

Oh, it’s not that they don’t travel.  They like bucolic vistas and toasty winter climes as much as anyone, and they have plenty of money. But they tend toward places previously civilized by other Times Echoes. Thus, jaunts to the Hamptons, cozy Vermont Inns (Vermont is rural but acceptable, since Times Echo hegemony was achieved long ago.  Hello, Bernie Sanders?) and trips to Aspen, Boca Raton and the Carribean are definitely on the itinerary. The areas in-between are akin to the Planet of the Apes, inconvenient badlands that only make travel between the aforementioned venues more time consuming.

And Times Echoes’ habitat really is that insular.  For example, despite the fact that Times Echoes fiercely oppose erecting a wall along the southern border, you shouldn’t be fooled.  It’s not that they oppose such barriers in principle, it’s just the location with which they take issue.  Manhattan Island already has its own moat.

And it is this very insularity that enables the Times Echo to exist.  Much like the ground-dwelling birds of Madagascar, the Times Echo’s isolated original habitat on the narrow island of Manhattan is even narrower. Guns, big stick foreign policy, adequate punishment for criminals and forced interrogation of terrorists seem like antiquated tools of Cro-Magnons to the Times Echo, ensconced as it is on the thirty-first floor of its doorman-protected building.

It is life in this bubble that blinds the Times Echoes to the real world.  And, insofar as they are cognizant of the “quirks,” “oddities” and “prejudices” of the barbarians beyond the realm, they have the expectation that their grand mission should remain totally unfettered by them.  It is this attitude that explains the comments of Times Assistant Managing Editor Richard Berke.  Waters reports from memory Berke as stating,

There are some good blogs, like Dick’s [fellow panelist Dick Polman]. The bad blogs are the ones that take on the New York Times.  Some of the blogs take a toll on our reporters.  One question on our minds is, ‘What are the blogs going to say?’ . . . Reporters have to be careful not to pull their punches . . . There are people dedicated to analyzing and picking apart whatever we say and do, not always in a bad way, but sometimes it’s just mean-spirited . . . The bloggers are after us . . . we try not to be affected, but foremost in our mind, we know that everything we write will be picked apart . . . you have to ignore those people that go after you . . . I’m afraid that blogging . . . creates problems for people to do their job.  

Well, well, what a cross he has to bear.  No man should have to labor under such conditions. 

Retirement comes to mind. 

What really upsets Pinch and his minions is that bloggers harm their ability to spawn more Times Echoes. Declining circulation shows how serious a problem this is.

A Times Echo is a creature of human respect, although he doesn’t show it as much as he craves it.  He sees nothing above his caste, and when he casts his myopic eyes downward, is assaulted by the visage of the common man.  This explains his paternalism. He is also a creature of his age, being too disconnected from that which is ageless to transcend it.  He is trapped in time and place, the servant who fancies himself a king, the simpleton posing as a savant.

This would explain why publisher Pinch Sulzberger, waxing contemporary, once is reported to have said that the Times

“ . . . can no longer offer our readers a predominantly white, straight, male vision of events . . ..” 

Personally, I don’t remember such a practice, unless he meant the vision of a white, straight male named Pinch.  But what vision are we to expect?  A black, lesbian, female vision?  Is the paper to be known henceforth as the “Gay Lady”?  A green, reptilian, cold-blooded vision?  An orange, beta-carotene, vegetable vision?  A brown, sedimentary, mineral vision?    

This is why the times of the Times’ woes are times for hope.  The near-religion that is the Times dying, its Echoes are becoming fainter.  And this is perhaps why they hate the Internet media so.  They fear its ascendancy, for they know what fate befalls creatures that cannot or will not adapt to changing times.  The oblivion of extinction.

Contact Selwyn Duke.

Selwyn Duke

13 Reasons to Vote Republican on Nov. 7 — Copy the text and email it to your friends

by Mona Charen 13 Reasons to Vote Republican on Nov. 7October 27, 2006 08:54 PM EST
I can understand why Democrats are jazzed about November’s election. The polls combined with the fawning media (“Oh, please, Sen. Obama, let us kiss the hem of your garment!”) are giving them goose bumps such as they have not experienced since “An Inconvenient Truth” debuted in theaters.What I don’t understand is the seeming tepidness of so many Republicans. Yes, the war in Iraq is a long, hard slog. The world is not Topeka, Kansas (would that it were). A journalist pointed out to President Bush at his most recent press conference that the Iraq war has now been going on as long as World War II did for the United States. Well, yes, but we lost 407,316 men in World War II. On Iwo Jima alone, we lost 6,800. This is not to say that the deaths of our people in Iraq should be trivialized. But comparisons with World War II — in terms of sacrifice and terrible price paid — are ridiculous.Republicans have abundant reasons to reserve a spot at their polling places on Election Day:

1) The economy. More than 6.6 million new jobs have been created since August 2003. Our 4.1 annual growth rate is superior to all other major industrialized nations. The Dow has set record highs multiple times in the past several weeks. Productivity is up, and the deficit is down. Real, after-tax income has grown by 15 percent since 2001. Inflation has remained low. As Vice President Cheney summed it up at a recent meeting with journalists, “What more do you want?” The tax cuts proposed by President Bush and passed by a Republican Congress can take a bow.

2) The Patriot Act. Democrats and liberals mourn this law as a gross infringement upon civil liberties. Yet the much-discussed abuses simply haven’t materialized. The law has, on the other hand, permitted the CIA and FBI to cooperate and share information about terrorist threats — at least so long as The New York Times isn’t publishing the details of our counterterrorism efforts on the front page.

3) The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, to which liberals clung with passionate intensity, has been cancelled, permitting us to work on missile defense. In the age of Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is anyone (except Nancy Pelosi) sorry?

4) Immigration. Republicans in Congress insisted upon and got the first serious immigration restriction in decades. On Oct. 26, the president signed a law that will build a 700-mile fence along our southern border and, what is more important, does not offer amnesty.

5) There has not been another terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. Who would have predicted that on 9/12?

6) Libya has surrendered its nuclear program.

7) A.Q. Khan’s nuclear smuggling network has been rolled up.

8) John Roberts and Samuel Alito sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

9) Those Democrats who do not want to close Guantanamo Bay altogether want to give all of its inmates the full panoply of rights Americans enjoy in criminal procedures.

10) Democrats believe in immediate withdrawal from Iraq. If they succeed in forcing us to leave under these circumstances, the United States will suffer a stinging defeat in the war on terror. The terrorists already believe that they drove the Russians from Afghanistan and Israel from Lebanon and Gaza. They are convinced they chased us out of Lebanon in 1983 and from Somalia in 1993. According to Osama bin Laden and those who share his views, we are militarily strong but psychologically and spiritually weak. Like it or not — and no one likes it — we cannot leave Iraq now without utterly and decisively validating this analysis. We might as well run a white flag up the flagpole at the Capitol.

11) Democrats would like to eliminate the terrorist surveillance program.

12) If Democrats achieve a majority in the House, Barney Frank will chair the Financial Services Committee, Henry Waxman will head the Government Reform Committee, and Alcee Hastings will chair the Intelligence Committee.

13) Democrats believe that the proper response to Kim Jong Il’s nuclear test is “face to face talks.” That’s what the Clinton administration did for years. It worked out well, didn’t it? 

Posted in defeat liberalism, democrat half truth, Democrat issues, democrat lies, democrat muslim, democrat scandals, democrat socialists, democratic media, democratic morals, Democratic Party, Democratic socialism, Democratic Socialists of America, Democratic traitors, Democrats, Democrats & The Left, Democrats and AARP, democrats and CNN, democrats and illegal immigration, democrats and immigration, DEMOCRATS AND ISLAM, democrats and Korea, democrats and muliculturalism, democrats and the UN, Democrats being stupid, democrats cheating, extremists, fear of radical Islamists, get tough on islam, get tough on liberal media, get tough on liberals, get tough with democrats, Gitmo, Hollywood liberals, Hollywood wackos, Homeland Security, Illegal Immigration, Imams and Terrorism, immigrant vote, Immigration, immigration laws, In The News, Iran, iraq, Islam, islam fundamentalist, Islam sympathizers, Islam unrest, Islam's Founder, islamic death threats, Islamic immigration, Islamic lies, islamic recruiting, Islamic Schools, islamic taxi drivers, Islamic Women Rights, Islamist Web, Islamists, Islamofascism, Jewish leftists, Jihad, jihad ideology, Jihad watch, left-wing hatred for George W. Bush, Leftist Claptrap, Leftist parties, leftist universities, leftist wacko, leftists, leftwing billionaire George Soros, Liberal, Liberal and Left Wing Political Blogs, liberal bias, liberal Iraq media coverage, liberal media, liberal preachers, liberal professors, liberal Teachers, liberal universities, middle east, Middle East War, Middle Eastern affairs, Middle Eastern Realities, Muhammad, Mullahs, Multicultural youths, multiculturalism, muslim, Muslim Alliance, Muslim American Society, Muslim Brotherhood, muslim charities, muslim clerics, muslim democrats, muslim extremist, Muslim Fundamentalism, muslim ghettos, Muslim immigration, Muslim integration, muslim schools, muslim sympathizers, Muslim Violence, Muslim vote, Muslims go home, NBC, New York Times, News, news leaks, Newsweek, Patriot Act. Leave a Comment »