Friday, May 21, 2010

Dangerous Naïveté or Hidden Enmity?

Lets see if you can answer this short quiz:
1. Which organization is most responsible for the wave of kidnappings of Westerners in Lebanon in the '80s?
2. Which organization is responsible for the 1983 bombing of the US Embassy and the Marines barracks in Beirut which killed 241 Americans?
3. Which organization kidnapped and murdered US Marine Col. William Higgins and the CIA Beirut station chief William Buckley?
4. Which organization is responsible for the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy and the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires which left 85 innocents dead?

If you answered Hezbollah to all of the above, you were right, if not, you were either uniformed or chose to oversee the facts....Much like Obama's "counter-terrorism" chief, John Brennan. Recently, he announced that the Obama administration wants to "try to build up the more moderate elements" within Hezbollah!

In a murderous group officially labeled as a "foreign terrorist organization" by the U.S. State Department, closely tied to Iran, which funds and supplies it and third most responsible for American casualties (after Al Qaeda and Taliban), a deluded Administration wants to “build up (…) more moderate elements”.

Brennan is quoted as saying that Hezbollah has evolved from "purely a terrorist organization" to a militia to an organization that now has members within the parliament and the cabinet. Does that mean that a moderate wing of Hezbollah now exists or does this mean that a terrorist group has infiltrated the government of Lebanon?

When a terrorist group takes on quasi-governmental characteristics, as Hamas has done in Gaza, or forces its way into elected positions in a weak state, as Hezbollah has done in Lebanon, that is not "evolution" - it is another step toward those groups' original goal: bringing down a fledging democracy and replace it with an Islamist government. The Nazis in the 1930’s Germany employed similar tactics and used democratic institutions in order to destroy democracy.

Brennan has a history of controversial judgement to say the least. In a speech last February to the Islamic Center at New York University, Brennan said, "And, in all my travels the city I have come to love most is Al-Quds, Jerusalem, where three great faiths come together." Al-Quds, the Arabic name for Jerusalem, is an Islamist rallying cry. The Ayatollah Khomeini declared the last Friday of Ramadan "Al Quds Day “- "The Day of the Oppressed". Maybe someone should have reminded this rambling idiot that The “Al Quds Brigades” is the name of the "military wing" of a Palestinian Islamist terrorist group and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps has a secret “Al Quds unit”, that coordinates with its terrorist proxies such as Hezbollah. For an American counterterrorism official to use such a weighted phrase to gratify a Muslim audience is not only troubling, it’s either proof of dangerous naïveté or down right stupidity (or both).
In the mean time, his boss, the most anti-Israel President in this country’s history pressures Israel not to build in….Al-Quds.

It is hard to believe that an “expert” in counterterrorism and the Middle East, as Brennan purports himself to be, could be so blind to the reality of Hezbollah, or to the real and growing danger of Iranian power in the region. It so hard to believe that the only other logical conclusion would be that Brennan knows exactly what he is saying and reflects the growing anti-Israel position of his boss, while at the same time, trying to appease the Islamo-Nazis. Reaching out to "build up" imaginary moderates in Hezbollah can only strengthen the Iranian regime, as Obama’s impotent policies toward Iran in the last 17 months have already done, while playing to the far left base of the Democrat Party by showing that the Administration is “building bridges” with the murderers.

Since Brennan is the subject of media speculation as a possible replacement for outgoing Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, we should all be deeply troubled that a man in whom Obama places such confidence advances such a misguided and out of touch view of our nation's enemies.

Monday, May 17, 2010

Why Didn't Obama Mention Islam?

Most clearly thinking Americans disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the US foreign policy in general and the war on Islamic terror in particular, but it seems that in Muslim countries, his "over seas contingency operations" are viewed favorably. 'Al-Sharq Al-Awsat,' a leading international Arab newspaper has hailed Obama for officially removing the description “Muslim terrorist” as part of his campaign “to reach out to the Muslim world.” The op-ed did not note the radical Muslim background of the terrorists and reasoned they are equal to other terrorists whose religion is not connected with their acts.

The Saudi owned newspaper, published in London, ran an op-ed last week under the headline "Why Didn't Obama Mention Islam?." The Obama administration has broken from the Bush government’s policy of using the term “Islamic terrorism” in official documents and "no longer [is] responding to extremist voices" that call for targeting home countries of terrorists, the article explained.

Echoing views in the Muslim worls, the newspaper sees Obama carrying out his pledge in his “reaching out to Muslims speech” at Cairo University in June 2008. Regarding Obama's statements on the botched Times Square bombing, the editor praised him for not once referring to prime suspect Faisal Shahzad’s as being a Muslim and for not “mentioning Islam in discussing the terrorist operation."

The same approach was taken after the failed Christmas Day bombing by Nigerian Muslim Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalib. “Obama spoke about the detained terrorist as a member of the Al-Qaeda organization but he did not speak about him being a Muslim. (...) Even when he spoke about Al-Qaeda, Obama noted that it was not the first time that the network had targeted America, ignoring the links that were made in the past between the organization and Islam or when it was put in the context of 'Islamic extremism.'"

Similarly, after the Fort Hood, Texas attack by a Muslim terrorist who murdered 13 people last November, “President Obama 'cautioned against jumping to conclusions’” and did not refer to the terrorist's Arab origin or religion.

The article did not mention that most, if not all, Arab terrorists are indoctrinated by Muslim extremism. Instead, the editor argued that describing terrorists as Muslims actually provokes more terror. “There is recognition today of the fact that terrorists are benefiting from the creation of an anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim atmosphere after any terrorist operation, and that issuing statements or taking steps that target Muslims employed by extremist groups further spreads hostility against the U.S., the West, and even moderate Islamic states,” he reasoned.

The writer argued that “the identity of the terrorist does not necessarily implicate the country he belongs to, in the same way that other adherents of the religion the terrorist follows should not be condemned."

He accused former President George W. Bush of being “captive to the Big Stick policy and slogans of 'you're either with us or against us,' which caused the popularity of the U.S. to wane, not only in the Islamic world but in numerous countries around the world." In contrast, he continued, “The new president has extended his hand to the Islamic world,… and the tendency to link every terrorist operation to the religion of the perpetrator has disappeared.”

The policy of appeasment towards Islamic fascism, the pre-911 mentality together with a wilful attitude of denying reality and hiding from facts are a dangerous characteristic of this Administration.

Monday, May 10, 2010

US Jews Start to Wake Up

There are signs that American Jews are (finally) starting to wake up and see the Obama Administration for what it really is: a radical, anti-Israel Administration.

A recent
poll by the McLaughlin Group shows that Obama has lost nearly half of his support among American Jews.

The US Jews polled were asked whether they would: (a) vote to re-elect Obama, or (b) consider voting for someone else. 42% said they would vote for Obama and 46%, a plurality, preferred the second answer. 12% said they did not know or refused to answer.

In the Presidential elections of 2008, 78% of Jewish voters, or close to 8 out of 10, chose Obama. The McLaughlin poll held nearly 18 months later, in April 2010, appears to show that support down to around 4 out of 10.

The poll showed that key voter segments including Orthodox/Hassidic voters, Conservative voters, voters who have friends and family in Israel and those who have been to Israel, are all more likely to consider voting for someone other than Obama.

Among Orthodox/Hassidic voters, 69% marked 'someone else' vs. 17% who marked 're-elect.' Among Conservative-affiliated voters the proportion was 50% to 38%. Among Reform Jews, a slim majority of 52% still supported Obama while 36% indicated they would consider someone else. Among Jews with family in Israel and those who had been to Israel, about 50% said they would consider someone else, while 41%-42% supported Obama.

Although 50% of the Jewish voters polled said they approved of the job Obama is doing handling US relations with Israel (!?!), 39% said they disapproved.
For a group of voters that have been traditionally Democratic (
only 16% of US Jews are believed to be Republican), this rating is not good news.

A majority of 52% said they disapproved of the idea of the Obama Administration supporting a plan to recognize a Palestinian state within two years. 62% said that if given a state, “the Palestinians would continue their campaign of terror to destroy Israel.” Only 19% thought they would live peacefully with Israel.

As Obama loses support among members of the influential Jewish voter bloc, possible Republican candidate Sarah Palin seems to be doing her best to woo them to her camp. At Time Magazine’s May 4 dinner honoring the ‘100 Most Influential People in the World,’ she was sporting a US/Israel flag pin.

Barack Obama is widely perceived to be behind the de facto construction freeze in eastern Jerusalem. The construction freeze sought by Obama is discriminatory, as by law, the entire city of Jerusalem is under Israeli sovereignty, and no distinction should be made between various neighborhoods.