Doc's Talk: The Dinesh D’Souza/Wm. Ayers debate

Sunday, February 02, 2014

The Dinesh D’Souza/Wm. Ayers debate – Polar Opposites Collide

By Jerome S. Kaufman

On January 30 we viewed a live debate between Dinesh D’Souza, political commentator and author and William Ayers, retired educator and political activist. The focus of the debate was What is so great about America?

D’Souza is the author of six New York Times best-selling books. In 2012, D’Souza released 2016: Obama’s America, a film based upon his 2010 book, The Roots of Obama’s Rage. The film has been the highest grossing conservative political film produced in the United States. D’Souza also served as a policy advisor to President Ronald Reagan and, during 2010–2012, as president of The King’s College, a small Christian school in New York City.

William Ayers is an American elementary education theorist and a former leader in the counterculture movement that opposed U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. In 1969 he co-founded the Weather Underground, a self-described communist revolutionary group that conducted a campaign of bombing public buildings during the 1960s and 1970s in response to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.

Ayers participated in the bombings of New York City Police Department headquarters in 1970, the United States Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972, as he proudly noted in his 2001 book, Fugitive Days. Diana Oughton, his former girlfriend, died in 1970 after a bomb exploded while she was preparing the bombs for Weather Underground activities!

Ayers opened the discussion What is Great about America by making the outrageous statement that his home city of Chicago was what is great. He authenticated this statement with a rambling bunch of platitudes including Chicago being the former home of community organizer Barack Obama along with Michael Jordan with an aside for Al Capone.

Somehow absent from his discussion was the fact that University of Illinois at Chicago professor and former alderman, Dick Simpson labeled Chicago, “The Most Corrupt City in the Nation.”

As to the state of Illinois, its previous Governor, Rod Blogojevich, was convicted of corruption in 2011, including allegations that he tried to sell or trade President Barack Obama’s old Senate seat for personal gain. Incidentally, Illinois’s last four of seven Governors have served prison terms!

No wonder Ayers is so proud of Chicago and the state of Illinois. Their actions obviously conform to the basic tenets of his destructive communist Weather Underground.

The rest of his speech was devoted entirely to advising the students to keep an open mind, stay clear of the recommendations and orders of the establishment, view Congress as just an auction house. No need for them to accept rulers or authority of any kind — certainly no need to follow society’s mores outlining manners, sexual preferences, or anything counter to their own idea of social justice.

Ayers has never expressed regrets over his bombing career and seemed to be advising the students to take a similar path. He was very proud of the fact that his wife, Bernadine Dohrn was part of the leadership of the Weather Underground, has a long history of arrests and finally did spend several months in jail.

He recommended absolutely nothing constructive. How to study for a profession, learn a trade, make an honest living, start a family, participate within the political system and try to change it within the law. None of these archaic establishment ideas were presented. He also managed to make a pitch for the Left’s ridiculous, scientifically denied “global warming.”

Ayers must be very proud of his star pupil, Barack Obama, who is doing a fine job of destroying the United States of America in every possible way — economically, politically, militarily and obliterating its aura as an exceptional nation and a force with which to be reckoned.

What did Dinesh D’Souza say? He rightfully paid no attention whatever to Ayers rambling dissertation that could only appeal to naive first and second year college students. He instead made a genuine attempt to stay on topic as to What makes America Great.

D’Souza presented, with his brilliant mind, an unusual concept. He said the unique contribution of America to the world was the “Creation of Wealth”. Somehow, no previous nation in history has ever concerned itself with allowing the common man to make a decent living and to genuinely participate and develop the wealth of the nation in which he lived.

Quite the opposite — the little guy has always been kept down. D’Souza described his India where lump-teen classes of society were created and climbing up from one to the other was virtually impossible — little different from the apartheid state of South Africa. What about the Czars of Russia, the various European Kings, the Kings, Queens, Noblemen of England, France? Were they concerned with “creating wealth’’ or prosperity for their common man? To my mind that is indeed the basis of how this country became great and D’Souza hit the nail right on the head.

D’Souza did disappoint me badly in one area.

At the end of the question and answer session some sick little pip squeak got up and launched into the usual spew of Jew Hatred declaring that Israel was an apartheid state and the Arabs were a persecuted minority and lived as second class citizens. His motive was transparent — the Jew Hater’s and far Left’s supreme goal of destroying the Jewish nation.

It was a terrific moment for William Ayers who immediately jumped on the pip squeak’s band wagon echoing his words saying that Israel was indeed an apartheid state and why should we support them.

I know that D’Souza understands and greatly appreciates the importance of Israel to US interests and democratic philosophy and vice versa. Unfortunately, he presented a very weak, apologetic defensive response to the little pip squeak.

He did say that Israel is our best friend in the Middle East; that the Arabs declared Israel as the little Satan while the US is the Big Satan and both were destined to destruction by the Arabs, the Muslims and the haters of the world.

But, then he backed off and explained to the audience that the US was just picking the lesser of evils. How dare he? Is he really that stupid. I doubt it. He relegated Israel as the lesser of evils thus placing the Israelis in the same general category as the Muslims and Arabs who are directly responsible for the death of thousands of American soldiers while Israel saves American lives through their shared intelligence and military prowess every hour of the day.

D’Souza did not, nor did anyone in the audience, refute the obvious lie of the pip squeak. 1.6 million Arabs, roughly 20% of the population are full citizens and have full voting rights in Israel. They now have currently 12 members of the total of 120 in the Knesset (The legislative body of the Israeli government) to protect their rights. The Arabs have full access to all of Israel’s many social services and take overwhelming advantage. As to apartheid state, Miss Israel is a gorgeous black Ethiopian whose parents escaped to Israel and the harassment and killing of Jews in virtually all Arab countries. The 800,000 Jews that had lived for centuries there as second class citizens, were driven out penniless, their property confiscated. The few Jews left have no voting rights, no civilian rights and the thought of a representative in the government is laughable. They are afraid to even walk the streets.

As to Israel “occupying Arab land” That is another gross lie since the Israelites were a nation in Israel over 1600 years before Mohammed was even born!

As to US aid to Israel. Israel pays back every dollar and is the best bargain the US ever had. Israel is saving American lives contributing to the American economy in thousands of ways every day of the week. One admiral years ago described Israel as a virtual US aircraft carrier at the Eastern end of the Mediterranean and much more.

D’Souza failed to say all that even though I am sure he knows it, In a moment of weakness he may have just been catering to his Left leaning student audience.

But, never mind all that. How did the debate turn out? I am not so sure. It seemed as if many in the young, unworldly, naive bright faces were buying into Ayers descriptions of nothing but falsehood, evil, revenge, hatred, jealousy and defeatism . How long will it take for them to shake off the likes of the Wm Ayers and Barack Obamas of the world plus the thousands of other academics that brain wash them against the very country that furnishes the great largess that few of these same academics deserve?

I hope not too long. Dinesh D’Souza believes we are on a downward slope right now.

Jerome S. Kaufman

- See more at: http://israel-commentary.org/?p=8481#sthash.SEYZaVNt.dpuf

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