Police bust large Arizona human trafficking ring

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 »

Islam’s Useful Idiots — Liberal news media stands up for Muslim Brotherhood

Islam’s Useful Idiots
October 23rd, 2006

The international press cried foul on October 19 after the U.S. denied a visa to a senior Muslim Brotherhood leader. NewsweekReutersABC News, The National Interest and other media complained that the “moderate” Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) founder Kamal Helbawy was barred from appearing at New York University’s Center for Law and Security. The U.S. also barred entry to Egyptian doctor and MB “guidance counsel” Abd El Monem Abo El Fotouh, who was scheduled to speak in the same discussion on the Muslim Brotherhood.

Helbawy claims to be “moderate.” The U.S. should not prevent “moderates from talking and discussing,” Helbawy stated after being pulled off his flight. El Fotouh is purportedly also temperate.

“At the end of the day, [Islam and the West] have a set of common humanist values: justice, freedom, human rights and democracy,”

he told The Economist in September 2003. Arabists consider El Fotouh “one of the brightest stars”  of the MB’s so-called “middle generation.”

The Department of Homeland Security didn’t explain their actions. One can only surmise—and applaud. Consider:

• In 2005, Prime Minister Tony Blair denounced suicide bombings everywhere-even in Israel. “Well he is wrong,” Helbawy replied. “He is not a Mufti,”  he told the Jamestown Foundation. In the same interview, Helbawy blamed “[T]he events in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine” as “a factor” behind the July 7, 2005 London bombings-along with U.K. participation in Iraq and its “policy toward the issue of Palestine.” 

• “[T]he United States … invaded Iraq to divide Muslims,” El Fotouh told  the New York Times on August 3, 2006. It was “better to support a Hezbollah-Iranian agenda than an ‘American-Zionist’ one,” he added.

• Islam’s war against Israel is not “a conflict of borders and land only. It is not even a conflict over human ideology and not over peace,” Helbawy told  a December 1992 Muslim Arab Youth Association gathering, taped by terror expert Steve Emerson. “[I]t is an absolute clash of civilizations, between truth and falsehood. Between two conducts-one satanic, headed by Jews and their co-conspirators-and the other is religious, carried by Hamas, and the Islamic movement in particular and the Islamic people….” Muslims should never befriend “Jews and Christians,” who are only “allies to each other,” he warned.

• Islamic scholars had performed their “basic religious duty”  in calling on Muslims to join jihad against the U.S., El Fotouh stated in March 2003. Al Azhar had rightly urged them to “defend themselves and their faith” against an “enemy” stepping “on Muslims’ land”—which the scholars called “a new Crusader battle targeting our land, honour, faith and nation.” Al Azhar’s decree, El Fotouh stated, was “no more than an attempt on the part of its scholars to fulfill their duty before God.” The U.S. had “plans to enslave the Arab nation,” he also claimed.

The New York Post Counterterrorismblog.org  and New York Sun likewise saw through the MB facade.

Although the Muslim Brotherhood describes itself as a political and social revolutionary organization, the group is widely (and correctly) recognized as the parent of most Islamic terror  groups. Indeed, U.S. authorities most worry about the MB defense of “the use of violence against civilians,” said security and terrorism adviser Juan Zarate recently.

Founded in March 1928 by Hassan al-Banna, the MB rejected the West and sought return to the “original Islam.” Its philosophical and ideological ideas should cause even academics serious concern. The recently exposed 1982 “Muslim Brotherhood ‘Project’ orders members worldwide

“To channel thought, education and action in order to establish an Islamic power [government] on the earth.”

Today, the MB still calls for “Building the Muslim state…Building the Khilafa…Mastering the world with Islam.”  

MB spiritual leader Yusuf Qaradawi, an Egyptian member of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, likewise calls for an Islamic conquest of Europe (starting with Rome and Italy). “[T]he patch of the Muslim state will expand to cover the whole earth….,”  he writes. Qaradawi also praises suicide bombing readily accepts wife beating and calls upon Muslim women to detonate themselves in order to kill Jews.

Despite all evidence to the contrary, on Oct. 19, the Open Forum on The Muslim Brotherhood nevertheless praised Helbawy and El Fotouh as peaceful moderates, and their organization as a peaceful, just, and moderating influence on Middle East and global politics. Their absence was yet another strike against the Bush administration, executive director Karen Greenberg stated. “This center tries to educate one another, policy makers and the public,” she added—a job  Greenberg apparently considers more important than public security.

Former Sunday Times senior reporter Nick Fielding then took the floor. He denied the risks the MB poses to the West. Helbawy is “a wonderful human being,” he stated, adding that the 2005 election of 22 Muslim Brothers to Egypt’s parliament-and the Hamas victory in the January 2006 Palestinian Authority votewere cause for celebration. Fielding objected only to “the reward” Muslims received for their free elections-”the silence of the U.S. State Department in the face of Egyptian government abuse,” and the U.S. and international boycott of the Hamas-controlled PA.

The MB is “reformist,” according to Fielding. It provides “the best possibility in the Middle East of leaders who can make deals and stick to them,” he stated, noting their solid political backing in Jordan, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria Kuwait and Yemen. The MB, he insisted, has “for the past 30 years…[consistently] followed a non violent” path. The brotherhood’s only problem, Fielding claimed, is its ostracization by such analysts as “The Counterterrorism blog,”  whose data he derided.

True democracy would never take root in the Middle East, Fielding predicted. It’s “about as likely as Shari’a being adopted in Washington D.C.,” he joked.

Despite Islam’s inherently political nature—“Muslims want Islam to be a central part of life,” Fielding stated-he dismissed concerns over calls for a global Islamic caliphate. “We shouldn’t terrify ourselves with this rather silly point,” he said. “Refusing to recognize state Shar’ia law in Islamic [nations]” is what has caused intensifying radicalism. “Countering the spread of jihadist organizations” requires that the West “address the grievancesmany of them legitimate-of the jihadist movement,” Fielding concluded.

Sharing Fielding’s view is Nixon Center Senior Fellow and ABC news consultant Alexis Debat—a former adviser to the French transatlantic defense minister. “Let’s stop hyperventilating about the Muslim Brotherhood,” he said. “I hear the same things in a church as I hear in a mosque.” Debat concluded, “Islam is a source of enlightenment.”

Debat also recognized Islam’s centrality—as both the Middle East’s “primary source of political action” and “universal”—that is, encompassing every aspect of life. “We don’t know where it starts and where it ends,” he observed. Strangely, however, Debat denied that the Muslim Brotherhood is “religious.” It’s chiefly a “political movement, not a party,”—a “liberation” movement. He admired the group’s “highly pragmatic” approach to becoming “the leader in Egypt.”

Islamist cleric Yusuf Qaradawi, Debat allowed, “is the single most influential Islamic thinker today.” He did not condemn Qaradawi’s views. Almost without missing a beat, Debat maintained that the Muslim Brotherhood is a “progressive” movement, whose ultimate goal “is a better, more just society.” He added, “Social justice is the cornerstone of Islam.”

Regarding the MB vision of a global Islamic caliphate, Debat insisted this “is completely absent from Muslim Brotherhood rhetoric,” even that of Qaradawi.

“I guarantee you that no serious official of the Egyptian ikhwan today would even mention the Caliphate as a program,”

he reiterated in a follow-up email, neglecting the worldwide Brotherhood, which claims membership in more than 70 countries.

Despite his assurances, Debat opened with a troubling disclaimer: He admitted “failing to understand the Middle East.” His five-year “journey to understand the Muslim Brotherhood … will be lifelong,” Debat stated. And “there’s a limit to what we [Westerners] can understand about the Middle East,” he said.

Thank goodness Homeland Security does not take advice from those who admit their failure to understand the Middle East, believe Westerners incapable of comprehending it—and with such an obvious disregard for established facts.