Doc's Talk: Keep the Change

Saturday, May 24, 2008

Keep the Change

Nidra Poller

As Barack Hussein Obama unravels his worshippers pick up the dropped rows and reweave their idol. Obama-critical media bring out a daily crop, the pro-Obama press whispers an occasional unflattering revelation, and the super-candidate keeps on raking in the delegates. Undaunted by their crooner’s America-be-damned preacher, sleazy business and political associates, pro-Palestinian and leftwing terrorists buddies, the swooners see no evil. A hearty victory in North Carolina, barely offset by a slim loss in Indiana, has apparently sealed the fate of his rival for the Democratic nomination. Talk to an otherwise thoughtful intelligent person who has fallen in love with Obama. The facts don’t faze her. Why should they? Irrational infatuation can’t be squelched by rational argument. Young people believe he is the breath of springtime, Jews are convinced he loves Israel, whites seek purification in the fountain of his blackness, internationalists swear his diversity is a winning ticket for worldwide admiration, Republicans think he’ll be relatively easy to beat, and peacemongers promise the war in Iraq will disappear as soon as he’s elected…because he was against it. Judging by the near-unanimous black vote in North Carolina’s Democratic primary, Obama’s version of (un)civil (W)rights is food for the soul.

Wary of Obama-bashing, editors swear off the subject…for a few hours…and then grind out another dozen. Yet this plethora of criticism, which is becoming uniform and predictable, still respects an invisible barrier.

There is an understandable reluctance to judge “the first African-American presidential candidate” by the same rules that would apply to a white supremacist who stoked anti-black resentment while claiming to heal the wounds of our ailing democracy. The white agitator would be declared unfit to compete for the highest office. Obama’s personal charm, appealing intelligence, velvet voice, and graceful gait do not look like dangerous extremism. Anything that would resemble discriminatory exaggeration of his negative qualities is abhorrent to most Americans. This explains why the racialism of his campaign remained off-limits until the Reverend Wright’s sermons forced it front and center. Likewise, references to his Muslim origins have been skirted, refuted, treated as irrelevant…or irreverent. The possibility that the charismatic Obama--promising pure in heart born-again politics, beholden to no special interests-- might be a truly dangerous candidate is swept away with a knowing smile. OK, maybe he’s just one more political hack with a big smile, dirty deals, and wooden nickels? That doesn’t make him a danger to democracy!

What if Obama is closer to the Lindbergh of “The Plot Against America” than the New Improved Kennedy of neo-Sixties dreamers? Caroline Glick (“Obama the Saviour,” Jerusalem Post) analyzes the fascist undertones of Obama’s messianic message.

“Michelle Obama said that her husband… is the only candidate… who understands that before America can solve its problems, Americans have to fix their broken souls…. Mrs. Obama's statement is nothing less than a renunciation of democracy and an embrace of fascism…. The basic idea of liberty… is that people… have a right to expect that their government will butt out of their souls."

Obama’s promise as a foreign relations healer stirs the souls of French Obamaniacs. Where diversity is the code word for compromise with encroaching Islam, Obama has it all: black and white, Christian and Muslim, American and Kenyan, oppressed victim and success story. Putting Obama’s face on the United States will reverse the legitimate hatred provoked by George W. Bush. By electing Obama American voters will atone for slavery, racism, discrimination, Guantanamo and, of course, the war in Iraq. If they have the courage to vote for a black president, all might be forgiven. That’s change Frenchmen can believe in.

What’s behind the face? What’s in the name? Why do we have to prove we are not racist? Barack Hussein Obama graduated from Harvard, became a senator, lives in luxury, and has a campaign treasure chest that would be the envy of any candidate in any other country in the world. Wouldn’t a Christian president of Saudi Arabia, a Jewish prime minister in Lebanon, a white chancellor in Sudan, a Buddhist leader in Sénégal do more to promote international diversity than an American president with added racial and ethnic value?

The shifting play of Obama’s attributes is a story in itself. The “Barack Hussein” factor may be mentioned as a sign of hope for harmonious relations with the Muslim world; it cannot be cited as a possible drawback in this era of conflict between Islam and the West. His fervent Christian faith can be held as proof that he is not a closet Muslim; it cannot be compared to President Bush’s shameful religiosity. His love of Israel is taken at face value; his lifelong association with anti-Zionists is declared inoperative.

Inordinate love for Obama is the countercoup of unjustified hatred of Bush and both extremes are based on the question of war and peace. Bush, like every leader who stands for a military response to jihad—Sharon, Blair, Berlusconi, and now Sarkozy—is treated as the epitome of evil, portrayed in grotesque caricatures, blamed for the deaths of soldiers, civilians, and human rights.

The irrational worship of Obama, above and beyond his personal and political future, will have to be confronted. Jihad conquest offers three possibilities: conversion, death, or dhimmitude. The very notion that we are being faced with this alternative is anathema to those who want to accept dhimmitude without admitting their craven resignation. This includes, of course, the masses of well-meaning citizens who believe there is no war except the one fabricated by George W. Bush.

Obama is their man. Because, in his diversity, he looks like those who hate us, we can accept their hatred as justifiable, and appease it by putting his face on America: look, we are the same as you. Conversion. Because he voted against the war in Iraq, it will lose its raison d’être if we elect him. By admitting our guilt for the war, we will obtain redemption…from the hands of those who vow to destroy us. We will promise to forego violence and accept their dominion as just and rightful. Dhimmitude.

The exaggerated adoration of Barack Hussein Obama lies beyond the pale of democratic enthusiasm. Claiming to be a new brand of squeaky clean politician with a monopoly on hope, he stokes resentment in black people, surreptitiously encourages antisemitic attitudes, disingenuously stimulates racial divisiveness. Posing as the knight in shining anti-war armor he brings prestige and mass adhesion to what has remained a marginal surrender option.

It would be a mistake to assume that the Obama campaign machine will bog down as it comes roaring out of the Democratic Convention. One conversation with one Obama fan is enough to show that anyone can be touched by his ambiguous light.

Posted by Pamela Geller on Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 10:39 AM in Muslim in the White House?, Nidra Poller Exclusive: Baked on the Premises, White House 2008 | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack (0)

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk