Posts
Obama's Unconfirmed Medicare Director Who Called for Redistributing Wealth Through Health Care Won't Answer Questions From Senate
Appointed Without Senate Consent, Medicare Head has Praised UK's Socialized Medicine
By Fred Lucas
Dr. Donald Berwick, re-nominated by President Obama to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services after getting the job through a recess appointment on Wednesday, July 7, 2010. (AP Photo/Goodman Media International, Inc.)
(CNSNews.com) – Donald Berwick, an advocate of health care rationing and redistributing wealth through the health-care system, who President Barack Obama appointed administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) without a Senate confirmation hearing or vote, will not answer questions from the U.S. Senate, according to members of the committee that has overisght over his nomination.
“We’ve been trying to get him to answer questions in writing. He won’t do that,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a member of the Senate Finance Commmittee, told CNSNews.com Thursday. “We’ve been trying to get him up for a hearing. He won’t do that. He has indicated he might come to a hearing. So far, it’s been unsuccessful, no matter how important these matters are.”
Bypassing the Senate to appoint Berwick during the July 4 congressional recess, Obama later re-nominated the outspoken physician to the position fifteen days later. That means the Finance Committee could hold a confirmation hearing on Berwick now and send his nomination to the full Senate for a confirmation vote. But Hatch said the Senate Democratic majority has done nothing to advance the nomination, and Berwick has not been forthcoming with answers. Hatch predicted there will not be a confirmation hearing for Berwick before the election.
“Oh no. Not that I could see. If you look at this administration, they’ve got like 500 czars down there, or people you could call ‘czars,’” Hatch said. “It’s one thing to have bright people at the White House that don’t every have to report up here, it’s another thing to have them running the country. That’s why we have Cabinet positions, so that people can be accountable in those positions and what they’re trying to do.”
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, also expressed frustration that Berwick again declined an invitation to answer questions from the Senate.
“We invited Dr. Berwick to appear at today’s forum, but as you can see, he chose not to attend,” Grassley said. “The administration has to go out of its way to have a nominee avoid the regular committee review of their nomination. That begs the question, why did the administration go out of its way for Dr. Berwick? By avoiding the committee’s questions and refusing to share important information, the legitimacy and authority of Dr. Berwick to serve as administrator is called into question.”
The lack of responsiveness, meanwhile, did not stop Senate Republicans from holding their own hearing of sorts looking into Berwick and the entire health-care reform law.
“Dr. Berwick is now in charge of an agency that has a bigger budget than the Pentagon, with spending that amounts to more than 5 percent of our nation’s economy,” said Grassley.
“Additionally, when the new health law was signed in March, the agency that Dr. Berwick now leads become responsible for significant changes to federal health programs, including over half a trillion dollars in Medicare payments’ cuts and the largest Medicaid expansions since the program’s creation,” Grassley continued during a Senate Republican forum on Berwick, which Berwick was invited to attend.
Thanks to his recess appointment to run CMS, Berwick can until the end of 2011, under Article 2, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, unless the Senate Finance Committee called him in for a confirmation hearing and the Senate held a confirmation vote that failed.
“This may be the greatest transfer of power to a non-elected official,” said Dr. Michael Smith, with the 60-Plus Association, a senior citizens’ advocacy organization, speaking of Berwick's recess appointment.
“This is a potentially ominous sign for every senior or near senior in America,” Smith said earlier during his testimony. “Berwick’s nomination was so controversial that it was never approved by the Senate. His views were never even subject to a Senate hearing.”
On July 19, after Congress was back in session, Obama re-nominated Berwick to the Senate.
Berwick’s nomination was controversial because of comments he had made in favor of rationing and redistribution of health care.
On July 1, 2008, Berwick delivered a speech at the celebration of the 60th birthday of Great Britain’s National Health Service, the bureaucracy that runs that nation’s socialized health care system. He told his audience, “You could have had a monstrous insurance industry of claims and rules and paper-pushing instead of using your tax base to provide a single route of finance.”
Berwick continued, “You could have protected the wealthy and the well, instead of recognizing that sick people tend to be poorer and that poor people tend to be sicker. And that any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane must—must--redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional. Britain, you chose well.”
He also said in that speech, “I am romantic about the National Health Service; I love it.”
An adapted version of the speech appeared in the July 26, 2008 issue of the British Medical Journal.
In an interview with Biotechnology Healthcare, Berwick said, “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care, the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”
On July 7, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs declined to answer whether Obama agreed with Berwick’s statement that, “excellent health care is by definition redistributional.”
Even Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) was critical of the recess appointment in July.
“Senate confirmation of presidential appointees is an essential process prescribed by the Constitution that serves as a check on executive power and protects Montanans and all Americans by ensuring that crucial questions are asked of the nominee--and answered,” Baucus said. Yet Baucus has failed to convene a confirmation hearing since Berwick's renomination in July.
Robert Moffit, a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation, found Berwick’s comments disconcerting. But he thought the main focus should be on health law itself.
“In fact, the recent media attention on Dr. Berwick and his views on rationing or the performance of the British National Health Service misses a much larger and far more consequential point. The personality of the CMS administrator or the Secretary of HHS is of secondary importance to the legal framework that Congress itself has erected over the years though thousands of pages of statutory text, which has generated tens of thousands of pages of regulatory interventions into financing and delivery of health care.”
Smith, meanwhile, said there are already signs of rationing.
“For the first time that I can ever recall, an FDA [Food and Drug Administration] advisory board recommended withdrawing government approval of a life-extending cancer drug because of what I believe to be cost concerns,” Smith said.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Disingenuous Dem claims about Defense Bill.
AMNESTY WAS THE KEY ISSUE IN SENATE BLOCKING
DEFENSE BILL FROM DEBATE YESTERDAY
ANOTHER GREAT DEFEAT OF AN AMNESTY EFFORT
Many of the news media tried to simplify the blocking of the bill as being mainly about the Don't Ask, Don't Tell issue.
It almost seems like they don't want to give us a headline of defeating an amnesty which most of them have campaigned so hard for over the last few years.
But I have laid out in my blog today a few reasons why I think the DREAM amnesty issue was the key one behind the Defense defeat.
REPUBLICANS WERE WILLING TO MOVE FORWARD
IF AMNESTY ISSUE DELAYED
Senate Republican Leader McConnell's office explains to us that McConnell offered Senate Majority Leader Reid a deal just before the vote. That deal would have allowed the debate to begin on the Defense bill IF . . .
. . . if the first 20 amendments taken up on the floor were actually related directly to Defense issues
. . . if immigration issues were not part of the first 20 amendments
Did you get that?
The Republicans -- who unanimously voted yesterday to block any debate on the Defense bill -- were willing to allow full debate. If Sen. Reid (D-Nevada) had been willing to put the DREAM amnesty off until after the first 20 amendments, the Senate would be debating the Defense bill right now -- and presumably the next two weeks or so.
The Republicans were willing to go on with debate of the bill even though it included repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and a number of other provisions that many Republicans opposed. They were willing to wait until later in the debate to fight the provisions they opposed.
But the Republicans were not willing to have the DREAM amnesty for up to 2 million illegal aliens be part of the first weeks of debate.
Thus, immigration appears to have been the key issue for the Republican leadership.
REID REFUSED TO DELAY AMNESTY DEBATE
Apparently, immigration was also the key issue for Sen. Reid.
If he had been willing to put off the amnesty issue for awhile, he would have been able to move forward on his Defense bill.
But Reid absolutely objected to Republican McConnell's offer.
Reid wanted to bring up the DREAM Act amnesty on the first day of debate. He apparently wasn't about to wait two weeks and definitely not until after the November elections.
It looks to me that the only reason the Defense bill was blocked was because McConnell insisted on de-prioritizing the amnesty vote and because Reid insisted on the amnesty debate happening immediately.
AMNESTY DOMINATED SENATE LEADERSHIP'S POST-DEFEAT COMMENTS
If you were watching the Defense vote on C-SPAN, you would have noticed that immediately after the Defense bill was declared blocked, Senate leaders launched into emotional speeches about the loss of ability to pass the DREAM amnesty.
The Senate leaders clearly were most distraught that the failure to bring the Defense bill to the floor meant they couldn't try to attach the amnesty to it.
Please join the conversation about the vote and this analysis by clicking here. And also read the rest of my analysis there.
Once again, I want to thank all of you who sent free faxes to your Senators explaining your objections to the DREAM Act amnesty, and who made phone calls, and for those of you who worked even harder by showing up at Senators' offices to register your opinions.
Your constant activism the last two weeks -- and the last two years -- created the conditions that were favorable for us blocking the amnesty this week.
That is not to say that we may not face another attempt at amnesty in the lame duck session after the November elections. But you can have every confidence that we will alert you when you need to be alerted about what you need to do if danger arises again.
And I have every confidence that you will respond in victorious fashion.
DEFENSE BILL FROM DEBATE YESTERDAY
ANOTHER GREAT DEFEAT OF AN AMNESTY EFFORT
Many of the news media tried to simplify the blocking of the bill as being mainly about the Don't Ask, Don't Tell issue.
It almost seems like they don't want to give us a headline of defeating an amnesty which most of them have campaigned so hard for over the last few years.
But I have laid out in my blog today a few reasons why I think the DREAM amnesty issue was the key one behind the Defense defeat.
REPUBLICANS WERE WILLING TO MOVE FORWARD
IF AMNESTY ISSUE DELAYED
Senate Republican Leader McConnell's office explains to us that McConnell offered Senate Majority Leader Reid a deal just before the vote. That deal would have allowed the debate to begin on the Defense bill IF . . .
. . . if the first 20 amendments taken up on the floor were actually related directly to Defense issues
. . . if immigration issues were not part of the first 20 amendments
Did you get that?
The Republicans -- who unanimously voted yesterday to block any debate on the Defense bill -- were willing to allow full debate. If Sen. Reid (D-Nevada) had been willing to put the DREAM amnesty off until after the first 20 amendments, the Senate would be debating the Defense bill right now -- and presumably the next two weeks or so.
The Republicans were willing to go on with debate of the bill even though it included repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and a number of other provisions that many Republicans opposed. They were willing to wait until later in the debate to fight the provisions they opposed.
But the Republicans were not willing to have the DREAM amnesty for up to 2 million illegal aliens be part of the first weeks of debate.
Thus, immigration appears to have been the key issue for the Republican leadership.
REID REFUSED TO DELAY AMNESTY DEBATE
Apparently, immigration was also the key issue for Sen. Reid.
If he had been willing to put off the amnesty issue for awhile, he would have been able to move forward on his Defense bill.
But Reid absolutely objected to Republican McConnell's offer.
Reid wanted to bring up the DREAM Act amnesty on the first day of debate. He apparently wasn't about to wait two weeks and definitely not until after the November elections.
It looks to me that the only reason the Defense bill was blocked was because McConnell insisted on de-prioritizing the amnesty vote and because Reid insisted on the amnesty debate happening immediately.
AMNESTY DOMINATED SENATE LEADERSHIP'S POST-DEFEAT COMMENTS
If you were watching the Defense vote on C-SPAN, you would have noticed that immediately after the Defense bill was declared blocked, Senate leaders launched into emotional speeches about the loss of ability to pass the DREAM amnesty.
The Senate leaders clearly were most distraught that the failure to bring the Defense bill to the floor meant they couldn't try to attach the amnesty to it.
Please join the conversation about the vote and this analysis by clicking here. And also read the rest of my analysis there.
Once again, I want to thank all of you who sent free faxes to your Senators explaining your objections to the DREAM Act amnesty, and who made phone calls, and for those of you who worked even harder by showing up at Senators' offices to register your opinions.
Your constant activism the last two weeks -- and the last two years -- created the conditions that were favorable for us blocking the amnesty this week.
That is not to say that we may not face another attempt at amnesty in the lame duck session after the November elections. But you can have every confidence that we will alert you when you need to be alerted about what you need to do if danger arises again.
And I have every confidence that you will respond in victorious fashion.
Friday, September 17, 2010
The inclusiveness of the liberals' view of the Nanny State.
again from Jas Taranto:
Can Christine O'Donnell Win?
Don Surber of the Charleston Daily News, dean of the West Virginia political blogosphere, thinks she can. He notes that O'Donnell's victory has driven the left to "lunacy." New York magazine complains that she's "not a big fan of evolution." TalkingPointsMemo.com accuses her of being "anti-masturbation." Seriously, anti-masturbation! These liberals really have a government program for everything. There's nothing they think Americans can do for themselves.
Can Christine O'Donnell Win?
Don Surber of the Charleston Daily News, dean of the West Virginia political blogosphere, thinks she can. He notes that O'Donnell's victory has driven the left to "lunacy." New York magazine complains that she's "not a big fan of evolution." TalkingPointsMemo.com accuses her of being "anti-masturbation." Seriously, anti-masturbation! These liberals really have a government program for everything. There's nothing they think Americans can do for themselves.
Why liberals support the Victory Mosque.
Islamic Affirmative Action by James Taranto
...the liberal elite has responded to 9/11 in a totally inappropriate way. When the only tool you have is a hammer, the cliché goes, every problem looks like a nail. To American liberals, every problem looks like the civil rights struggle, the original one of which was their last real moral, cultural and governmental success.
That is why the liberal elite sees 9/11 less as a national security challenge than as an imperative for a kind of affirmative action aimed at ensuring that "inclusiveness" extends to Muslims....****what other Americans see****is what Americans everywhere see in the obnoxious plan to build a fancy 15-story mosque adjacent to the site of an Islamic supremacist atrocity.
But whereas white Americans collectively had a great deal to atone for in their historical treatment of blacks, it is perverse and offensive to suggest that 9/11 leaves Americans with an obligation to atone to Muslims. ...
...the liberal elite has responded to 9/11 in a totally inappropriate way. When the only tool you have is a hammer, the cliché goes, every problem looks like a nail. To American liberals, every problem looks like the civil rights struggle, the original one of which was their last real moral, cultural and governmental success.
That is why the liberal elite sees 9/11 less as a national security challenge than as an imperative for a kind of affirmative action aimed at ensuring that "inclusiveness" extends to Muslims....****what other Americans see****is what Americans everywhere see in the obnoxious plan to build a fancy 15-story mosque adjacent to the site of an Islamic supremacist atrocity.
But whereas white Americans collectively had a great deal to atone for in their historical treatment of blacks, it is perverse and offensive to suggest that 9/11 leaves Americans with an obligation to atone to Muslims. ...
We've all seen the signs ( cost: tens of M ) boasting of the stimulus' projects.
L.A.: $111M in Stimulus Saved Just 55 Jobs By William Lajeunesse
]Jan 29: A stimulus project roadsign is posted on Sunset Blvd. in West Hollywood, Calif.
More than a year after Congress approved $800 billion in stimulus funds, the Los Angeles City Controller has released a 40-page report on how the city spent its share, and the results are not living up to expectations.
"I'm disappointed that we've only created or retained 55 jobs after receiving $111 million," said Wendy Greuel, the city's controller. "With our local unemployment rate over 12% we need to do a better job cutting red tape and putting Angelenos back to work."
According to the audit, the Los Angeles Department of Public Works spent $70 million in stimulus funds and created 7 private sector jobs and saved 7 workers from layoffs. Taxpayer cost per job: $1.5 million.
The Los Angeles Department of Transportation created even fewer jobs per dollar, spending $40 million but netting just 9 jobs. Taxpayer cost per job: $4.4 million.
Greuel blamed the dismal numbers on several factors:
1. Bureaucratic red tape: 4 highway projects did not even go out to bid until 7 months after they were authorized.
2. Projects that were supposed to be competitively bid in the private sector went instead went to city workers.
3. Stimulus money was not properly tracked within departments
4. Both departments could not report the jobs created and retained in a timely fashion..
"I would say maybe in a grade, a B- in creating the jobs," Greuel told Fox News. "They have started to spend those dollars but it took seven months to get some of those contracts out. We think in the city that we should move quickly and not in the same usual bureaucratic ways."
]Jan 29: A stimulus project roadsign is posted on Sunset Blvd. in West Hollywood, Calif.
More than a year after Congress approved $800 billion in stimulus funds, the Los Angeles City Controller has released a 40-page report on how the city spent its share, and the results are not living up to expectations.
"I'm disappointed that we've only created or retained 55 jobs after receiving $111 million," said Wendy Greuel, the city's controller. "With our local unemployment rate over 12% we need to do a better job cutting red tape and putting Angelenos back to work."
According to the audit, the Los Angeles Department of Public Works spent $70 million in stimulus funds and created 7 private sector jobs and saved 7 workers from layoffs. Taxpayer cost per job: $1.5 million.
The Los Angeles Department of Transportation created even fewer jobs per dollar, spending $40 million but netting just 9 jobs. Taxpayer cost per job: $4.4 million.
Greuel blamed the dismal numbers on several factors:
1. Bureaucratic red tape: 4 highway projects did not even go out to bid until 7 months after they were authorized.
2. Projects that were supposed to be competitively bid in the private sector went instead went to city workers.
3. Stimulus money was not properly tracked within departments
4. Both departments could not report the jobs created and retained in a timely fashion..
"I would say maybe in a grade, a B- in creating the jobs," Greuel told Fox News. "They have started to spend those dollars but it took seven months to get some of those contracts out. We think in the city that we should move quickly and not in the same usual bureaucratic ways."
Monday, September 13, 2010
Where does Obama get his fundamental ideas?
Gingrich: Obama's World View Shaped by Kenya
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says President Barack Obama harbors a deep-seated animosity toward the West as a result of his forefather’s rebellion against British rule in their native Kenya. Obama, who had a bust of Winston Churchill removed from the Oval Office when he first settled in, operates with a “Kenyan, anti-colonial” worldview, Gingrich told the National Review in remarks the Politerati blog reported Sunday. As a source for this insight, Gingrich cited a new article by conservative writer Dinesh D’Souza in an upcoming edition of Forbes magazine.
Gingrich, who is mulling a bid to run for president in 2012, suggested that the president’s world view might be “outside the comprehension” of most Americans.
“What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?” Gingrich asked, according to the National Review. “That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.”
“This is a person who is fundamentally out of touch with how the world works, who happened to have played a wonderful con, as a result of which he is now president,” Gingrich said.
“I think Obama gets up every morning with a worldview that is fundamentally wrong about reality,” he said. “If you look at the continuous denial of reality, there has got to be a point where someone stands up and says that this is just factually insane.”
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says President Barack Obama harbors a deep-seated animosity toward the West as a result of his forefather’s rebellion against British rule in their native Kenya. Obama, who had a bust of Winston Churchill removed from the Oval Office when he first settled in, operates with a “Kenyan, anti-colonial” worldview, Gingrich told the National Review in remarks the Politerati blog reported Sunday. As a source for this insight, Gingrich cited a new article by conservative writer Dinesh D’Souza in an upcoming edition of Forbes magazine.
Gingrich, who is mulling a bid to run for president in 2012, suggested that the president’s world view might be “outside the comprehension” of most Americans.
“What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?” Gingrich asked, according to the National Review. “That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.”
“This is a person who is fundamentally out of touch with how the world works, who happened to have played a wonderful con, as a result of which he is now president,” Gingrich said.
“I think Obama gets up every morning with a worldview that is fundamentally wrong about reality,” he said. “If you look at the continuous denial of reality, there has got to be a point where someone stands up and says that this is just factually insane.”
The Victory Mosque is a distinguishing situation
****Look at a true-American Muslim's impression of Imam Rauf, the Mosque and what makes an American. Then look at a foreigner's impression of what makes an "American" and what makes for "American exceptionalism" (although Obama doesn't believe in it.) We can see how useful the whole trumped-up Victory Mosque situation is: it represents a triumphalist symbol for global Islam but it will remind Americans who committed the atrocities of 9/11. Importantly, it distinguishes between Muslims like Dr. Jasser who are Americans first, like other Americans, and those who, like Imam Rauf, have questionable loyalties and priorities.It also identifies "useful idiots" who just don't understand. (Mayor Bloomberg clearly belongs in the useful idiot camp rather than that of the disloyal; which camp President Obama belongs to is unclear.)****
Questions for Imam Rauf From an American Muslim He may not appear to the untrained eye to be an Islamist, but by making Ground Zero an Islamic rather than an American issue he shows his true allegiance. By M. ZUHDI JASSER
After a long absence while controversy over the mosque near Ground Zero smoldered, Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf finally held forth this week both in the New York Times and on CNN.
Imam Rauf and his supporters are clearly more interested in making a political statement in relation to Islam than in the mosque's potential for causing community division and pain to those who lost loved ones on 9/11. That division is already bitterly obvious.
As someone who has been involved in building mosques around the country, and who has dealt with his fair share of unjustified opposition, I ask of Imam Rauf and all his supporters, "Where is your sense of fairness and common decency?" In relation to Ground Zero, I am an American first, a Muslim second, just as I would be at Concord, Gettysburg, Normandy Beach, Pearl Harbor or any other battlefield where my fellow countrymen lost their lives.
I must ask Imam Rauf: For what do you stand—what's best for Americans overall, or for what you think is best for Islam? What have you said and argued to Muslim-majority nations to address their need for reform? You have said that Islam does not need reform, despite the stoning of women in Muslim countries, death sentences for apostates, and oppression of reformist Muslims and non-Muslims.
You now lecture Americans that WTC mosque protests are "politically motivated" and "go against the American principle of church and state." Yet you ignore the wide global prevalence of far more dangerous theo-political groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and all of its violent and nonviolent offshoots.
In your book, "What's Right With Islam," you cite the Brotherhood's radical longtime spiritual leader Imam Yusuf Qaradawi as a "moderate." Reformist American Muslims are not afraid to name Mr. Qaradawi and his ilk as radical. We Muslims should first separate mosque and state before lecturing Americans about church and state.
Imam, tell me if you can look into the eyes of children who lost a parent on 9/11 and convince them that this immodest Islamic center benefits them. How will it in any way aid counterterrorism efforts or keep one American any safer? You willfully ignore what American Muslims most need—an open call for reformation that unravels the bigoted and shoddy framework of political Islam and separates mosque and state.
There are certainly those who are prejudiced against Muslims and who are against mosques being built anywhere, and even a few who wish to burn the Quran. But most voices in this case have been very clear that for every American freedom of religion is a right, but that it is not right to make one's religion a global political statement with a towering Islamic edifice that casts a shadow over the memorials of Ground Zero.
As an American Muslim, I look at that pit of devastation and contemplate the thousands of lives undone there within seconds. I pray for the ongoing strength to fight the fanatics who did this, and who continue their war against my country with both overt violence and covert strategies that aim to undo the very freedoms for which so many have fought and died.
Imam Rauf may not appear to the untrained eye to be an Islamist, but by making Ground Zero an Islamic rather than an American issue, and by failing to firmly condemn terrorist groups like Hamas, he shows his true allegiance.
Islamists in "moderate" disguise are still Islamists. In their own more subtle ways, the WTC mosque organizers end up serving the same aims of the separatist and supremacist wings of political Islam. In this epic struggle of the 21st century, we cannot afford to ignore the continuum between nonviolent political Islam and the militancy it ultimately fuels among the jihadists.
Dr. Jasser, a medical doctor and a former U.S. Navy lieutenant commander, is the founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy based in Phoenix, Ariz.
****What makes for American exceptionalism? A view from afar, but from a friend.****
From a Romanian Newspaper
We rarely get a chance to see another country's editorial about the USA
Read this excerpt from a Romanian Newspaper. The article was written by Mr. Cornel Nistorescu and published under the title 'C'ntarea Americii, meaning 'Ode To America ') in the Romanian newspaper Evenimentulzilei 'The Daily Event' or 'News of the Day'.
~ An Ode to America ~
Why are Americans so united? They would not resemble one another even if you painted them all one color! They speak all the languages of the world and form an astonishing mixture of civilizations and religious beliefs.
On 9/11, the American tragedy turned three hundred million people into a hand put on the heart. Nobody rushed to accuse the White House, the Army, or the Secret Service that they are only a bunch of losers. Nobody rushed to empty their bank accounts. Nobody rushed out onto the streets nearby to gape about.
Instead the Americans volunteered to donate blood and to give a helping hand.
After the first moments of panic , they raised their flag over the smoking ruins, putting on T-shirts, caps and ties in the colors of the national flag. They placed flags on buildings and cars as if in every place and on every car a government official or the president was passing. On every occasion, they started singing: 'God Bless America !'
I watched the live broadcast and rerun after rerun for hours listening to the story of the guy who went down one hundred floors with a woman in a wheelchair without knowing who she was, or of the Californian hockey player, who gave his life fighting with the terrorists and prevented the plane from hitting a target that could have killed other hundreds or thousands of people.
How on earth were they able to respond united as one human being? Imperceptibly, with every word and musical note, the memory of some turned into a modern myth of tragic heroes. And with every phone call, millions and millions of dollars were put into collection aimed at rewarding not a man or a family, but a spirit, which no money can buy. What on earth can unites the Americans in such way? Their land? Their history? Their economic Power? Money? I tried for hours to find an answer, humming songs and murmuring phrases with the risk of sounding commonplace, I thought things over, I reached but only one conclusion... Only freedom can work such miracles.
Cornel Nistorescu
(This deserves to be passed around the Internet forever.) It took a person on the outside - looking in - to see what we take for granted! Let Freedom Ring!!
GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/soapbox/nistorescu.asp
****While on HUCKABEE Saturday night, Giuliani made the following points. While we all acknowledge that not all Muslims are terrorists, the organized Muslim community in the U.S. was notable for NOT coming out forthrightly in condemnation of specific acts of terror, or denouncing Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, etc. There is little to no recognition of the Ft Hood massacre, the underwear bombing attempt, the Times Square attempt, etc all committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. Rather, Giuliani continued, such groups as CAIR just bellyache about discrimination against Muslims in the U.S. of which there isn't any, at least until the recent Victory Mosque imbroglio, brought about by the confrontationalism of certain Muslims who happen to live in America.****
Questions for Imam Rauf From an American Muslim He may not appear to the untrained eye to be an Islamist, but by making Ground Zero an Islamic rather than an American issue he shows his true allegiance. By M. ZUHDI JASSER
After a long absence while controversy over the mosque near Ground Zero smoldered, Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf finally held forth this week both in the New York Times and on CNN.
Imam Rauf and his supporters are clearly more interested in making a political statement in relation to Islam than in the mosque's potential for causing community division and pain to those who lost loved ones on 9/11. That division is already bitterly obvious.
As someone who has been involved in building mosques around the country, and who has dealt with his fair share of unjustified opposition, I ask of Imam Rauf and all his supporters, "Where is your sense of fairness and common decency?" In relation to Ground Zero, I am an American first, a Muslim second, just as I would be at Concord, Gettysburg, Normandy Beach, Pearl Harbor or any other battlefield where my fellow countrymen lost their lives.
I must ask Imam Rauf: For what do you stand—what's best for Americans overall, or for what you think is best for Islam? What have you said and argued to Muslim-majority nations to address their need for reform? You have said that Islam does not need reform, despite the stoning of women in Muslim countries, death sentences for apostates, and oppression of reformist Muslims and non-Muslims.
You now lecture Americans that WTC mosque protests are "politically motivated" and "go against the American principle of church and state." Yet you ignore the wide global prevalence of far more dangerous theo-political groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and all of its violent and nonviolent offshoots.
In your book, "What's Right With Islam," you cite the Brotherhood's radical longtime spiritual leader Imam Yusuf Qaradawi as a "moderate." Reformist American Muslims are not afraid to name Mr. Qaradawi and his ilk as radical. We Muslims should first separate mosque and state before lecturing Americans about church and state.
Imam, tell me if you can look into the eyes of children who lost a parent on 9/11 and convince them that this immodest Islamic center benefits them. How will it in any way aid counterterrorism efforts or keep one American any safer? You willfully ignore what American Muslims most need—an open call for reformation that unravels the bigoted and shoddy framework of political Islam and separates mosque and state.
There are certainly those who are prejudiced against Muslims and who are against mosques being built anywhere, and even a few who wish to burn the Quran. But most voices in this case have been very clear that for every American freedom of religion is a right, but that it is not right to make one's religion a global political statement with a towering Islamic edifice that casts a shadow over the memorials of Ground Zero.
As an American Muslim, I look at that pit of devastation and contemplate the thousands of lives undone there within seconds. I pray for the ongoing strength to fight the fanatics who did this, and who continue their war against my country with both overt violence and covert strategies that aim to undo the very freedoms for which so many have fought and died.
Imam Rauf may not appear to the untrained eye to be an Islamist, but by making Ground Zero an Islamic rather than an American issue, and by failing to firmly condemn terrorist groups like Hamas, he shows his true allegiance.
Islamists in "moderate" disguise are still Islamists. In their own more subtle ways, the WTC mosque organizers end up serving the same aims of the separatist and supremacist wings of political Islam. In this epic struggle of the 21st century, we cannot afford to ignore the continuum between nonviolent political Islam and the militancy it ultimately fuels among the jihadists.
Dr. Jasser, a medical doctor and a former U.S. Navy lieutenant commander, is the founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy based in Phoenix, Ariz.
****What makes for American exceptionalism? A view from afar, but from a friend.****
From a Romanian Newspaper
We rarely get a chance to see another country's editorial about the USA
Read this excerpt from a Romanian Newspaper. The article was written by Mr. Cornel Nistorescu and published under the title 'C'ntarea Americii, meaning 'Ode To America ') in the Romanian newspaper Evenimentulzilei 'The Daily Event' or 'News of the Day'.
~ An Ode to America ~
Why are Americans so united? They would not resemble one another even if you painted them all one color! They speak all the languages of the world and form an astonishing mixture of civilizations and religious beliefs.
On 9/11, the American tragedy turned three hundred million people into a hand put on the heart. Nobody rushed to accuse the White House, the Army, or the Secret Service that they are only a bunch of losers. Nobody rushed to empty their bank accounts. Nobody rushed out onto the streets nearby to gape about.
Instead the Americans volunteered to donate blood and to give a helping hand.
After the first moments of panic , they raised their flag over the smoking ruins, putting on T-shirts, caps and ties in the colors of the national flag. They placed flags on buildings and cars as if in every place and on every car a government official or the president was passing. On every occasion, they started singing: 'God Bless America !'
I watched the live broadcast and rerun after rerun for hours listening to the story of the guy who went down one hundred floors with a woman in a wheelchair without knowing who she was, or of the Californian hockey player, who gave his life fighting with the terrorists and prevented the plane from hitting a target that could have killed other hundreds or thousands of people.
How on earth were they able to respond united as one human being? Imperceptibly, with every word and musical note, the memory of some turned into a modern myth of tragic heroes. And with every phone call, millions and millions of dollars were put into collection aimed at rewarding not a man or a family, but a spirit, which no money can buy. What on earth can unites the Americans in such way? Their land? Their history? Their economic Power? Money? I tried for hours to find an answer, humming songs and murmuring phrases with the risk of sounding commonplace, I thought things over, I reached but only one conclusion... Only freedom can work such miracles.
Cornel Nistorescu
(This deserves to be passed around the Internet forever.) It took a person on the outside - looking in - to see what we take for granted! Let Freedom Ring!!
GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/soapbox/nistorescu.asp
****While on HUCKABEE Saturday night, Giuliani made the following points. While we all acknowledge that not all Muslims are terrorists, the organized Muslim community in the U.S. was notable for NOT coming out forthrightly in condemnation of specific acts of terror, or denouncing Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, etc. There is little to no recognition of the Ft Hood massacre, the underwear bombing attempt, the Times Square attempt, etc all committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. Rather, Giuliani continued, such groups as CAIR just bellyache about discrimination against Muslims in the U.S. of which there isn't any, at least until the recent Victory Mosque imbroglio, brought about by the confrontationalism of certain Muslims who happen to live in America.****
Friday, September 10, 2010
Obama partial to our enemies, hostile to us.
Obama comes out unambiguously in favor of the Victory Mosque but insisted on sensitivity concerning the kook in Florida who wanted to burn Korans. He keeps insisting that Al Qaeda is a small minority of Islam but ignores the crowds cheering both 9/11 and every act of terror. It doesn't matter what percentage of worldwide Muslims is actively terrorist; it's clear that very large numbers approve. Are we really not at war with Islam? ( He cites Bush, that great theologian, ignoring the fact that Bush spoke right after 9/11 and wanted to avoid a violent backlash against American Muslims. Also, subsequent acts make it clear that Islam, or a significant fraction of Muslims, is at war with us.
Burlingame Rebuts Obama on Gitmo, KSM, and Ground Zero Mosque BY John McCormack
Debra Burlingame, a Board Member of Keep America Safe, responds to President Obama's remarks at today's press conference on Gitmo, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and the Ground Zero mosque:
“President Obama’s remarks today, on the eve of the ninth anniversary of the September 11 attacks, showed a regrettable disconnect with the American people who regard 9/11 as a world-changing event that touched all of our lives.
“The President dismissed opposition to a 15-story mosque and Islamic center at Ground Zero as a symptom of religious intolerance. The President knows this to be false.
“The American public, including the vast majority of 9-11 families, view the building of this mosque on Ground Zero as an insensitive and unnecessary provocation that will be viewed by our enemies as a symbol of triumph at the site of their bloodiest attack.
“The American public’s opposition to the mosque project is simply a call for respect for that historic site and for the innocent people who died there nine years ago.
“The President also made news today on another front.
“After dodging the question for nearly a year, the President signaled today that he is renewing his bid to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9-11, in a civilian court. This comes after the Justice Department and the White House, according to numerous reports, had apparently decided to shelve the issue until after the November elections.
“The American people and a bipartisan majority of the Congress are overwhelmingly opposed to bringing KSM to American soil for trial, as such a trial would likely last many years, increase the security threat to the city in which he is tried, and provide KSM a high-profile, public platform for which to spew his hateful jihadist propaganda.
“Justice for KSM and the other captured 9-11 co-conspirators can and should be delivered by the safe, secure and effective military tribunal system at Guantanamo Bay.
Obama Voices Strongest Support Yet for Location of Ground Zero Mosque By: David A. Patten
President Obama voiced his strongest support yet Friday for a plan to locate a Muslim community center and mosque two blocks from ground zero in New York City, saying constructing the facility there was an "inalienable right."
Burlingame adds that the president's castigation of the Koran burning while supporting the ground zero mosque site represents a clear double standard.
She added that the president could have encouraged that Muslim leaders to compromise and move the mosque to another location.
"The president refused to do that, and I think this is another example of the president appeasing and appealing and forbearing always to the Muslim world, without regard to how his citizens — now at 72 percent [opposed] — [feel about the site] being at ground zero," she said.
Burlingame charged that the president appears to be more sensitive to Muslim sensibilities than to those of people in the United States. "He cares nothing about the sensibilities of Americans. And if that mosque inflames passions of our enemies in terms of endangering our troops, well, that just has to take a second seat," she said.
"I just think that the president is completely out of touch with the American people," Burlingame added. "And that is sad to me, especially as we're preparing for this solemn [9/11 memorial] ceremony."
Burlingame Rebuts Obama on Gitmo, KSM, and Ground Zero Mosque BY John McCormack
Debra Burlingame, a Board Member of Keep America Safe, responds to President Obama's remarks at today's press conference on Gitmo, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and the Ground Zero mosque:
“President Obama’s remarks today, on the eve of the ninth anniversary of the September 11 attacks, showed a regrettable disconnect with the American people who regard 9/11 as a world-changing event that touched all of our lives.
“The President dismissed opposition to a 15-story mosque and Islamic center at Ground Zero as a symptom of religious intolerance. The President knows this to be false.
“The American public, including the vast majority of 9-11 families, view the building of this mosque on Ground Zero as an insensitive and unnecessary provocation that will be viewed by our enemies as a symbol of triumph at the site of their bloodiest attack.
“The American public’s opposition to the mosque project is simply a call for respect for that historic site and for the innocent people who died there nine years ago.
“The President also made news today on another front.
“After dodging the question for nearly a year, the President signaled today that he is renewing his bid to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9-11, in a civilian court. This comes after the Justice Department and the White House, according to numerous reports, had apparently decided to shelve the issue until after the November elections.
“The American people and a bipartisan majority of the Congress are overwhelmingly opposed to bringing KSM to American soil for trial, as such a trial would likely last many years, increase the security threat to the city in which he is tried, and provide KSM a high-profile, public platform for which to spew his hateful jihadist propaganda.
“Justice for KSM and the other captured 9-11 co-conspirators can and should be delivered by the safe, secure and effective military tribunal system at Guantanamo Bay.
Obama Voices Strongest Support Yet for Location of Ground Zero Mosque By: David A. Patten
President Obama voiced his strongest support yet Friday for a plan to locate a Muslim community center and mosque two blocks from ground zero in New York City, saying constructing the facility there was an "inalienable right."
Burlingame adds that the president's castigation of the Koran burning while supporting the ground zero mosque site represents a clear double standard.
She added that the president could have encouraged that Muslim leaders to compromise and move the mosque to another location.
"The president refused to do that, and I think this is another example of the president appeasing and appealing and forbearing always to the Muslim world, without regard to how his citizens — now at 72 percent [opposed] — [feel about the site] being at ground zero," she said.
Burlingame charged that the president appears to be more sensitive to Muslim sensibilities than to those of people in the United States. "He cares nothing about the sensibilities of Americans. And if that mosque inflames passions of our enemies in terms of endangering our troops, well, that just has to take a second seat," she said.
"I just think that the president is completely out of touch with the American people," Burlingame added. "And that is sad to me, especially as we're preparing for this solemn [9/11 memorial] ceremony."
"Liberals love every country in the world...except their own." Benj Disraeli
Oikophobia Why the liberal elite finds Americans revolting.
By JAMES TARANTO
If you think it's offensive for a Muslim group to exploit the 9/11 atrocity, you're an anti-Muslim bigot and un-American to boot. It is a claim so bizarre, so twisted, so utterly at odds with common sense that it's hard to believe anyone would assert it except as some sort of dark joke. Yet for the past few weeks, it has been put forward, apparently in all seriousness, by those who fancy themselves America's best and brightest, from the mayor of New York all the way down to Peter Beinart.
What accounts for this madness? Charles Krauthammer notes a pattern:
Promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.
-- Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.
-- Disgust and alarm with the federal government's unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.
-- Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.
-- Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia.
Now we know why the country has become "ungovernable," last year's excuse for the Democrats' failure of governance: Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?
Krauthammer portrays this as a cynical game: "Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion. . . . What's a liberal to do? Pull out the bigotry charge, the trump that preempts debate and gives no credit to the seriousness and substance of the contrary argument."
But this has its limits as a political strategy. Krauthammer writes that "the Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November," and no one will credit him for boldness in that prediction. Some may disagree with his reckoning as to the reason for that likely loss: that "a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them."
But can anyone argue that a show of contempt is a winning political strategy? The question answers itself and implies that the contempt is genuine.
What is the nature of this contempt? In part it is the snobbery of the cognitive elite, exemplified by a recent New York Times Web column by Timothy Egan called "Building a Nation of Know-Nothings"--or by the viciousness directed at Sarah Palin, whose folksy demeanor and state-college background seem terribly déclassé not just to liberals but to a good number of conservatives in places like New York City.
In more cerebral moments, the elitists of the left invoke a kind of Marxism Lite to explain away opinions and values that run counter to their own. Thus Barack Obama's notorious remark to the effect that economic deprivation embitters the proles, so that they cling to guns and religion. (Ironically, Obama recently said through a spokesman that he is Christian.) Here's Robert Reich, Bill Clinton's labor secretary, explaining "The Anatomy of Intolerance" to readers of TalkingPointsMemo.com:
Many Americans (and politicians who [sic] the polls) don't want a mosque at Manhattan's Ground Zero. . . .
Where is all this coming from?
It's called fear. When people are deeply anxious about holding on to their homes, their jobs, and their savings, they look for someone to blame. And all too often they find it in "the other"--in people who look or act differently, who come from foreign lands, who have what seem to be strange religions, who cross our borders illegally. . . .
Economic fear is the handmaiden of intolerance. It's used by demagogues who redirect the fear and anger toward people and groups who aren't really to blame but are easy scapegoats.
So if some Americans are afraid of people "who have what seem to be strange religions," it must be a totally irrational reaction to "economic insecurity." It couldn't possibly have anything to do with an act of mass murder committed in the name of the religion in question.
And Reich doesn't just fail to see the obvious. He dehumanizes his fellow Americans by treating their values, feelings and opinions as no more than reflexive reactions to material conditions. Americans in fact are a very tolerant people. Even in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there was no serious backlash against Muslims. What makes them angry--what makes us angry--is the bigotry of the elites.
The Ground Zero mosque is an affront to the sensibilities of ordinary Americans. "The center's association with 9/11 is intentional and its location is no geographic coincidence," as the Associated Press has reported. That Americans would find this offensive is a matter of simple common sense. The liberal elites cannot comprehend common sense, and, incredibly, they think that's a virtue. After all, common sense is so common.
The British philosopher Roger Scruton has coined a term to describe this attitude: oikophobia. Xenophobia is fear of the alien; oikophobia is fear of the familiar: "the disposition, in any conflict, to side with 'them' against 'us', and the felt need to denigrate the customs, culture and institutions that are identifiably 'ours.' " What a perfect description of the pro-mosque left.
Scruton was writing in 2004, and his focus was on Britain and Europe, not America. But his warning about the danger of oikophobes--whom he amusingly dubs "oiks"--is very pertinent on this side of the Atlantic today, and it illuminates how what are sometimes dismissed as mere matters of "culture" tie in with economic and social policy:
The oik repudiates national loyalties and defines his goals and ideals against the nation, promoting transnational institutions over national governments, accepting and endorsing laws that are imposed on us from on high by the EU or the UN, though without troubling to consider Terence's question, and defining his political vision in terms of universal values that have been purified of all reference to the particular attachments of a real historical community.
The oik is, in his own eyes, a defender of enlightened universalism against local chauvinism. And it is the rise of the oik that has led to the growing crisis of legitimacy in the nation states of Europe. For we are seeing a massive expansion of the legislative burden on the people of Europe, and a relentless assault on the only loyalties that would enable them voluntarily to bear it. The explosive effect of this has already been felt in Holland and France. It will be felt soon everywhere, and the result may not be what the oiks expect.
There is one important difference between the American oik and his European counterpart. American patriotism is not a blood-and-soil nationalism but an allegiance to a country based in an idea of enlightened universalism. Thus our oiks masquerade as--and may even believe themselves to be--superpatriots, more loyal to American principles than the vast majority of Americans, whom they denounce as "un-American" for feeling an attachment to their actual country as opposed to a collection of abstractions.
Yet the oiks' vision of themselves as an intellectual aristocracy violates the first American principle ever articulated: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . ."
This cannot be reconciled with the elitist notion that most men are economically insecure bitter clinging intolerant bigots who need to be governed by an educated elite. Marxism Lite is not only false; it is, according to the American creed, self-evidently false. That is why the liberal elite finds Americans revolting.
Two Papers in One!
This column has lots of fun at the expense of the New York Times, but we have to admit that every now and then they do some real journalism. Yesterday's Times featured a fascinating story about world-wide Muslim reactions to the Ground Zero mosque debate:
Across the world, the bruising struggle over an Islamic center near ground zero has elicited some unexpected reactions.
For many in Europe, where much more bitter struggles have taken place over bans on facial veils in France and minarets in Switzerland, America's fight over Park51 [this week's Ground Zero mosque moniker] seems small fry, essentially a zoning spat in a culture war.
But others, especially in countries with nothing similar to the constitutional separation of church and state, find it puzzling that there is any controversy at all. In most Muslim nations, the state not only determines where mosques are built, but what the clerics inside can say.
The one constant expressed, regardless of geography, is that even though many in the United States have framed the future of the community center as a pivotal referendum on the core issues of religion, tolerance and free speech, those outside its borders see the debate as a confirmation of their pre-existing feelings about the country, whether good or bad.
Read the whole thing; there really is a range of opinions. Compare this with the hysterical tone of the Times editorial on the subject last week:
Newt Gingrich, who has been beating this drum for weeks, accused the president of "pandering to radical Islam" and said the mosque would be a symbol of Muslim "triumphalism." We were hesitant about repeating those comments here. But the country ignores such cynicism and ugliness at its own peril. Make no mistake, the rest of the world is listening.
This has been a common conceit on the pro-mosque left: that building the mosque would be a boon to U.S.-Muslim relations, while Americans' failure to march in lockstep behind the idea would be a disaster. But why should we assume that Americans who don't even understand their own culture have any inkling about foreign ones?
By JAMES TARANTO
If you think it's offensive for a Muslim group to exploit the 9/11 atrocity, you're an anti-Muslim bigot and un-American to boot. It is a claim so bizarre, so twisted, so utterly at odds with common sense that it's hard to believe anyone would assert it except as some sort of dark joke. Yet for the past few weeks, it has been put forward, apparently in all seriousness, by those who fancy themselves America's best and brightest, from the mayor of New York all the way down to Peter Beinart.
What accounts for this madness? Charles Krauthammer notes a pattern:
Promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.
-- Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.
-- Disgust and alarm with the federal government's unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.
-- Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.
-- Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia.
Now we know why the country has become "ungovernable," last year's excuse for the Democrats' failure of governance: Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?
Krauthammer portrays this as a cynical game: "Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion. . . . What's a liberal to do? Pull out the bigotry charge, the trump that preempts debate and gives no credit to the seriousness and substance of the contrary argument."
But this has its limits as a political strategy. Krauthammer writes that "the Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November," and no one will credit him for boldness in that prediction. Some may disagree with his reckoning as to the reason for that likely loss: that "a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them."
But can anyone argue that a show of contempt is a winning political strategy? The question answers itself and implies that the contempt is genuine.
What is the nature of this contempt? In part it is the snobbery of the cognitive elite, exemplified by a recent New York Times Web column by Timothy Egan called "Building a Nation of Know-Nothings"--or by the viciousness directed at Sarah Palin, whose folksy demeanor and state-college background seem terribly déclassé not just to liberals but to a good number of conservatives in places like New York City.
In more cerebral moments, the elitists of the left invoke a kind of Marxism Lite to explain away opinions and values that run counter to their own. Thus Barack Obama's notorious remark to the effect that economic deprivation embitters the proles, so that they cling to guns and religion. (Ironically, Obama recently said through a spokesman that he is Christian.) Here's Robert Reich, Bill Clinton's labor secretary, explaining "The Anatomy of Intolerance" to readers of TalkingPointsMemo.com:
Many Americans (and politicians who [sic] the polls) don't want a mosque at Manhattan's Ground Zero. . . .
Where is all this coming from?
It's called fear. When people are deeply anxious about holding on to their homes, their jobs, and their savings, they look for someone to blame. And all too often they find it in "the other"--in people who look or act differently, who come from foreign lands, who have what seem to be strange religions, who cross our borders illegally. . . .
Economic fear is the handmaiden of intolerance. It's used by demagogues who redirect the fear and anger toward people and groups who aren't really to blame but are easy scapegoats.
So if some Americans are afraid of people "who have what seem to be strange religions," it must be a totally irrational reaction to "economic insecurity." It couldn't possibly have anything to do with an act of mass murder committed in the name of the religion in question.
And Reich doesn't just fail to see the obvious. He dehumanizes his fellow Americans by treating their values, feelings and opinions as no more than reflexive reactions to material conditions. Americans in fact are a very tolerant people. Even in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there was no serious backlash against Muslims. What makes them angry--what makes us angry--is the bigotry of the elites.
The Ground Zero mosque is an affront to the sensibilities of ordinary Americans. "The center's association with 9/11 is intentional and its location is no geographic coincidence," as the Associated Press has reported. That Americans would find this offensive is a matter of simple common sense. The liberal elites cannot comprehend common sense, and, incredibly, they think that's a virtue. After all, common sense is so common.
The British philosopher Roger Scruton has coined a term to describe this attitude: oikophobia. Xenophobia is fear of the alien; oikophobia is fear of the familiar: "the disposition, in any conflict, to side with 'them' against 'us', and the felt need to denigrate the customs, culture and institutions that are identifiably 'ours.' " What a perfect description of the pro-mosque left.
Scruton was writing in 2004, and his focus was on Britain and Europe, not America. But his warning about the danger of oikophobes--whom he amusingly dubs "oiks"--is very pertinent on this side of the Atlantic today, and it illuminates how what are sometimes dismissed as mere matters of "culture" tie in with economic and social policy:
The oik repudiates national loyalties and defines his goals and ideals against the nation, promoting transnational institutions over national governments, accepting and endorsing laws that are imposed on us from on high by the EU or the UN, though without troubling to consider Terence's question, and defining his political vision in terms of universal values that have been purified of all reference to the particular attachments of a real historical community.
The oik is, in his own eyes, a defender of enlightened universalism against local chauvinism. And it is the rise of the oik that has led to the growing crisis of legitimacy in the nation states of Europe. For we are seeing a massive expansion of the legislative burden on the people of Europe, and a relentless assault on the only loyalties that would enable them voluntarily to bear it. The explosive effect of this has already been felt in Holland and France. It will be felt soon everywhere, and the result may not be what the oiks expect.
There is one important difference between the American oik and his European counterpart. American patriotism is not a blood-and-soil nationalism but an allegiance to a country based in an idea of enlightened universalism. Thus our oiks masquerade as--and may even believe themselves to be--superpatriots, more loyal to American principles than the vast majority of Americans, whom they denounce as "un-American" for feeling an attachment to their actual country as opposed to a collection of abstractions.
Yet the oiks' vision of themselves as an intellectual aristocracy violates the first American principle ever articulated: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . ."
This cannot be reconciled with the elitist notion that most men are economically insecure bitter clinging intolerant bigots who need to be governed by an educated elite. Marxism Lite is not only false; it is, according to the American creed, self-evidently false. That is why the liberal elite finds Americans revolting.
Two Papers in One!
This column has lots of fun at the expense of the New York Times, but we have to admit that every now and then they do some real journalism. Yesterday's Times featured a fascinating story about world-wide Muslim reactions to the Ground Zero mosque debate:
Across the world, the bruising struggle over an Islamic center near ground zero has elicited some unexpected reactions.
For many in Europe, where much more bitter struggles have taken place over bans on facial veils in France and minarets in Switzerland, America's fight over Park51 [this week's Ground Zero mosque moniker] seems small fry, essentially a zoning spat in a culture war.
But others, especially in countries with nothing similar to the constitutional separation of church and state, find it puzzling that there is any controversy at all. In most Muslim nations, the state not only determines where mosques are built, but what the clerics inside can say.
The one constant expressed, regardless of geography, is that even though many in the United States have framed the future of the community center as a pivotal referendum on the core issues of religion, tolerance and free speech, those outside its borders see the debate as a confirmation of their pre-existing feelings about the country, whether good or bad.
Read the whole thing; there really is a range of opinions. Compare this with the hysterical tone of the Times editorial on the subject last week:
Newt Gingrich, who has been beating this drum for weeks, accused the president of "pandering to radical Islam" and said the mosque would be a symbol of Muslim "triumphalism." We were hesitant about repeating those comments here. But the country ignores such cynicism and ugliness at its own peril. Make no mistake, the rest of the world is listening.
This has been a common conceit on the pro-mosque left: that building the mosque would be a boon to U.S.-Muslim relations, while Americans' failure to march in lockstep behind the idea would be a disaster. But why should we assume that Americans who don't even understand their own culture have any inkling about foreign ones?
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Obama's effect on American competitiveness
U.S. slips in WEF's competitiveness rankings
BEIJING (Reuters) – Switzerland remains the world's most competitive economy, while the United States has fallen from second to fourth after losing the top spot last year, according to the World Economic Forum's annual rankings issued on Thursday.
Sweden, in second spot, and Singapore in third leapfrogged the United States in the WEF's Global Competitiveness Report 2010/2011.
Last year the Asian city-state ranked third and Sweden fourth. There were no newcomers in the WEF's top 10, although Germany climbed to fifth from seventh.
The WEF said America slipped in the ranking due to a build-up in U.S. macroeconomic imbalances, a weakening of the country's public and private institutions and concerns about the state of its financial markets.
"There are weaknesses in some areas in particular, which we have discussed for some time before, and they deepened somewhat since last year," ...
The report said a lack of macroeconomic stability continues to be America's greatest area of weakness, with repeated fiscal deficits leading to burgeoning public indebtedness.
It also said that U.S. business leaders show less trust in politicians and the government's ability to maintain an arm's-length relationship with the private sector.
The WEF bases its assessment on a dozen drivers of competitiveness, including institutions, infrastructure, health and education, market size and the macroeconomic environment.The report also factors in a survey among business leaders, assessing the government's efficiency and transparency...****Now, whose fault is the lack of confidence?****
BEIJING (Reuters) – Switzerland remains the world's most competitive economy, while the United States has fallen from second to fourth after losing the top spot last year, according to the World Economic Forum's annual rankings issued on Thursday.
Sweden, in second spot, and Singapore in third leapfrogged the United States in the WEF's Global Competitiveness Report 2010/2011.
Last year the Asian city-state ranked third and Sweden fourth. There were no newcomers in the WEF's top 10, although Germany climbed to fifth from seventh.
The WEF said America slipped in the ranking due to a build-up in U.S. macroeconomic imbalances, a weakening of the country's public and private institutions and concerns about the state of its financial markets.
"There are weaknesses in some areas in particular, which we have discussed for some time before, and they deepened somewhat since last year," ...
The report said a lack of macroeconomic stability continues to be America's greatest area of weakness, with repeated fiscal deficits leading to burgeoning public indebtedness.
It also said that U.S. business leaders show less trust in politicians and the government's ability to maintain an arm's-length relationship with the private sector.
The WEF bases its assessment on a dozen drivers of competitiveness, including institutions, infrastructure, health and education, market size and the macroeconomic environment.The report also factors in a survey among business leaders, assessing the government's efficiency and transparency...****Now, whose fault is the lack of confidence?****
For Obama, reductio ad absurdum is a starting point.
A Job for George W. Bush America needs a president with the moral authority to denounce Koran-burning. By JAMES TARANTO
...Now, many of those same Muslims say that all of those years of work are being rapidly undone by the fierce opposition to a Muslim cultural center near ground zero that has unleashed a torrent of anti-Muslim sentiments and a spate of vandalism. . . Some American Muslims said they were especially on edge as the anniversary of 9/11 approaches. The pastor of a small church in Florida has promised to burn a pile of Korans that day. Muslim leaders are telling their followers that the stunt has been widely condemned by Christian and other religious groups and should be ignored. But they said some young American Muslims were questioning how they could simply sit by and watch the promised desecration.Assuming that the Florida pastor complies with applicable fire codes, he has a perfect legal right to burn Korans that are his private property. That he has a right to do it, however, does not mean it is the right thing to do. In our view, he should call off the event for the same reason that the mosque developers should choose a site a respectful distance from Ground Zero: because the plan is obnoxious and (figuratively as well as literally) inflammatory.
...There is a grain of truth in the protesters' blaming Obama, whose limp leadership has had an incendiary effect. He escalated the Ground Zero mosque controversy by making a strong but unnecessary statement about religious freedom, but then abdicated his responsibility by voting "present" on the real question: whether it is wise and responsible to use freedom in this way....But the commander in chief hasn't said a word about it, and how could he? If the president of the United States is indifferent or hostile to his own countrymen's sensitivities, his exhortations to respect the sensitivities of foreigners--although in this case they would be entirely justified--are sure to fall on deaf ears.
America needs a president with the moral authority to denounce the Florida church's stupid, offensive, potentially dangerous stunt. This is a job for George W. Bush.
****Having proven that it is absurd for Obama to be so asymmetrical in his "sensitivities," and so Obama's speaking out is verboten. Obama goes ahead and does it, anyway! Various logical fallacies are mere starting points for Democrats in the Age of Obama. A second one for today: post hoc ergo propter hoc. For example, "Clinton raised taxes and the economy boomed afterward."
http://tinyurl.com/33k29fq
Obama: Minister must cancel Quran-burning 'stunt'
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama implored a Florida minister to call off his Quran-burning "stunt,"...Obama told ABC's "Good Morning America" in an interview aired Thursday that he hopes the Rev. Terry Jones of Florida listens to "those better angels" and to the individuals and organizations pleading with him to change his mind. "If he's listening, I hope he understands that what he's proposing to do is completely contrary to our values as Americans," the president said. "That this country has been built on the notion of freedom and religious tolerance." "And as a very practical matter, I just want him to understand that this stunt that he is talking about pulling could greatly endanger our young men and women who are in uniform," Obama said. Said Obama: "Look, this is a recruitment bonanza for Al Qaida... ****Isn't a triumphalist mosque at Ground Zero also a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda? ****
...Now, many of those same Muslims say that all of those years of work are being rapidly undone by the fierce opposition to a Muslim cultural center near ground zero that has unleashed a torrent of anti-Muslim sentiments and a spate of vandalism. . . Some American Muslims said they were especially on edge as the anniversary of 9/11 approaches. The pastor of a small church in Florida has promised to burn a pile of Korans that day. Muslim leaders are telling their followers that the stunt has been widely condemned by Christian and other religious groups and should be ignored. But they said some young American Muslims were questioning how they could simply sit by and watch the promised desecration.Assuming that the Florida pastor complies with applicable fire codes, he has a perfect legal right to burn Korans that are his private property. That he has a right to do it, however, does not mean it is the right thing to do. In our view, he should call off the event for the same reason that the mosque developers should choose a site a respectful distance from Ground Zero: because the plan is obnoxious and (figuratively as well as literally) inflammatory.
...There is a grain of truth in the protesters' blaming Obama, whose limp leadership has had an incendiary effect. He escalated the Ground Zero mosque controversy by making a strong but unnecessary statement about religious freedom, but then abdicated his responsibility by voting "present" on the real question: whether it is wise and responsible to use freedom in this way....But the commander in chief hasn't said a word about it, and how could he? If the president of the United States is indifferent or hostile to his own countrymen's sensitivities, his exhortations to respect the sensitivities of foreigners--although in this case they would be entirely justified--are sure to fall on deaf ears.
America needs a president with the moral authority to denounce the Florida church's stupid, offensive, potentially dangerous stunt. This is a job for George W. Bush.
****Having proven that it is absurd for Obama to be so asymmetrical in his "sensitivities," and so Obama's speaking out is verboten. Obama goes ahead and does it, anyway! Various logical fallacies are mere starting points for Democrats in the Age of Obama. A second one for today: post hoc ergo propter hoc. For example, "Clinton raised taxes and the economy boomed afterward."
http://tinyurl.com/33k29fq
Obama: Minister must cancel Quran-burning 'stunt'
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama implored a Florida minister to call off his Quran-burning "stunt,"...Obama told ABC's "Good Morning America" in an interview aired Thursday that he hopes the Rev. Terry Jones of Florida listens to "those better angels" and to the individuals and organizations pleading with him to change his mind. "If he's listening, I hope he understands that what he's proposing to do is completely contrary to our values as Americans," the president said. "That this country has been built on the notion of freedom and religious tolerance." "And as a very practical matter, I just want him to understand that this stunt that he is talking about pulling could greatly endanger our young men and women who are in uniform," Obama said. Said Obama: "Look, this is a recruitment bonanza for Al Qaida... ****Isn't a triumphalist mosque at Ground Zero also a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda? ****
Monday, September 6, 2010
Has Netanyahu changed because of Obama? Does he really trust Obama to deal with Iran?
http://tinyurl.com/2ckh4j4
At the Mideast peace talks, a changed Netanyahu
By Aluf Benn
He is usually depicted as a hard-liner,...But, contrary to popular wisdom, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is proving to be the most dovish leader that Israel has had in many years,...What caused Netanyahu to rethink his long-held ideology? To be sure, he did not go through a midlife left-wing epiphany any more than Nixon did. Rather, he succumbed to American pressure, and this, too, speaks in his favor. Statecraft requires reading power relationships correctly and acting accordingly.
Past right-wing Israeli leaders went through similar about-faces. Menachem Begin gave the entire Sinai back to Egypt only weeks after he pledged to spend his retirement in an Israeli settlement there. Ariel Sharon demolished the settlements in Gaza shortly after declaring them as important as Tel Aviv. Yitzhak Shamir, the toughest of the breed, put aside his beliefs to attend the 1991 Madrid Peace Conference. All these leaders were said to have "reckoned with reality" -- which, in Israeli political parlance, is a euphemism for "dependence on America..." ****Ostensibly, Bibi is trading Obama's taking care of Iran's nuclear program for backing down on land for peace. Now, of course, Bibi is aware that Obama cannot be trusted to deliver on his end of the deal and so must be planning not to deliver on his end when Obama defaults. He's probably just marking time until Obama is no longer President. OK, that says that nothing draconian will be agreed to with respect to the Palestinians ( who also cannot be trusted and don't want peace, in any case.) It does not, however, say what Bibi can or will do with respect to the threat from Iran. At some point, he will have to cross Obama and attack Iran when Obama clearly won't.
At the Mideast peace talks, a changed Netanyahu
By Aluf Benn
He is usually depicted as a hard-liner,...But, contrary to popular wisdom, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is proving to be the most dovish leader that Israel has had in many years,...What caused Netanyahu to rethink his long-held ideology? To be sure, he did not go through a midlife left-wing epiphany any more than Nixon did. Rather, he succumbed to American pressure, and this, too, speaks in his favor. Statecraft requires reading power relationships correctly and acting accordingly.
Past right-wing Israeli leaders went through similar about-faces. Menachem Begin gave the entire Sinai back to Egypt only weeks after he pledged to spend his retirement in an Israeli settlement there. Ariel Sharon demolished the settlements in Gaza shortly after declaring them as important as Tel Aviv. Yitzhak Shamir, the toughest of the breed, put aside his beliefs to attend the 1991 Madrid Peace Conference. All these leaders were said to have "reckoned with reality" -- which, in Israeli political parlance, is a euphemism for "dependence on America..." ****Ostensibly, Bibi is trading Obama's taking care of Iran's nuclear program for backing down on land for peace. Now, of course, Bibi is aware that Obama cannot be trusted to deliver on his end of the deal and so must be planning not to deliver on his end when Obama defaults. He's probably just marking time until Obama is no longer President. OK, that says that nothing draconian will be agreed to with respect to the Palestinians ( who also cannot be trusted and don't want peace, in any case.) It does not, however, say what Bibi can or will do with respect to the threat from Iran. At some point, he will have to cross Obama and attack Iran when Obama clearly won't.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Huff Post gets it wrong about "anti-Semitic" German Central Banker, Thilo Sarrazin
http://tinyurl.com/3xxfhzy
Thilo Sarrazin, German Banker, Under Fire For 'Racist' Jewish Remark KIRSTEN GRIESHABER
BERLIN — Top German officials and immigrant leaders on Sunday condemned remarks by a board member of Germany's federal bank as racist and anti-Semitic. Chancellor Angela Merkel said the Bundesbank should discuss dismissing the banker. Thilo Sarrazin of the Bundesbank came under fire for telling the weekly newspaper Welt am Sonntag that "all Jews share the same gene." He also said Muslim immigrants across Europe were not willing or capable of integrating into western societies.
Last year, Sarrazin, who previously served as finance minister for Berlin, told a magazine that "I do not need to accept anyone who lives on handouts from a state that it rejects, is not adequately concerned about the education of their children and constantly produces new, little headscarf-clad girls."...
****In actual fact, what Sarrazin said about Jews is unexceptionable i.e. that Jews share a gene. It would seem to be a scientific observation rather than prejudice. DNA testing has proved the relationship of, for example, Ashkenazic, Sephardic and Misrahi Jews who stayed in the Middle East. What really got him into trouble was his other comments about Muslims, a truly untouchable group. Meanwhile, a true anti-Semite, De Gucht, gets a pass.****
http://tinyurl.com/2dx6v8q
Muslims: the untouchable group A Tale of Two European Remarks: De Gucht and Sarrazin By Daniel Greenfield
In August, Thilo Sarrazin a member of the board of the German Central Bank, and a critic of Islamic immigration, mentioned that Jews and Basques and some other ethnic groups have a common gene. What followed was a storm of protests and accusations that Sarrazin was anti-Semitic. Sarrazin was dismissed from his position on the board, and newspaper articles explained that it was for remarks that he had made about Muslims and Jews.
Last week, Karel De Gucht, the European Commissioner for Trade, gave a radio show his considered opinion of Jews. Naturally De Gucht put on his best jackboots, and explained that there will be no peace because the Jews run America, that Jews believe they are always right, and that it’s impossible to have a conversation with even a “moderate Jew”. While a few Jewish groups have protested, the European Commission has shrugged, and the media has shrugged too. The odds that De Gucht will be forced out of his job, the way that Sarrazin was, are minimal...
But the difference between Sarrazin and De Gucht, was that Sarrazin said something truly unacceptable about an untouchable group. Muslims. While De Gucht mainly expressed a popular view among European elites about the Jews. The ferocious charges of Anti-Semitism against Sarrazin hinged only on him stating a casual fact that Jews are genetically related to one another. It isn’t Anti-Semitism, it’s Science. Sarrazin was not charged with Anti-Semitism because of what he had said about Jews, but because of what he had said about Muslims.
The media did not bother to report that Sarrazin had said that he would prefer immigration “if it was by eastern European Jews with a 15-percent-higher IQ than the German population.” An odd remark for an “Anti-Semite” to make. It would indeed seem that Thilo Sarrazin has a more positive view of Jews, than Karel De Gucht does. But it’s not really about the Jews. It’s about Muslims.
The Jews were used as cover by the advocates of multiculturalism to charge Sarrazin with bigotry. And there was a reason for that. Sarrazin had described himself as a mongrel, with French, Italian and Polish ancestry. His criticism of Muslim immigration was not genetic, but based on their refusal to integrate into Germany. Sarrazin had pointed out that other immigrants from Eastern Europe and Vietnam were productive members of society. Muslims however were not...
Thilo Sarrazin, German Banker, Under Fire For 'Racist' Jewish Remark KIRSTEN GRIESHABER
BERLIN — Top German officials and immigrant leaders on Sunday condemned remarks by a board member of Germany's federal bank as racist and anti-Semitic. Chancellor Angela Merkel said the Bundesbank should discuss dismissing the banker. Thilo Sarrazin of the Bundesbank came under fire for telling the weekly newspaper Welt am Sonntag that "all Jews share the same gene." He also said Muslim immigrants across Europe were not willing or capable of integrating into western societies.
Last year, Sarrazin, who previously served as finance minister for Berlin, told a magazine that "I do not need to accept anyone who lives on handouts from a state that it rejects, is not adequately concerned about the education of their children and constantly produces new, little headscarf-clad girls."...
****In actual fact, what Sarrazin said about Jews is unexceptionable i.e. that Jews share a gene. It would seem to be a scientific observation rather than prejudice. DNA testing has proved the relationship of, for example, Ashkenazic, Sephardic and Misrahi Jews who stayed in the Middle East. What really got him into trouble was his other comments about Muslims, a truly untouchable group. Meanwhile, a true anti-Semite, De Gucht, gets a pass.****
http://tinyurl.com/2dx6v8q
Muslims: the untouchable group A Tale of Two European Remarks: De Gucht and Sarrazin By Daniel Greenfield
In August, Thilo Sarrazin a member of the board of the German Central Bank, and a critic of Islamic immigration, mentioned that Jews and Basques and some other ethnic groups have a common gene. What followed was a storm of protests and accusations that Sarrazin was anti-Semitic. Sarrazin was dismissed from his position on the board, and newspaper articles explained that it was for remarks that he had made about Muslims and Jews.
Last week, Karel De Gucht, the European Commissioner for Trade, gave a radio show his considered opinion of Jews. Naturally De Gucht put on his best jackboots, and explained that there will be no peace because the Jews run America, that Jews believe they are always right, and that it’s impossible to have a conversation with even a “moderate Jew”. While a few Jewish groups have protested, the European Commission has shrugged, and the media has shrugged too. The odds that De Gucht will be forced out of his job, the way that Sarrazin was, are minimal...
But the difference between Sarrazin and De Gucht, was that Sarrazin said something truly unacceptable about an untouchable group. Muslims. While De Gucht mainly expressed a popular view among European elites about the Jews. The ferocious charges of Anti-Semitism against Sarrazin hinged only on him stating a casual fact that Jews are genetically related to one another. It isn’t Anti-Semitism, it’s Science. Sarrazin was not charged with Anti-Semitism because of what he had said about Jews, but because of what he had said about Muslims.
The media did not bother to report that Sarrazin had said that he would prefer immigration “if it was by eastern European Jews with a 15-percent-higher IQ than the German population.” An odd remark for an “Anti-Semite” to make. It would indeed seem that Thilo Sarrazin has a more positive view of Jews, than Karel De Gucht does. But it’s not really about the Jews. It’s about Muslims.
The Jews were used as cover by the advocates of multiculturalism to charge Sarrazin with bigotry. And there was a reason for that. Sarrazin had described himself as a mongrel, with French, Italian and Polish ancestry. His criticism of Muslim immigration was not genetic, but based on their refusal to integrate into Germany. Sarrazin had pointed out that other immigrants from Eastern Europe and Vietnam were productive members of society. Muslims however were not...
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Islamophobes see an upside in the "Victory Mosque."
Why would an Islamophobe ( in the classical sense of one who fears --not hates—Islam and Islamists ) see an upside to the Ground Zero Mosque being built?
It is clear from the history of the land acquisition that there was a deliberate effort to get a site as close as possible to Ground Zero and, in their own correspondence (until it became politically incorrect) the sponsors referred to the project as the Ground Zero Mosque. They also named it Cordoba House ( again withdrawn for political correctness, but not until the Muslim world and others were made aware of the name --and its connotations.)
Thus, it is clear that Muslims outside the U.S. will regard the Ground Zero Mosque as an example of Islamist triumphalism, in keeping with the story of Cordoba and the Muslim tradition of building “victory mosques” on conquered territory in as public a manner as possible. For non-American Muslims, there is not the slightest consideration of sensitivity or priority.
With respect to American Muslims, however, it is a different story. For those American Muslims who wish to assimilate as Americans, with that identity trumping everything else, a decent respect for the opinions of others, as well as a commonsensical wish to avoid any appearance of impropriety and possibly create a backlash, would cause them to oppose the placing of the Mosque in the proposed location. For those American Muslims who trumpet the irrelevant need for "religious freedom", and support the thumb-in-the-eye placement, it is clear that their identity as members of the Ummah trump their identification and allegiance as Americans.
Obama has often proclaimed that America is not at war with Islam. Islam, however, is surely at war with America (indeed, Western Civilization) and Islamists do not doubt this. It is Americans’ awareness of our enemies that is wanting. This is why Islamophobes see benefits in the building of this victory mosque, especially in the face of public opposition. It will serve as a constant reminder to Americans of the association between 9-11 (and, indeed, the World Trade Center attack in 1994) and those who perpetrated this atrocity. The saliency of the 15-story Mosque will provide a virtual big red arrow pointed at Ground Zero to say "we did this." The proximity will similarly serve as a big red arrow from Ground Zero pointing at "those who did this."
The issue of support or opposition on the part of American Muslims, will serve as a simple differentiation between two groups. There are those who wish to assimilate and be Americans first and foremost, with American (indeed, Judeo-Christian) values paramount. These will be seen as opposed to those Muslims for whom Sharia, Islam, the hope for a Caliphate and the wish to transform (i.e. conquer ) America is salient. It's clear and easy to distinguish between the two kinds of Muslims. While we know that not all Muslims are terrorists, it is the case that almost all terrorists are Muslims. There is the further situation that non-terrorist Muslims have the opportunity to oppose those who are, to speak out against them clearly and specifically, and cooperate with American authorities to root out them out.. To a great extent, most American Muslims have not done so. There are a lot of Muslims who are radical Islamists but even more other Muslims who are supportive either by contribution of resources, apologies, or by silence.
Since the Victory Mosque will probably be Sunni in affiliation, it might also be the case that Shia terrorists will destroy it before too many years elapse. Nevertheless, it will last long enough for the lesson of Islam-in-America to be made forcefully, not least when this era of extraordinary Islamophilia by the leftists in power has passed.
It is clear from the history of the land acquisition that there was a deliberate effort to get a site as close as possible to Ground Zero and, in their own correspondence (until it became politically incorrect) the sponsors referred to the project as the Ground Zero Mosque. They also named it Cordoba House ( again withdrawn for political correctness, but not until the Muslim world and others were made aware of the name --and its connotations.)
Thus, it is clear that Muslims outside the U.S. will regard the Ground Zero Mosque as an example of Islamist triumphalism, in keeping with the story of Cordoba and the Muslim tradition of building “victory mosques” on conquered territory in as public a manner as possible. For non-American Muslims, there is not the slightest consideration of sensitivity or priority.
With respect to American Muslims, however, it is a different story. For those American Muslims who wish to assimilate as Americans, with that identity trumping everything else, a decent respect for the opinions of others, as well as a commonsensical wish to avoid any appearance of impropriety and possibly create a backlash, would cause them to oppose the placing of the Mosque in the proposed location. For those American Muslims who trumpet the irrelevant need for "religious freedom", and support the thumb-in-the-eye placement, it is clear that their identity as members of the Ummah trump their identification and allegiance as Americans.
Obama has often proclaimed that America is not at war with Islam. Islam, however, is surely at war with America (indeed, Western Civilization) and Islamists do not doubt this. It is Americans’ awareness of our enemies that is wanting. This is why Islamophobes see benefits in the building of this victory mosque, especially in the face of public opposition. It will serve as a constant reminder to Americans of the association between 9-11 (and, indeed, the World Trade Center attack in 1994) and those who perpetrated this atrocity. The saliency of the 15-story Mosque will provide a virtual big red arrow pointed at Ground Zero to say "we did this." The proximity will similarly serve as a big red arrow from Ground Zero pointing at "those who did this."
The issue of support or opposition on the part of American Muslims, will serve as a simple differentiation between two groups. There are those who wish to assimilate and be Americans first and foremost, with American (indeed, Judeo-Christian) values paramount. These will be seen as opposed to those Muslims for whom Sharia, Islam, the hope for a Caliphate and the wish to transform (i.e. conquer ) America is salient. It's clear and easy to distinguish between the two kinds of Muslims. While we know that not all Muslims are terrorists, it is the case that almost all terrorists are Muslims. There is the further situation that non-terrorist Muslims have the opportunity to oppose those who are, to speak out against them clearly and specifically, and cooperate with American authorities to root out them out.. To a great extent, most American Muslims have not done so. There are a lot of Muslims who are radical Islamists but even more other Muslims who are supportive either by contribution of resources, apologies, or by silence.
Since the Victory Mosque will probably be Sunni in affiliation, it might also be the case that Shia terrorists will destroy it before too many years elapse. Nevertheless, it will last long enough for the lesson of Islam-in-America to be made forcefully, not least when this era of extraordinary Islamophilia by the leftists in power has passed.
Another example of 'the religion of peace.' It's getting more absurd to be politically correct about Islam.
http://tinyurl.com/26e8uj7
Prominent Australian imam calls for the beheading of Geert Wilders.
***Why is it that a religion that claims to be focused on the long-term ( life on earth is but a blink ) with rewards ( albeit of a very earthly and earthy kind ) in Heaven, is so concerned with daily life on Earth? Martyrs are supposed to get their rewards in Heaven for foul acts committed on Earth and in this life for the purpose of establishing earthly hegemony for Islam. It's either inconsistent or remarkably naive and childish.***
Prominent Australian imam calls for the beheading of Geert Wilders.
***Why is it that a religion that claims to be focused on the long-term ( life on earth is but a blink ) with rewards ( albeit of a very earthly and earthy kind ) in Heaven, is so concerned with daily life on Earth? Martyrs are supposed to get their rewards in Heaven for foul acts committed on Earth and in this life for the purpose of establishing earthly hegemony for Islam. It's either inconsistent or remarkably naive and childish.***
Dems want GOP to verify Obama's not Muslim. But doesn't it take one to know one?
Minister wants Obama to become Ameer-ul-Momineen
Published: September 02, 2010
ISLAMABAD – In a development that could be duly termed as one and only of its kind, an incumbent Government’s Minister has urged US President Barrack Obama to offer Eid prayers at Ground Zero Mosque and become “Ameer-ul-Momineen” of Muslim Ummah.
Minister of State for Industries and former member Pakistan Ideological Council Ayatullah Durrani called TheNation on Wednesday to register his demand made to President Obama.
“The coming Eid would expectedly be observed on 9/11, this a golden opportunity for President Obama to offer Eid prayers at Ground Zero and become Amir-ul-Momineen or Caliph of Muslims. In this way, all the problems of Muslim World would be solved,” he thought.
Durrani argued that Muslim World was in “dire need” of a Caliph and the distinguished slot of Caliphate would earn President Obama the exemplary titles of what he termed, “Mullah Barrack Hussain Obama” or “Allama Obama.” “The time is approaching fast. Barrack Hussain Obama must act now. This is a golden opportunity, Muslims badly need it,” he added, saying that the elevation of President Obama to Muslim’s Caliphate would be the “key to success.”
***Now, of course I subscribe to Ann Coulter's observation that Obama is personally an atheist. He is, nevertheless, one with strong pro-Islamic feelings and sense of identity. It's denied by those who don't know better (just as the great theologian, Bush, proclaimed Islam a peaceful religion) but acknowledged by those who do.
Obama has indulged himself in a child's fantasy: acceding to a position of power with the ability and willingness to indulge his personal prejudices, likes and dislikes.
Dislikes? The British, businesspeople, the U.S. Constitution ( full of only "negative" rights), the Founding Fathers of the U.S., capitalism, Jews (how could it be otherwise after 20 years in Rev. Wright's church --or does causality go the other say? That is, did he choose Wright beforehand?)
Likes? Islam ( the sound of the muezzin and prayers; the glorious history of Islam; the Muslim nature of the U.S., the "holy Koran" --noticing how he rolls the "r" and always appends "HOLY"--,radicals (Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayers,et al ), redistribution of wealth, power and re-election, a messianic role to socialize the U.S. and to bend Western Civilization to Islamic values. While Obama's aspirations to transformational, messianic status is clear, so far he has not personally evinced ambitions to be Caliph as the Minister suggests.***
Published: September 02, 2010
ISLAMABAD – In a development that could be duly termed as one and only of its kind, an incumbent Government’s Minister has urged US President Barrack Obama to offer Eid prayers at Ground Zero Mosque and become “Ameer-ul-Momineen” of Muslim Ummah.
Minister of State for Industries and former member Pakistan Ideological Council Ayatullah Durrani called TheNation on Wednesday to register his demand made to President Obama.
“The coming Eid would expectedly be observed on 9/11, this a golden opportunity for President Obama to offer Eid prayers at Ground Zero and become Amir-ul-Momineen or Caliph of Muslims. In this way, all the problems of Muslim World would be solved,” he thought.
Durrani argued that Muslim World was in “dire need” of a Caliph and the distinguished slot of Caliphate would earn President Obama the exemplary titles of what he termed, “Mullah Barrack Hussain Obama” or “Allama Obama.” “The time is approaching fast. Barrack Hussain Obama must act now. This is a golden opportunity, Muslims badly need it,” he added, saying that the elevation of President Obama to Muslim’s Caliphate would be the “key to success.”
***Now, of course I subscribe to Ann Coulter's observation that Obama is personally an atheist. He is, nevertheless, one with strong pro-Islamic feelings and sense of identity. It's denied by those who don't know better (just as the great theologian, Bush, proclaimed Islam a peaceful religion) but acknowledged by those who do.
Obama has indulged himself in a child's fantasy: acceding to a position of power with the ability and willingness to indulge his personal prejudices, likes and dislikes.
Dislikes? The British, businesspeople, the U.S. Constitution ( full of only "negative" rights), the Founding Fathers of the U.S., capitalism, Jews (how could it be otherwise after 20 years in Rev. Wright's church --or does causality go the other say? That is, did he choose Wright beforehand?)
Likes? Islam ( the sound of the muezzin and prayers; the glorious history of Islam; the Muslim nature of the U.S., the "holy Koran" --noticing how he rolls the "r" and always appends "HOLY"--,radicals (Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayers,et al ), redistribution of wealth, power and re-election, a messianic role to socialize the U.S. and to bend Western Civilization to Islamic values. While Obama's aspirations to transformational, messianic status is clear, so far he has not personally evinced ambitions to be Caliph as the Minister suggests.***
Friday, September 3, 2010
A Deist would answer Hawking and say that God created the laws of physics.
http://tinyurl.com/26pkrmg
God did not create the universe, says Hawking
By Michael Holden
LONDON (Reuters) – God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book.
In "The Grand Design," co-authored with U.S. physicist Leonard Mlodinow, Hawking says a new series of theories made a creator of the universe redundant, according to the Times newspaper which published extracts on Thursday.
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," Hawking writes...
****Not only is there need for a creator of the laws of physics, there is the definite possibility that the laws of physics are not necessary. That is, other universes can exist in which the laws of physics are different. The astronomer Martin Rees has pointed out that half a dozen constants of physics don't have to have the numbers that they do. An infinity of other universes might exist in which the constants are different and,indeed, in which other physics laws are different. Not all would permit the development of the universe that we are familiar with and that Hawking is speaking about. This, in fact, answers the question that Deists have had difficulty with: "After creating the laws of Nature what HAS Nature's God been doing?" An answer is that He has been busy creating the laws of physics for the infinity of other universes.(How else to tax the infinite power of an omnipotent GOD? )****
God did not create the universe, says Hawking
By Michael Holden
LONDON (Reuters) – God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book.
In "The Grand Design," co-authored with U.S. physicist Leonard Mlodinow, Hawking says a new series of theories made a creator of the universe redundant, according to the Times newspaper which published extracts on Thursday.
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," Hawking writes...
****Not only is there need for a creator of the laws of physics, there is the definite possibility that the laws of physics are not necessary. That is, other universes can exist in which the laws of physics are different. The astronomer Martin Rees has pointed out that half a dozen constants of physics don't have to have the numbers that they do. An infinity of other universes might exist in which the constants are different and,indeed, in which other physics laws are different. Not all would permit the development of the universe that we are familiar with and that Hawking is speaking about. This, in fact, answers the question that Deists have had difficulty with: "After creating the laws of Nature what HAS Nature's God been doing?" An answer is that He has been busy creating the laws of physics for the infinity of other universes.(How else to tax the infinite power of an omnipotent GOD? )****
Will American learn the lessons of Europe? Europe didn't.
Subject: Fwd: Story from a Spanish newspaper regarding what happened in Europe
Note - according to Google, "Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez" is apparently a pseudonym so the writer could avoid being targeted by Radical Muslims...
Subject: Story from a Spanish newspaper regarding what happened in Europe
Read all of it. Scroll all the way to the bottom. Read each word and know this is the truth. If this offends your political views, simply delete and move along. Unless you're completely blind, you will see this is happening in America right now.
ALL EUROPEAN LIFE DIED IN AUSCHWITZ
The following is a copy of an article written by Spanish writer Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez and published in a Spanish newspaper on Jan. 15 2008. It doesn't take much imagination to extrapolate the message to the rest of Europe - and possibly to the rest of the world.
REMEMBER AS YOU READ . . . IT WAS IN A SPANISH PAPER
Date: Tuesday 15 January 2008 14:30
ALL EUROPEAN LIFE DIED IN AUSCHWITZ
By Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez
I walked down the street in Barcelona , and suddenly discovered a terrible truth - Europe died in Auschwitz ... We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity, talent. We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world.
The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world. These are the people we burned.
And under the pretense of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty, due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride.
They have blown up our trains and turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime.
Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naive hosts.
And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition.
We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs.
What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe .
A lot of Americans have become so insulated from reality that they imagine America can suffer defeat without any inconvenience to themselves.
Absolutely No Profiling! Pause a moment, reflect back, and take the following multiple choice test.
These events are actual events from history. They really happened! Do you remember?
HERE'S THE TEST:
1. 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by:
a. Superman
b. Jay Leno
c. Harry Potter
d. A Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40
2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by:
a. Olga Corbett
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:
a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
a. The Smurfs
b. Davey Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens , and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:
a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
8. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by: a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill's women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:
a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
12. In 2002, the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
14. And now we can add: In 2009, 31 people wounded and 13 American Soldiers murdered on base at Fort Hood by a Major that was known as...
a: You guessed it - A Muslim male extremist between the age of 17 and 40.
No, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people. They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winner and former Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim Males between the ages 17 and 40 alone lest they be guilty of profiling.
Let's send this to as many people as we can so that the Nancy Pelosis, Gloria Aldreds and other dunder-headed attorneys along with Federal Justices that want to thwart common sense, feel ashamed of themselves - if they have any such sense.
We can not allow the socialist transformation being brought on by the current administration to continue. Look at what it has done to Europe . We all must stand together before it's too late and everything America stands for is lost.
The Global Islamic population is approximately 1,200,000,000; that is ONE BILLION TWO HUNDRED MILLION or 20% of the world's population. They have received the following Nobel Prizes:
Literature:
1988 - Najib Mahfooz
Peace:
1978 - Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat
1990 - Elias James Corey
1994 - Yaser Arafat:
1999 - Ahmed Zewai
Economics: (zero)
Physics: (zero)
Medicine:
1960 - Peter Brian Medawar
1998 - Ferid Mourad
TOTAL: 7 (SEVEN)
The Global Jewish population is approximately 14,000,000; that is FOURTEEN MILLION or about 0.02% of the world's population. They have received the following Nobel Prizes:
Literature:
1910 - Paul Heyse
1927 - Henri Bergson
1958 - Boris Pasternak
1966 - Shmuel Yosef Agnon
1966 - Nelly Sachs
1976 - Saul Bellow
1978 - Isaac Bashevis Singer
1981 - Elias Canetti
1987 - Joseph Brodsky
1991 - Nadine Gordimer
World Peace:
1911 - Alfred Fried
1911 - Tobias Michael Carel Asser
1968 - Rene Cassin
1973 - Henry Kissinger
1978 - Menachem Begin
1986 - Elie Wiesel
1994 - Shimon Peres
1994 - Yitzhak Rabin
Physics:
1905 - Adolph Von Baeyer
1906 - Henri Moissan
1907 - Albert Abraham Michelson
1908 - Gabriel Lippmann
1910 - Otto Wallach
1915 - Richard Willstaetter
1918 - Fritz Haber
1921 - Albert Einstein
1922 - Niels Bohr
1925 - James Franck
1925 - Gustav Hertz
1943 - Gustav Stern
1943 - George Charles de Hevesy
1944 - Isidor Issac Rabi
1952 - Felix Bloch
1954 - Max Born
1958 - Igor Tamm
1959 - Emilio Segre
1960 - Donald A. Glaser
1961 - Robert Hofstadter
1961 - Melvin Calvin
1962 - Lev Davidovich Landau
1962 - Max Ferdinand Perutz
1965 - Richard Phillips Feynman
1965 - Julian Schwinger
1969 - Murray Gell-Mann
1971 - Dennis Gabor
1972 - William Howard Stein
1973 - Brian David Josephson
1975 - Ben jamin Mottleson
1976 - Burton Richter
1977 - Ilya Prigogine
1978 - Arno Allan Penzias
1978 - Peter L Kapitza
1979 - Stephen Weinberg
1979 - Sheldon Glashow
1979 - Herbert Charles Brown
1980 - Paul Berg
1980 - Walter Gilbert
1981 - Roald Hoffmann
1982 - Aaron Klug
1985 - Albert A. Hauptman
1985 - Jerome Karle
1986 - Dudley R. Herschbach
1988 - Robert Huber
1988 - Leon Lederman
1988 - Melvin Schwartz
1988 - Jack Steinberger
1989 - Sidney Altman
1990 - Jerome Friedman
1992 - Rudolph Marcus
1995 - Martin Perl
2000 - Alan J. Heeger
Economics:
1970 - Paul Anthony Samuelson
1971 - Simon Kuznets
1972 - Kenneth Joseph Arrow
1975 - Leonid Kantorovich
1976 - Milton Friedman
1978 - Herbert A. Simon
1980 - Lawrence Robert Klein
1985 - Franco Modigliani
1987 - Robert M. Solow
1990 - Harry Markowitz
1990 - Merton Miller
1992 - Gary Becker
1993 - Robert Fogel
Medicine:
1908 - Elie Metchnikoff
1908 - Paul Erlich
1914 - Robert Barany
1922 - Otto Meyerhof
1930 - Karl Landsteiner
1931 - Otto Warburg
1936 - Otto Loewi
1944 - Joseph Erlanger
1944 - Herbert Spencer Gasser
1945 - Ernst Boris Chain
1946 - Hermann Joseph Muller
1950 - Tadeus Reichstein
1952 - Selman Abraham Waksman
1953 - Hans Krebs
1953 - Fritz Albert Lipmann
1958 - Joshua Lederberg
1959 - Arthur Kornberg
1964 - Konrad Bloch
1965 - Francois Jacob
1965 - Andre Lwoff
1967 - George Wald
1968 - Marshall W. Nirenberg
1969 - Salvador Luria
1970 - Julius Axelrod
1970 - Sir Bernard Katz
1972 - Gerald Maurice Edelman
1975 - Howard Martin Temin
1976 -Baruch S. Blumberg
1977 - Roselyn Sussman Yalow
1978 - Daniel Nathans
1980 - Baruj Benacerraf
1984 - Cesar Milstein
1985 - Michael Stuart Brown
1985 - Joseph L. Goldstein
1986 - Stanley Cohen & Rita Levi-Montalcini
1988 - Gertrude Elion
1989 - Harold Varmus
1991 - Erwin Neher
1991 - Bert Sakmann
1993 - Richard J. Roberts
1993 - Phillip Sharp
1994 - Alfred Gilman
1995 - Edward B. Lewis
1996 - Lu Rose Iacovino
TOTAL: 129!
The Jews are NOT promoting brain washing children in military training camps, teaching them how to blow themselves up and cause maximum deaths of Jews and other non Muslims. The Jews don't hijack planes, nor kill athletes at the Olympics, or blow themselves up in German restaurants. There is NOT one single Jew who has destroyed a church. There is NOT a single Jew who protests by killing people.
&nbs p; The Jews don't traffic slaves, nor have leaders calling for Jihad and death to all the Infidels.
Perhaps the world's Muslims should consider investing more in standard education and less in blaming the Jews for all their problems.
Muslims must ask 'what can they do for humankind' before they demand that humankind respects them.
Regardless of your feelings about the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians and Arab neighbors, even if you believe there is more culpability on Israel 's part, the following two sentences really say it all:
'If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel ’.
"Benjamin Netanyahu"
General Eisenhower warned us:
It is a matter of history that when the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, General Dwight Eisenhower, found the victims of the death camps he ordered all possible photographs to be taken, and for the German people from surrounding villages to be ushered through the camps and even made to bury the dead.
He did this because he said in words to this effect:
'Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses - because somewhere down the road of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened'
Recently, the UK debated whether to remove The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it 'offends' the Muslim population which claims it never occurred. It is not removed as yet. However, this is a frightening portent of the fear that is gripping the world and how easily each country is giving into it.
It is now more than 60 years after the Second World War in Europe ended. This e-mail is being sent as a memorial chain, in memory of the, 6 million Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians, and 1,900 Catholic priests who were 'murdered, raped, burned, starved, beaten, experimented on and humiliated' while the German people looked the other way.
Now, more than ever, with Iran , among others, claiming the Holocaust to be 'a myth,' it is imperative to make sure the world never forgets.
This e-mail is intended to reach 400 million people. Be a link in the memorial chain and help distribute this around the world.
How many years will it be before the attack on the World Trade Center 'NEVER HAPPENED' because it offends some Muslim in the United States ?
Note - according to Google, "Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez" is apparently a pseudonym so the writer could avoid being targeted by Radical Muslims...
Subject: Story from a Spanish newspaper regarding what happened in Europe
Read all of it. Scroll all the way to the bottom. Read each word and know this is the truth. If this offends your political views, simply delete and move along. Unless you're completely blind, you will see this is happening in America right now.
ALL EUROPEAN LIFE DIED IN AUSCHWITZ
The following is a copy of an article written by Spanish writer Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez and published in a Spanish newspaper on Jan. 15 2008. It doesn't take much imagination to extrapolate the message to the rest of Europe - and possibly to the rest of the world.
REMEMBER AS YOU READ . . . IT WAS IN A SPANISH PAPER
Date: Tuesday 15 January 2008 14:30
ALL EUROPEAN LIFE DIED IN AUSCHWITZ
By Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez
I walked down the street in Barcelona , and suddenly discovered a terrible truth - Europe died in Auschwitz ... We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity, talent. We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world.
The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world. These are the people we burned.
And under the pretense of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty, due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride.
They have blown up our trains and turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime.
Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naive hosts.
And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition.
We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs.
What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe .
A lot of Americans have become so insulated from reality that they imagine America can suffer defeat without any inconvenience to themselves.
Absolutely No Profiling! Pause a moment, reflect back, and take the following multiple choice test.
These events are actual events from history. They really happened! Do you remember?
HERE'S THE TEST:
1. 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by:
a. Superman
b. Jay Leno
c. Harry Potter
d. A Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40
2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by:
a. Olga Corbett
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:
a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
a. The Smurfs
b. Davey Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens , and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:
a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
8. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by: a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill's women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:
a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
12. In 2002, the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
14. And now we can add: In 2009, 31 people wounded and 13 American Soldiers murdered on base at Fort Hood by a Major that was known as...
a: You guessed it - A Muslim male extremist between the age of 17 and 40.
No, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people. They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winner and former Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim Males between the ages 17 and 40 alone lest they be guilty of profiling.
Let's send this to as many people as we can so that the Nancy Pelosis, Gloria Aldreds and other dunder-headed attorneys along with Federal Justices that want to thwart common sense, feel ashamed of themselves - if they have any such sense.
We can not allow the socialist transformation being brought on by the current administration to continue. Look at what it has done to Europe . We all must stand together before it's too late and everything America stands for is lost.
The Global Islamic population is approximately 1,200,000,000; that is ONE BILLION TWO HUNDRED MILLION or 20% of the world's population. They have received the following Nobel Prizes:
Literature:
1988 - Najib Mahfooz
Peace:
1978 - Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat
1990 - Elias James Corey
1994 - Yaser Arafat:
1999 - Ahmed Zewai
Economics: (zero)
Physics: (zero)
Medicine:
1960 - Peter Brian Medawar
1998 - Ferid Mourad
TOTAL: 7 (SEVEN)
The Global Jewish population is approximately 14,000,000; that is FOURTEEN MILLION or about 0.02% of the world's population. They have received the following Nobel Prizes:
Literature:
1910 - Paul Heyse
1927 - Henri Bergson
1958 - Boris Pasternak
1966 - Shmuel Yosef Agnon
1966 - Nelly Sachs
1976 - Saul Bellow
1978 - Isaac Bashevis Singer
1981 - Elias Canetti
1987 - Joseph Brodsky
1991 - Nadine Gordimer
World Peace:
1911 - Alfred Fried
1911 - Tobias Michael Carel Asser
1968 - Rene Cassin
1973 - Henry Kissinger
1978 - Menachem Begin
1986 - Elie Wiesel
1994 - Shimon Peres
1994 - Yitzhak Rabin
Physics:
1905 - Adolph Von Baeyer
1906 - Henri Moissan
1907 - Albert Abraham Michelson
1908 - Gabriel Lippmann
1910 - Otto Wallach
1915 - Richard Willstaetter
1918 - Fritz Haber
1921 - Albert Einstein
1922 - Niels Bohr
1925 - James Franck
1925 - Gustav Hertz
1943 - Gustav Stern
1943 - George Charles de Hevesy
1944 - Isidor Issac Rabi
1952 - Felix Bloch
1954 - Max Born
1958 - Igor Tamm
1959 - Emilio Segre
1960 - Donald A. Glaser
1961 - Robert Hofstadter
1961 - Melvin Calvin
1962 - Lev Davidovich Landau
1962 - Max Ferdinand Perutz
1965 - Richard Phillips Feynman
1965 - Julian Schwinger
1969 - Murray Gell-Mann
1971 - Dennis Gabor
1972 - William Howard Stein
1973 - Brian David Josephson
1975 - Ben jamin Mottleson
1976 - Burton Richter
1977 - Ilya Prigogine
1978 - Arno Allan Penzias
1978 - Peter L Kapitza
1979 - Stephen Weinberg
1979 - Sheldon Glashow
1979 - Herbert Charles Brown
1980 - Paul Berg
1980 - Walter Gilbert
1981 - Roald Hoffmann
1982 - Aaron Klug
1985 - Albert A. Hauptman
1985 - Jerome Karle
1986 - Dudley R. Herschbach
1988 - Robert Huber
1988 - Leon Lederman
1988 - Melvin Schwartz
1988 - Jack Steinberger
1989 - Sidney Altman
1990 - Jerome Friedman
1992 - Rudolph Marcus
1995 - Martin Perl
2000 - Alan J. Heeger
Economics:
1970 - Paul Anthony Samuelson
1971 - Simon Kuznets
1972 - Kenneth Joseph Arrow
1975 - Leonid Kantorovich
1976 - Milton Friedman
1978 - Herbert A. Simon
1980 - Lawrence Robert Klein
1985 - Franco Modigliani
1987 - Robert M. Solow
1990 - Harry Markowitz
1990 - Merton Miller
1992 - Gary Becker
1993 - Robert Fogel
Medicine:
1908 - Elie Metchnikoff
1908 - Paul Erlich
1914 - Robert Barany
1922 - Otto Meyerhof
1930 - Karl Landsteiner
1931 - Otto Warburg
1936 - Otto Loewi
1944 - Joseph Erlanger
1944 - Herbert Spencer Gasser
1945 - Ernst Boris Chain
1946 - Hermann Joseph Muller
1950 - Tadeus Reichstein
1952 - Selman Abraham Waksman
1953 - Hans Krebs
1953 - Fritz Albert Lipmann
1958 - Joshua Lederberg
1959 - Arthur Kornberg
1964 - Konrad Bloch
1965 - Francois Jacob
1965 - Andre Lwoff
1967 - George Wald
1968 - Marshall W. Nirenberg
1969 - Salvador Luria
1970 - Julius Axelrod
1970 - Sir Bernard Katz
1972 - Gerald Maurice Edelman
1975 - Howard Martin Temin
1976 -Baruch S. Blumberg
1977 - Roselyn Sussman Yalow
1978 - Daniel Nathans
1980 - Baruj Benacerraf
1984 - Cesar Milstein
1985 - Michael Stuart Brown
1985 - Joseph L. Goldstein
1986 - Stanley Cohen & Rita Levi-Montalcini
1988 - Gertrude Elion
1989 - Harold Varmus
1991 - Erwin Neher
1991 - Bert Sakmann
1993 - Richard J. Roberts
1993 - Phillip Sharp
1994 - Alfred Gilman
1995 - Edward B. Lewis
1996 - Lu Rose Iacovino
TOTAL: 129!
The Jews are NOT promoting brain washing children in military training camps, teaching them how to blow themselves up and cause maximum deaths of Jews and other non Muslims. The Jews don't hijack planes, nor kill athletes at the Olympics, or blow themselves up in German restaurants. There is NOT one single Jew who has destroyed a church. There is NOT a single Jew who protests by killing people.
&nbs p; The Jews don't traffic slaves, nor have leaders calling for Jihad and death to all the Infidels.
Perhaps the world's Muslims should consider investing more in standard education and less in blaming the Jews for all their problems.
Muslims must ask 'what can they do for humankind' before they demand that humankind respects them.
Regardless of your feelings about the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians and Arab neighbors, even if you believe there is more culpability on Israel 's part, the following two sentences really say it all:
'If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel ’.
"Benjamin Netanyahu"
General Eisenhower warned us:
It is a matter of history that when the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, General Dwight Eisenhower, found the victims of the death camps he ordered all possible photographs to be taken, and for the German people from surrounding villages to be ushered through the camps and even made to bury the dead.
He did this because he said in words to this effect:
'Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses - because somewhere down the road of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened'
Recently, the UK debated whether to remove The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it 'offends' the Muslim population which claims it never occurred. It is not removed as yet. However, this is a frightening portent of the fear that is gripping the world and how easily each country is giving into it.
It is now more than 60 years after the Second World War in Europe ended. This e-mail is being sent as a memorial chain, in memory of the, 6 million Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians, and 1,900 Catholic priests who were 'murdered, raped, burned, starved, beaten, experimented on and humiliated' while the German people looked the other way.
Now, more than ever, with Iran , among others, claiming the Holocaust to be 'a myth,' it is imperative to make sure the world never forgets.
This e-mail is intended to reach 400 million people. Be a link in the memorial chain and help distribute this around the world.
How many years will it be before the attack on the World Trade Center 'NEVER HAPPENED' because it offends some Muslim in the United States ?
Thursday, September 2, 2010
All animals are equal but some are more equal than others,
http://tinyurl.com/3akr2ea
U.S. Soldier, Citing His Muslim Religion, Seeks Conscientious Objector Status By Joshua Rhett Miller
****This sounds like Maj Nadal Hasan but at least this guy hasn't killed anyone, yet.Other Muslims, besides Hasan, HAVE killed their officers while in the military.****
Pfc. Naser Abdo, 20, filed for conscientious objector status in June, claiming his faith and the military simply don't mix. The Texas native says he's endured harassment and discrimination due to his religious beliefs since joining the military last year. A Muslim soldier from Texas who joined the U.S. Army last year now wants to leave the military, claiming he is a conscientious objector whose devotion to Islam has suffered since he took an oath to defend the United States against all enemies.
Pfc. Naser Abdo, a 20-year-old infantryman assigned to the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Ky., filed for conscientious objector status in June because his faith and the military simply don't mix, he told FoxNews.com. The Army has deferred his scheduled deployment to Afghanistan.
"Islam is a peaceful religion, it's not a religion of warfare," Abdo said. "And it's not a religion of terror. As a Muslim, we stand against injustice, we stand against discrimination, and I feel it's my duty as an individual to do this."
Abdo, the Texas-born son of a Muslim father and a Christian mother, said his relatives and wife stand by his decision and that he will likely refuse to deploy if his application for CO status is denied.
"I was more faithful to God before I joined the military and that's what kind of stirred me," he said. Military duties have really consumed every part of my day and did not allow me time to involve myself with the Islamic community to maintain what duties I felt that I owed God. This is really what made me come to the conclusion that I'm not ready to die....
YOU MIGHT ALSO BE INTERESTED IN
Ten Worst Places to Live
3G Buying Burger King for $24/Share
8 Most Deceptive Terms Used in Credit Card Offers
7 Steps to Becoming a One-Income Family
Pending Home Sales Rise 5.2%
"I knew that if I went to Afghanistan and, God forbid, something were to happen, that my faith was so weak that I wouldn't be admitted into heaven….
"The conclusion I came to is that I can't participate in the U.S. military, including any war it's involved in or any war it will be involved in in the future," he said.
Fort Campbell spokeswoman Kelly DeWitt said Abdo's deployment has been deferred, but according to Army regulations he may be deployed to Afghanistan at any time like other members of his unit.
"The Army recognizes that even in our all-volunteer force, a soldier's moral, ethical or religious beliefs may change over time," an Army statement read. "The Army and Fort Campbell has procedures in place for soldiers who declare themselves to be conscientious objectors and who apply for conscientious objector status."
According to documents obtained by The Associated Press, Abdo cited Islamic scholars and verses from the Koran as reasons to seek separation from the Army.
"I realized through further reflection that God did not give legitimacy to the war in Afghanistan, Iraq or any war the U.S. Army would conceivably participate in," he wrote.
J.E. McNeill, an attorney and executive director of the Center on Conscience and War, a Washington-based group that defends the rights of conscientious objectors, said it's difficult to predict the chances that Abdo's application will be approved. But on the surface, she said, it appears Abdo's case meets the standard for conscientious objector status.
"What he has to show is that he's opposed to war in any form," she said. "So the question is, is he opposed to any war or is he opposed to [Iraq and Afghanistan]?"
Applications for conscientious objectors -- defined by Army Regulation 600-43 as a person who is "sincerely opposed, because of religious or deeply held moral or ethical (not political, philosophical, or sociological) beliefs, to participating in war in any form" -- can take up to six months to process. Approval rates in the Army over the last seven years have averaged 58 percent. Across all U.S. military branches, 53 percent of conscientious objector status applications were approved from 2002 through 2006.
Of the 1.4 million enlisted U.S. military personnel as of Sept. 30, 2009, less than half of 1 percent identified themselves as Muslim, according to military statistics, and roughly the same rate of U.S. Army soldiers identified themselves as Muslim. Religious affiliation for military personnel currently serving in Iraq or Afghanistan was not available since servicemembers are not required to disclose that information.
Citing Army regulations, Abdo's attorney, James Branum, said Abdo will be interviewed by a chaplain and a psychologist prior to an informal hearing with an investigating officer, who will recommend whether to approve or deny the application.
If the claim is denied, Branum said Abdo could re-file with new evidence; seek to take the matter to a federal civilian court; refuse to deploy or drop the matter altogether. He acknowledged that Abdo could go to jail if he refuses to obey orders to deploy.
"We're trying to avoid that kind of showdown," Branum told FoxNews.com. "At this moment, Abdo is in a place where he's not going to violate his conscience."
Branum said he's received a "fair number" of emails regarding Abdo's case, some of which he said included death threats against the soldier and suggestions that his citizenship be revoked.
Abdo, for his part, said he has endured harassment, discrimination and intimidation due to his religious beliefs since joining the military, particularly during basic training at Fort Benning in Georgia. He also claimed to be the target of "resentment" from fellow soldiers due to his prayer schedule.
"Some of them would say I hate Jews, some of them even asked me, 'Would you kill your own family? Are you sure you're not on the wrong side?'" Abdo said. "It was daily. It was daily for sure."
A website detailing Abdo's situation has resulted in roughly 15 donations totaling about $250 for his legal defense. He's also received dozens of messages protesting his decision, which he said were "disgusting and hateful."
"You make me sick," read one message. "You make everyone I know sick."
Another message read: "I am not sure why you joined the Army to begin with, but as an Army Wife here at Fort Campbell, KY, I wouldn't want someone like you deploying with MY husband. It's good to stand by your religion and beliefs and I would be lying if I said I understood what they are, because I don't."
Abdo said he understands the dissension.
"By no means am I expecting a standing ovation," he said.
* Print
* Email
* Share
* Comments (1047)
*
* Text Size
* View Article
* Leave a Comment
* Sort: Newest
* Sort: Oldest
1.
Report
View Article
View All Comments (1047)
Leave A Comment
Fox News encourages you to participate in this discussion; however, please be sure to review our Terms of Use and Privacy Statement.
Comments
or
Latest Videos
*
September 02, 2010Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:52:09 GMT7:09 PM EST
Across America: Horrific Crash Caught on Tape
September 02, 2010Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:52:09 GMT7:09 PM EST
Motorcycle collides with truck in Iowa
Loading...
*
September 02, 2010Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:03:19 GMT7:09 PM EST
New Oil Rig Explosion in Gulf
September 02, 2010Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:03:19 GMT7:09 PM EST
Latest developments on oil rig fire
Loading...
*
September 02, 2010Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:07:42 GMT7:09 PM EST
Earl Charges Up East Coast
September 02, 2010Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:07:42 GMT7:09 PM EST
Millions keeping close eye on hurricane
Loading...
*
September 02, 2010Thu, 02 Sep 2010 21:35:26 GMT4:09 PM EST
N.C. as 'Ready as We Can Be' for Earl
September 02, 2010Thu, 02 Sep 2010 21:35:26 GMT4:09 PM EST
N.C. braces for Hurricane Earl
Loading...
*
September 02, 2010Thu, 02 Sep 2010 20:28:19 GMT3:09 PM EST
North Carolina Prepares for the Worst
September 02, 2010Thu, 02 Sep 2010 20:28:19 GMT3:09 PM EST
N.C. residents plan ahead
Loading...
*
September 02, 2010Thu, 02 Sep 2010 20:06:17 GMT3:09 PM EST
'Gang Summit' Under Fire
September 02, 2010Thu, 02 Sep 2010 20:06:17 GMT3:09 PM EST
Chicago police chief criticized
Loading...
1.
2.
3.
Previous Slide Next Slide
credit_center
*
Report: Illegal Immigration in US Sees Big Drop
September 02, 2010
»
*
Tropical Storm Fiona Path Tracks Farther East Than Hurricane Earl [UPDATED]
September 01, 2010
»
*
Vermilion Bay: 3 Things to Know About Gulf Oil Platform Explosion Site
September 02, 2010
»
*
Earl Downgraded to Category 2 as Vacation Disruption Continues
September 02, 2010
»
*
What We Know About the Discovery Channel Gunman
September 01, 2010
»
Most Active in U.S.
* Most Read
* Most Commented
Most Read
*
Oil Platform Explodes Off Louisiana Coast
September 02, 2010
»
*
U.S. Soldier, Citing His Muslim Religion, Seeks Conscientious Objector Status
September 02, 2010
»
*
Gunman's Environmental Grudges Well Known Before Discovery Channel Hostage Standoff
September 01, 2010
»
*
Chicago Police Chief Criticized for 'Gang Summit'
September 02, 2010
»
*
Ranger Whose Tip Led to Capture of Ariz. Fugitives May Be Barred From Getting Reward
September 01, 2010
»
Most Commented
*
New York City Panel Clears Way for Mosque Near Ground Zero
August 03, 2010 1,258 comments
»
*
U.S. Soldier, Citing His Muslim Religion, Seeks Conscientious Objector Status
September 02, 2010 1,004 comments
»
*
Federal Appeals Court Rules Against Utah Memorial Crosses Along Highway
August 18, 2010 886 comments
»
*
Students at Lincoln Memorial Told to Stop Singing National Anthem
August 09, 2010 790 comments
»
*
Immigrant Who Voted Illegally on Road to Becoming a U.S. Citizen
August 26, 2010 744 comments
»
*
*
Beck vs. Obama: Whose Version of Christianity Is More Mainstream?
September 02, 2010
»
*
Second Gulf Explosion Intensifies Debate Over Drilling Moratorium
September 02, 2010
»
*
Sizzurp: The Codeine-Based Hip-Hop 'Drank' of Choice
September 02, 2010
»
*
Exploded Oil Platform Was Damaged by Hurricane Ike, SEC Filing Reveals
September 02, 2010
»
*
Feds Sue 'Toughest Sheriff'; He Comes Out Swinging
September 02, 2010
»
*
How Do You Stop an Elephant Charging?
September 02, 2010
»
*
Democratic Salvage Plan
September 02, 2010
»
*
Kevin A. Hassett and Alan D. Viard: The 97% Fallacy
September 02, 2010
»
*
Tony Blair on the Panic
September 02, 2010
»
*
Wyden Defects on ObamaCare
September 02, 2010
»
*
It’s not that I don’t care about football. I just don’t care enough
June 14, 2010
»
*
Yes, Obama is angry with BP, but not Britain
June 14, 2010
»
*
Can we truly judge Robert Green on one mistake?
June 14, 2010
»
*
Cameron offers us the audacity of despair
June 14, 2010
»
*
De Gaulle would have hated the Saville inquiry
June 14, 2010
»
*
Finland's economic outlook "highly uncertain"-IMF
September 02, 2010
»
*
JGBs fall after data continue easing economy worries
September 02, 2010
»
*
Japan capex fall slows, 2nd qtr GDP seen revised up
September 02, 2010
»
*
Australian Services Improved But Still Contracting
September 02, 2010
»
*
South Korea Q2 Growth Revised To 1.4% From 1.5%
September 02, 2010
»
*
Build a Smarter, Better Web Site
September 02, 2010
»
*
You Take the Credit, or I Take the Blame
September 01, 2010
»
*
Passing Along the Entrepreneur Gene
August 31, 2010
»
*
Loan Picture Improves, Troubles Remain
August 31, 2010
»
*
10 Best Company Nicknames
August 30, 2010
»
*
Therapy Thursday: Keep Showing Up
September 02, 2010
»
*
12 Ways to Keep Going
September 02, 2010
»
*
Statistics You Should Know About College Depression
September 01, 2010
»
*
Warning Signs of College Depression
September 01, 2010
»
*
Seeking Happily Ever After: Some Tips for Singles
August 31, 2010
»
U.S. Soldier, Citing His Muslim Religion, Seeks Conscientious Objector Status By Joshua Rhett Miller
****This sounds like Maj Nadal Hasan but at least this guy hasn't killed anyone, yet.Other Muslims, besides Hasan, HAVE killed their officers while in the military.****
Pfc. Naser Abdo, 20, filed for conscientious objector status in June, claiming his faith and the military simply don't mix. The Texas native says he's endured harassment and discrimination due to his religious beliefs since joining the military last year. A Muslim soldier from Texas who joined the U.S. Army last year now wants to leave the military, claiming he is a conscientious objector whose devotion to Islam has suffered since he took an oath to defend the United States against all enemies.
Pfc. Naser Abdo, a 20-year-old infantryman assigned to the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Ky., filed for conscientious objector status in June because his faith and the military simply don't mix, he told FoxNews.com. The Army has deferred his scheduled deployment to Afghanistan.
"Islam is a peaceful religion, it's not a religion of warfare," Abdo said. "And it's not a religion of terror. As a Muslim, we stand against injustice, we stand against discrimination, and I feel it's my duty as an individual to do this."
Abdo, the Texas-born son of a Muslim father and a Christian mother, said his relatives and wife stand by his decision and that he will likely refuse to deploy if his application for CO status is denied.
"I was more faithful to God before I joined the military and that's what kind of stirred me," he said. Military duties have really consumed every part of my day and did not allow me time to involve myself with the Islamic community to maintain what duties I felt that I owed God. This is really what made me come to the conclusion that I'm not ready to die....
YOU MIGHT ALSO BE INTERESTED IN
Ten Worst Places to Live
3G Buying Burger King for $24/Share
8 Most Deceptive Terms Used in Credit Card Offers
7 Steps to Becoming a One-Income Family
Pending Home Sales Rise 5.2%
"I knew that if I went to Afghanistan and, God forbid, something were to happen, that my faith was so weak that I wouldn't be admitted into heaven….
"The conclusion I came to is that I can't participate in the U.S. military, including any war it's involved in or any war it will be involved in in the future," he said.
Fort Campbell spokeswoman Kelly DeWitt said Abdo's deployment has been deferred, but according to Army regulations he may be deployed to Afghanistan at any time like other members of his unit.
"The Army recognizes that even in our all-volunteer force, a soldier's moral, ethical or religious beliefs may change over time," an Army statement read. "The Army and Fort Campbell has procedures in place for soldiers who declare themselves to be conscientious objectors and who apply for conscientious objector status."
According to documents obtained by The Associated Press, Abdo cited Islamic scholars and verses from the Koran as reasons to seek separation from the Army.
"I realized through further reflection that God did not give legitimacy to the war in Afghanistan, Iraq or any war the U.S. Army would conceivably participate in," he wrote.
J.E. McNeill, an attorney and executive director of the Center on Conscience and War, a Washington-based group that defends the rights of conscientious objectors, said it's difficult to predict the chances that Abdo's application will be approved. But on the surface, she said, it appears Abdo's case meets the standard for conscientious objector status.
"What he has to show is that he's opposed to war in any form," she said. "So the question is, is he opposed to any war or is he opposed to [Iraq and Afghanistan]?"
Applications for conscientious objectors -- defined by Army Regulation 600-43 as a person who is "sincerely opposed, because of religious or deeply held moral or ethical (not political, philosophical, or sociological) beliefs, to participating in war in any form" -- can take up to six months to process. Approval rates in the Army over the last seven years have averaged 58 percent. Across all U.S. military branches, 53 percent of conscientious objector status applications were approved from 2002 through 2006.
Of the 1.4 million enlisted U.S. military personnel as of Sept. 30, 2009, less than half of 1 percent identified themselves as Muslim, according to military statistics, and roughly the same rate of U.S. Army soldiers identified themselves as Muslim. Religious affiliation for military personnel currently serving in Iraq or Afghanistan was not available since servicemembers are not required to disclose that information.
Citing Army regulations, Abdo's attorney, James Branum, said Abdo will be interviewed by a chaplain and a psychologist prior to an informal hearing with an investigating officer, who will recommend whether to approve or deny the application.
If the claim is denied, Branum said Abdo could re-file with new evidence; seek to take the matter to a federal civilian court; refuse to deploy or drop the matter altogether. He acknowledged that Abdo could go to jail if he refuses to obey orders to deploy.
"We're trying to avoid that kind of showdown," Branum told FoxNews.com. "At this moment, Abdo is in a place where he's not going to violate his conscience."
Branum said he's received a "fair number" of emails regarding Abdo's case, some of which he said included death threats against the soldier and suggestions that his citizenship be revoked.
Abdo, for his part, said he has endured harassment, discrimination and intimidation due to his religious beliefs since joining the military, particularly during basic training at Fort Benning in Georgia. He also claimed to be the target of "resentment" from fellow soldiers due to his prayer schedule.
"Some of them would say I hate Jews, some of them even asked me, 'Would you kill your own family? Are you sure you're not on the wrong side?'" Abdo said. "It was daily. It was daily for sure."
A website detailing Abdo's situation has resulted in roughly 15 donations totaling about $250 for his legal defense. He's also received dozens of messages protesting his decision, which he said were "disgusting and hateful."
"You make me sick," read one message. "You make everyone I know sick."
Another message read: "I am not sure why you joined the Army to begin with, but as an Army Wife here at Fort Campbell, KY, I wouldn't want someone like you deploying with MY husband. It's good to stand by your religion and beliefs and I would be lying if I said I understood what they are, because I don't."
Abdo said he understands the dissension.
"By no means am I expecting a standing ovation," he said.
* Share
* Comments (1047)
*
* Text Size
* View Article
* Leave a Comment
* Sort: Newest
* Sort: Oldest
1.
Report
View Article
View All Comments (1047)
Leave A Comment
Fox News encourages you to participate in this discussion; however, please be sure to review our Terms of Use and Privacy Statement.
Comments
or
Latest Videos
*
September 02, 2010Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:52:09 GMT7:09 PM EST
Across America: Horrific Crash Caught on Tape
September 02, 2010Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:52:09 GMT7:09 PM EST
Motorcycle collides with truck in Iowa
Loading...
*
September 02, 2010Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:03:19 GMT7:09 PM EST
New Oil Rig Explosion in Gulf
September 02, 2010Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:03:19 GMT7:09 PM EST
Latest developments on oil rig fire
Loading...
*
September 02, 2010Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:07:42 GMT7:09 PM EST
Earl Charges Up East Coast
September 02, 2010Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:07:42 GMT7:09 PM EST
Millions keeping close eye on hurricane
Loading...
*
September 02, 2010Thu, 02 Sep 2010 21:35:26 GMT4:09 PM EST
N.C. as 'Ready as We Can Be' for Earl
September 02, 2010Thu, 02 Sep 2010 21:35:26 GMT4:09 PM EST
N.C. braces for Hurricane Earl
Loading...
*
September 02, 2010Thu, 02 Sep 2010 20:28:19 GMT3:09 PM EST
North Carolina Prepares for the Worst
September 02, 2010Thu, 02 Sep 2010 20:28:19 GMT3:09 PM EST
N.C. residents plan ahead
Loading...
*
September 02, 2010Thu, 02 Sep 2010 20:06:17 GMT3:09 PM EST
'Gang Summit' Under Fire
September 02, 2010Thu, 02 Sep 2010 20:06:17 GMT3:09 PM EST
Chicago police chief criticized
Loading...
1.
2.
3.
Previous Slide Next Slide
credit_center
*
Report: Illegal Immigration in US Sees Big Drop
September 02, 2010
»
*
Tropical Storm Fiona Path Tracks Farther East Than Hurricane Earl [UPDATED]
September 01, 2010
»
*
Vermilion Bay: 3 Things to Know About Gulf Oil Platform Explosion Site
September 02, 2010
»
*
Earl Downgraded to Category 2 as Vacation Disruption Continues
September 02, 2010
»
*
What We Know About the Discovery Channel Gunman
September 01, 2010
»
Most Active in U.S.
* Most Read
* Most Commented
Most Read
*
Oil Platform Explodes Off Louisiana Coast
September 02, 2010
»
*
U.S. Soldier, Citing His Muslim Religion, Seeks Conscientious Objector Status
September 02, 2010
»
*
Gunman's Environmental Grudges Well Known Before Discovery Channel Hostage Standoff
September 01, 2010
»
*
Chicago Police Chief Criticized for 'Gang Summit'
September 02, 2010
»
*
Ranger Whose Tip Led to Capture of Ariz. Fugitives May Be Barred From Getting Reward
September 01, 2010
»
Most Commented
*
New York City Panel Clears Way for Mosque Near Ground Zero
August 03, 2010 1,258 comments
»
*
U.S. Soldier, Citing His Muslim Religion, Seeks Conscientious Objector Status
September 02, 2010 1,004 comments
»
*
Federal Appeals Court Rules Against Utah Memorial Crosses Along Highway
August 18, 2010 886 comments
»
*
Students at Lincoln Memorial Told to Stop Singing National Anthem
August 09, 2010 790 comments
»
*
Immigrant Who Voted Illegally on Road to Becoming a U.S. Citizen
August 26, 2010 744 comments
»
*
*
Beck vs. Obama: Whose Version of Christianity Is More Mainstream?
September 02, 2010
»
*
Second Gulf Explosion Intensifies Debate Over Drilling Moratorium
September 02, 2010
»
*
Sizzurp: The Codeine-Based Hip-Hop 'Drank' of Choice
September 02, 2010
»
*
Exploded Oil Platform Was Damaged by Hurricane Ike, SEC Filing Reveals
September 02, 2010
»
*
Feds Sue 'Toughest Sheriff'; He Comes Out Swinging
September 02, 2010
»
*
How Do You Stop an Elephant Charging?
September 02, 2010
»
*
Democratic Salvage Plan
September 02, 2010
»
*
Kevin A. Hassett and Alan D. Viard: The 97% Fallacy
September 02, 2010
»
*
Tony Blair on the Panic
September 02, 2010
»
*
Wyden Defects on ObamaCare
September 02, 2010
»
*
It’s not that I don’t care about football. I just don’t care enough
June 14, 2010
»
*
Yes, Obama is angry with BP, but not Britain
June 14, 2010
»
*
Can we truly judge Robert Green on one mistake?
June 14, 2010
»
*
Cameron offers us the audacity of despair
June 14, 2010
»
*
De Gaulle would have hated the Saville inquiry
June 14, 2010
»
*
Finland's economic outlook "highly uncertain"-IMF
September 02, 2010
»
*
JGBs fall after data continue easing economy worries
September 02, 2010
»
*
Japan capex fall slows, 2nd qtr GDP seen revised up
September 02, 2010
»
*
Australian Services Improved But Still Contracting
September 02, 2010
»
*
South Korea Q2 Growth Revised To 1.4% From 1.5%
September 02, 2010
»
*
Build a Smarter, Better Web Site
September 02, 2010
»
*
You Take the Credit, or I Take the Blame
September 01, 2010
»
*
Passing Along the Entrepreneur Gene
August 31, 2010
»
*
Loan Picture Improves, Troubles Remain
August 31, 2010
»
*
10 Best Company Nicknames
August 30, 2010
»
*
Therapy Thursday: Keep Showing Up
September 02, 2010
»
*
12 Ways to Keep Going
September 02, 2010
»
*
Statistics You Should Know About College Depression
September 01, 2010
»
*
Warning Signs of College Depression
September 01, 2010
»
*
Seeking Happily Ever After: Some Tips for Singles
August 31, 2010
»
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
The chimera of "negotiations" and a two-state solution.
O, Palestine! By Moshe Dann American Thinker
The notion of a Palestinian people and Palestinian identity, although taken for granted today, has neither a long nor a distinguished history. Understanding its origins and what it represents explains why the peace process between Israel and the Arabs has failed and will continue to fail.
Inherent in Palestinianism, from its origins, is the rejection of a Jewish state in any form. That opposition is not negotiable and not open to compromise; it is essential.
Palestinianism was never for anything; its raison d'être was to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state. That purpose has never changed.
Concern for Palestine among a few Arab intellectuals, as Columbia University Professor Rashid Khalidi shows in his book on the subject, did not exist until Zionists began settlements at the turn of the century. Most weekly newspapers from that period which he surveyed were not even from Palestine and had scant distribution.
"Palestinian identity" then, as now, was negative, focused entirely on opposition to Zionists rather than a positive self-definition. Arab Palestinian leaders, like the mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husayni, an ardent supporter of the Nazis, and arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat -- both "fathers" of Palestinianism ignored by Khalidi -- rejected Zionism and promoted terrorism.
Local Arab uprisings against British rule were anti-colonial and anti-Zionist, not directed toward another independent Palestinian state. Arab riots and pogroms, like those in 1929 and 1936, for example, were not motivated by Palestinian nationalism; there were no calls for a Palestinian state. The battle cry was, "Kill the Jews."
In 1937, Arab leader Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi told the Peel Commission, "There is no such country as 'Palestine'; 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented!"
The riots of 1936 were whipped up by the newly created "Arab [not Palestinian] Higher Committee," the central political organ of the Arab community of Mandate Palestine, organized by a group of elites led by Amin al-Husayni. In 1948, the Arab League organized the All-Palestine Government, the first attempt to establish an independent Palestinian state. Led by King Abdullah of Jordan and nominally Amin al-Husayni, who had returned from Berlin, where he spent the war, it called for the union of Arab Palestine and Transjordan. Husayni later arranged Abdullah's assassination.
A Palestinian National Council convened in Gaza in 1948, under Amin al-Husayni's leadership, passed resolutions calling for an independent state over all of Palestine, with Jerusalem as its capital. Adopting the flag of the Arab Revolt that had been used by Arab nationalists, it called for the liberation of Palestine. But it had no following.
In 1946, Arab historian Philip Hitti testified before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry that "there is no such thing as Palestine in history." In 1947, Arab leaders protesting the U.N. partition plan argued that Palestine was part of Syria and "politically, the Arabs of Palestine [were] not [an] independent[,] separate ... political entity."
In 1947, the U.N. proposed a "Jewish" State and an "Arab" -- not Palestinian -- State.
The womb of Palestinianism was war, the Nakba (catastrophe) in the Arab narrative, the establishment of the State of Israel. Five well-armed Arab countries invaded the nascent state, joining local Arab gangs and militias in a genocidal war to exterminate the Jews. Yet this was not seen as a war for Palestinian nationalism, or Palestinianism; it was an all-out Arab war against Jews, Zionism, and Zionists.
Arab gangs that attacked Jews in 1948, composed of locals and Arabs from the region, were called the "Arab -- not Palestininian -- Army of Liberation." The reason is that prior to Israel's establishment, the notion of a "Palestinian people" simply did not exist, or was irrelevant, because Arab affiliations are primarily familial and tribal -- not national. And because "Palestinian" then meant something else.
Before 1948, those who were called (and called themselves) "Palestinians" were Jews, not Arabs, although both carried the same British passports. In fact, only after Jews in Palestine called themselves Israelis, in 1948, could Arabs adopt "Palestinian," as theirs exclusively.
The idea of an "Arab Palestinian people" was formed and enshrined in UNRWA "refugee camps" -- today, large, developed towns -- where its residents are indoctrinated with hatred, the "right of return" to Israel, and Israel's eventual destruction. Except in Jordan, which granted them citizenship, the residents of these UNRWA towns in Lebanon and Syria are severely restricted and denied basic human and civil rights.
UNRWA's controversial definition of "Arab refugee" includes anyone who claimed residence in Palestine since 1946, regardless of origin; this date is important because it marks the high point of a massive influx of Arabs from the region into Palestine, primarily due to employment opportunities and a higher standard of living. This category of "refugees," moreover, was different from all others in that it included not only those who applied in 1949, but all of their descendants, forever, with full rights and privileges. This is one of the core issues preventing any resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. UNRWA's existence, therefore, perpetuates the conflict, prevents Israel's acceptance, and breeds violence and terrorism.
Ironically, only when Israel took control of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza could the residents of UNRWA towns in those areas move and work freely, obtain decent education and health care, and express a newly designed Palestinianism -- albeit often dedicated to violence and Israel's destruction.
With an annual budget of over a half-billion dollars, UNRWA supports about one-and-a-half million "refugees" in 58 "camps" and 5 million "registered refugees" (throughout the world) -- who can claim their "rights" as "refugees" at any time. The total population is expected to reach 7 or 8 million next year, and it keeps growing.
Were it not for the policies of Arab countries and UNRWA, the "Arab refugees" might have followed the example of Jewish refugees who were expelled from Arab countries, came to Israel, and went on to live normal lives. Given the same chance, perhaps, Arab Palestinians might have established a state of their own. The desire to destroy Israel, however, trumps state-building, and it is fundamental to Palestinianism.
The first attempt to define Palestinianism was in 1964, in the PLO Covenant, during Jordan's occupation of "the West Bank" (a Jordanian reference from 1950 to distinguish the area from the East Bank of the Jordan River) and when Egypt held the Gaza Strip. On behalf of the "Palestinian Arab people," the Covenant declared their goal: a "holy war" (jihad) to "liberate Palestine," i.e. destroy Israel. There was no mention of Arabs living in "the West Bank" and Gaza Strip, since that would have threatened Arab rulers. Arab "refugees" were convenient proxies in the war against Israel, not their hosts; Palestinianism became a replacement nationalism for Zionism, a call to arms against Jews.
This balancing act was no longer necessary after 1967, when Israel acquired areas that had been originally assigned to a Jewish State by the League of Nations and British Mandate -- Judea, Samaria, eastern Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip -- and the Golan Heights, all rich in Jewish history and archeology. A year later, the PLO Covenant was amended to cover both "occupations" -- in 1948 and 1967.
Dedicated to armed struggle, their goal has never changed; unable to defeat Israel militarily, however, the Arab strategy is to demonize and delegitimize, creating yet another Arab Palestinian state in addition to Jordan. In order to accomplish this, they concocted a narrative, an identity, and an ethos to compete with Zionism and Jewish history: Palestinianism.
Presented in the PLO Covenant and Hamas Charter (1988), the purpose of Palestinianism is to "liberate Palestine" and destroy Israel; neither reflects any redeeming social or cultural values. Moreover, Palestinianism is moving towards Islamist extremism.
According to Palestinian Basic Law (Article 4), ratified by PA President Mohammed Abbas in 2005:
1. Islam is the official religion in Palestine. Respect for the sanctity of all other divine religions shall be maintained.
2. The principles of Islamic Shari'a shall be a principal source of legislation.
3. Arabic shall be the official language.
http://muqtafi.birzeit.edu/mainleg/14138.htm
"Palestinianism" lacks the basic requirements of legitimate national identity: a separate, unique linguistic, cultural, ethnic, or religious basis. It is nothing more than a political-military construct, currently led by Fatah and Hamas terrorist organizations. Yet it became legitimized by the U.N.
Despite PLO mega-terrorist attacks, and backed by the Arab League, Muslim a"non-aligned" countries, the PLO was accepted by the United Nations in 1974. The following year, the U.N. passed its infamous "Zionism is Racism" resolution, sanctioning Israel's demonization and setting the U.N. on a course of Israel's destruction.
The myth of Palestinianism worked because the media accepted Arab and PLO claims and their cause. Nearly all media, for example, use the term "Palestinian" or "Israeli-occupied West Bank," reinforcing Palestinian claims, rather than the authentic designation which appears on earlier maps, Judea and Samaria, which refer to the regions' Jewish history. The use of "West Bank" is a political, not a geographic statement.
Eventually, by the early 1990s, Palestinianism was accepted by some Israeli politicians, Left-dominated media, academia, cultural elite, and some jurists as a way of expressing their opposition to "settlements" and hoping for some sort of mutual recognition with the PLO. Their efforts culminated in the Oslo Accords (1993), which gave official Israeli sanction to Palestinianism.
Anti-Israel academics around the world promote "Palestinian" archeology, society, and culture as a brand name and a political message. Advertising works; every time someone uses the term "Palestinian," it acknowledges and reinforces this myth.
Palestinianism, however, regardless of its lack of historical, cultural, and social roots, is now well-established and here to stay as a political identity that demands sovereign rights and a territorial base. The question seems to be not if, but where.
The solution is regional. Arab Palestinians are entitled to civil and human rights in their host countries, where they have lived for generations. A second Arab Palestinian state, in addition to Jordan, which was carved out of Palestine in 1921 -- whose population is two-thirds "Palestinian" -- will not resolve any core issues at the heart of the conflict. The conflict is not territorial, but existential; recognition of a Jewish state -- i.e., Israel -- is anathema to the Palestinian cause. That explains why Palestinian Arab leaders refuse to accept it in any form.
The problem for Palestinianism is not "the occupation" in 1967, but Israel's existence; seen as an exclusively Arab homeland, Palestine is an integral part of the Arab world, completely under Arab sovereignty. This is axiomatic; there are no exceptions and no compromises.
Promoted in media, mosques, and schools, anti-Jewish incitement, denial of the Holocaust and Jewish history, and rejection of the right of Jewish national self-determination, by definition, Palestinianism is the greatest obstacle to peace.
The notion of a Palestinian people and Palestinian identity, although taken for granted today, has neither a long nor a distinguished history. Understanding its origins and what it represents explains why the peace process between Israel and the Arabs has failed and will continue to fail.
Inherent in Palestinianism, from its origins, is the rejection of a Jewish state in any form. That opposition is not negotiable and not open to compromise; it is essential.
Palestinianism was never for anything; its raison d'être was to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state. That purpose has never changed.
Concern for Palestine among a few Arab intellectuals, as Columbia University Professor Rashid Khalidi shows in his book on the subject, did not exist until Zionists began settlements at the turn of the century. Most weekly newspapers from that period which he surveyed were not even from Palestine and had scant distribution.
"Palestinian identity" then, as now, was negative, focused entirely on opposition to Zionists rather than a positive self-definition. Arab Palestinian leaders, like the mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husayni, an ardent supporter of the Nazis, and arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat -- both "fathers" of Palestinianism ignored by Khalidi -- rejected Zionism and promoted terrorism.
Local Arab uprisings against British rule were anti-colonial and anti-Zionist, not directed toward another independent Palestinian state. Arab riots and pogroms, like those in 1929 and 1936, for example, were not motivated by Palestinian nationalism; there were no calls for a Palestinian state. The battle cry was, "Kill the Jews."
In 1937, Arab leader Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi told the Peel Commission, "There is no such country as 'Palestine'; 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented!"
The riots of 1936 were whipped up by the newly created "Arab [not Palestinian] Higher Committee," the central political organ of the Arab community of Mandate Palestine, organized by a group of elites led by Amin al-Husayni. In 1948, the Arab League organized the All-Palestine Government, the first attempt to establish an independent Palestinian state. Led by King Abdullah of Jordan and nominally Amin al-Husayni, who had returned from Berlin, where he spent the war, it called for the union of Arab Palestine and Transjordan. Husayni later arranged Abdullah's assassination.
A Palestinian National Council convened in Gaza in 1948, under Amin al-Husayni's leadership, passed resolutions calling for an independent state over all of Palestine, with Jerusalem as its capital. Adopting the flag of the Arab Revolt that had been used by Arab nationalists, it called for the liberation of Palestine. But it had no following.
In 1946, Arab historian Philip Hitti testified before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry that "there is no such thing as Palestine in history." In 1947, Arab leaders protesting the U.N. partition plan argued that Palestine was part of Syria and "politically, the Arabs of Palestine [were] not [an] independent[,] separate ... political entity."
In 1947, the U.N. proposed a "Jewish" State and an "Arab" -- not Palestinian -- State.
The womb of Palestinianism was war, the Nakba (catastrophe) in the Arab narrative, the establishment of the State of Israel. Five well-armed Arab countries invaded the nascent state, joining local Arab gangs and militias in a genocidal war to exterminate the Jews. Yet this was not seen as a war for Palestinian nationalism, or Palestinianism; it was an all-out Arab war against Jews, Zionism, and Zionists.
Arab gangs that attacked Jews in 1948, composed of locals and Arabs from the region, were called the "Arab -- not Palestininian -- Army of Liberation." The reason is that prior to Israel's establishment, the notion of a "Palestinian people" simply did not exist, or was irrelevant, because Arab affiliations are primarily familial and tribal -- not national. And because "Palestinian" then meant something else.
Before 1948, those who were called (and called themselves) "Palestinians" were Jews, not Arabs, although both carried the same British passports. In fact, only after Jews in Palestine called themselves Israelis, in 1948, could Arabs adopt "Palestinian," as theirs exclusively.
The idea of an "Arab Palestinian people" was formed and enshrined in UNRWA "refugee camps" -- today, large, developed towns -- where its residents are indoctrinated with hatred, the "right of return" to Israel, and Israel's eventual destruction. Except in Jordan, which granted them citizenship, the residents of these UNRWA towns in Lebanon and Syria are severely restricted and denied basic human and civil rights.
UNRWA's controversial definition of "Arab refugee" includes anyone who claimed residence in Palestine since 1946, regardless of origin; this date is important because it marks the high point of a massive influx of Arabs from the region into Palestine, primarily due to employment opportunities and a higher standard of living. This category of "refugees," moreover, was different from all others in that it included not only those who applied in 1949, but all of their descendants, forever, with full rights and privileges. This is one of the core issues preventing any resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. UNRWA's existence, therefore, perpetuates the conflict, prevents Israel's acceptance, and breeds violence and terrorism.
Ironically, only when Israel took control of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza could the residents of UNRWA towns in those areas move and work freely, obtain decent education and health care, and express a newly designed Palestinianism -- albeit often dedicated to violence and Israel's destruction.
With an annual budget of over a half-billion dollars, UNRWA supports about one-and-a-half million "refugees" in 58 "camps" and 5 million "registered refugees" (throughout the world) -- who can claim their "rights" as "refugees" at any time. The total population is expected to reach 7 or 8 million next year, and it keeps growing.
Were it not for the policies of Arab countries and UNRWA, the "Arab refugees" might have followed the example of Jewish refugees who were expelled from Arab countries, came to Israel, and went on to live normal lives. Given the same chance, perhaps, Arab Palestinians might have established a state of their own. The desire to destroy Israel, however, trumps state-building, and it is fundamental to Palestinianism.
The first attempt to define Palestinianism was in 1964, in the PLO Covenant, during Jordan's occupation of "the West Bank" (a Jordanian reference from 1950 to distinguish the area from the East Bank of the Jordan River) and when Egypt held the Gaza Strip. On behalf of the "Palestinian Arab people," the Covenant declared their goal: a "holy war" (jihad) to "liberate Palestine," i.e. destroy Israel. There was no mention of Arabs living in "the West Bank" and Gaza Strip, since that would have threatened Arab rulers. Arab "refugees" were convenient proxies in the war against Israel, not their hosts; Palestinianism became a replacement nationalism for Zionism, a call to arms against Jews.
This balancing act was no longer necessary after 1967, when Israel acquired areas that had been originally assigned to a Jewish State by the League of Nations and British Mandate -- Judea, Samaria, eastern Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip -- and the Golan Heights, all rich in Jewish history and archeology. A year later, the PLO Covenant was amended to cover both "occupations" -- in 1948 and 1967.
Dedicated to armed struggle, their goal has never changed; unable to defeat Israel militarily, however, the Arab strategy is to demonize and delegitimize, creating yet another Arab Palestinian state in addition to Jordan. In order to accomplish this, they concocted a narrative, an identity, and an ethos to compete with Zionism and Jewish history: Palestinianism.
Presented in the PLO Covenant and Hamas Charter (1988), the purpose of Palestinianism is to "liberate Palestine" and destroy Israel; neither reflects any redeeming social or cultural values. Moreover, Palestinianism is moving towards Islamist extremism.
According to Palestinian Basic Law (Article 4), ratified by PA President Mohammed Abbas in 2005:
1. Islam is the official religion in Palestine. Respect for the sanctity of all other divine religions shall be maintained.
2. The principles of Islamic Shari'a shall be a principal source of legislation.
3. Arabic shall be the official language.
http://muqtafi.birzeit.edu/mainleg/14138.htm
"Palestinianism" lacks the basic requirements of legitimate national identity: a separate, unique linguistic, cultural, ethnic, or religious basis. It is nothing more than a political-military construct, currently led by Fatah and Hamas terrorist organizations. Yet it became legitimized by the U.N.
Despite PLO mega-terrorist attacks, and backed by the Arab League, Muslim a"non-aligned" countries, the PLO was accepted by the United Nations in 1974. The following year, the U.N. passed its infamous "Zionism is Racism" resolution, sanctioning Israel's demonization and setting the U.N. on a course of Israel's destruction.
The myth of Palestinianism worked because the media accepted Arab and PLO claims and their cause. Nearly all media, for example, use the term "Palestinian" or "Israeli-occupied West Bank," reinforcing Palestinian claims, rather than the authentic designation which appears on earlier maps, Judea and Samaria, which refer to the regions' Jewish history. The use of "West Bank" is a political, not a geographic statement.
Eventually, by the early 1990s, Palestinianism was accepted by some Israeli politicians, Left-dominated media, academia, cultural elite, and some jurists as a way of expressing their opposition to "settlements" and hoping for some sort of mutual recognition with the PLO. Their efforts culminated in the Oslo Accords (1993), which gave official Israeli sanction to Palestinianism.
Anti-Israel academics around the world promote "Palestinian" archeology, society, and culture as a brand name and a political message. Advertising works; every time someone uses the term "Palestinian," it acknowledges and reinforces this myth.
Palestinianism, however, regardless of its lack of historical, cultural, and social roots, is now well-established and here to stay as a political identity that demands sovereign rights and a territorial base. The question seems to be not if, but where.
The solution is regional. Arab Palestinians are entitled to civil and human rights in their host countries, where they have lived for generations. A second Arab Palestinian state, in addition to Jordan, which was carved out of Palestine in 1921 -- whose population is two-thirds "Palestinian" -- will not resolve any core issues at the heart of the conflict. The conflict is not territorial, but existential; recognition of a Jewish state -- i.e., Israel -- is anathema to the Palestinian cause. That explains why Palestinian Arab leaders refuse to accept it in any form.
The problem for Palestinianism is not "the occupation" in 1967, but Israel's existence; seen as an exclusively Arab homeland, Palestine is an integral part of the Arab world, completely under Arab sovereignty. This is axiomatic; there are no exceptions and no compromises.
Promoted in media, mosques, and schools, anti-Jewish incitement, denial of the Holocaust and Jewish history, and rejection of the right of Jewish national self-determination, by definition, Palestinianism is the greatest obstacle to peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)