Fire Hydrant of Freedom

Crafty - one thing this professor says regarding her colleague Alan Dershowitz is very true and has always baffled me:  He is on the one hand a staunch defender of Israel and has gone to the mat many times against people who demonize that state and promote Palestinian lies, which are endless.  HOWEVER - he does appear to by "hypnotized" by Obama, and unable to criticize his foreign policy, particularly in regard to Israel. 

Something truly bizarre is at work here that so many otherwise intelligent American Jews are fooled into supporting this President.  It is mind-boggling, and recalls nothing so much as the large percentage of European Jews in the late 1930s who failed to see the writing on the wall right in front of their faces.  One would think they would have learned this horrific lesson from their brethren who survived.  That they have failed to do so is chilling.

American Jewry’s Cherished Values

The most significant passage:  "For 70% of American Jews, party loyalty trumps all of their conceivable rational interests. For them, partisan loyalty is more important than facts. They do not want to use independent judgment. They just want to be Democrats.

The most disturbing aspect of the surveys of American Jewish voters is not that they are willing to vote for the most hostile US president Israel has ever experienced in order to remain true to their party. The most disturbing aspect of the American Jewish community’s devotion to Obama and the Democrats is that it indicates that the vast majority of American Jews have abandoned their faculties for independent thought and judgment in favor of conformism and slavish partisanship. They have rendered themselves unreachable."

Posted By Caroline Glick On October 15, 2012 - www.frontpagemag.com

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

Decades ago, the sociographer Milton Himmelfarb coined the aphorism that “American Jews earn like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans.” And his words ring as true today as ever. Surveys show that roughly 70 percent of American Jews intend to cast their ballots for President Barack Obama’s reelection next month.

Himmelfarb’s quip indicated that American Jews abjure their economic interests in favor of their liberal values. Certainly it is true that for American Jews to vote for Obama next month they must act against their economic interests.

Obama’s economic policies have taken a huge toll on the economic fortunes of American Jews who invest disproportionately in the stock market. His nationalization of the college loan business has given universities impetus to raise tuition rates still further, thus dooming more young American Jews to start their adult lives under a mountain of debt. And it isn’t at all clear how they will be able to pay off this debt since under Obama half of recent college graduates cannot find jobs.

Obama’s gutting of Medicare to pay for Obamacare has harmed the medical choices for older Jewish Americans.

His war on tax deductions for charitable contributions has placed synagogues, Jewish schools and nursing homes in financial jeopardy.

So with economics ruled out as a reason to support Obama we are left with American-Jewish values.

But is Obama really advancing those values? What are those values anyway? Well, there’s civil liberties.

American Jews like those. But Obama doesn’t.

Take freedom of speech. Obama is the most hostile president to freedom of speech in recent memory. He has advocated implementing the so-called “fairness doctrine” for radio to stifle the free speech of his political opponents on talk radio.

He has sought to undermine the freedom of the Internet through federal regulations and intimidation of Internet companies such as Google.

He has made repeated and outspoken attempts to intimidate individuals, groups and businesses including Google to bar freedom of speech as relates to criticism of Islam. He has purged the lexicon of the federal government of all terms necessary to describe jihad, Islamic radicalism and terrorism, and so made it impossible for federal employees to examine, investigate, discuss or understand the nature of the greatest national security threat facing the US.

Then there are women’s rights. American Jews like those.

True, Obama has distinguished himself as the greatest ally of abortion-on-demand ever. He even supported infanticide of babies who survived abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature.

But, we women are a bit more than reproductive machines.

We also work and raise families. And Obama’s economic programs hurt women as much if not more than they hurt men.

Aside from that, there are females who live outside of the US.

American Jews have long been outspoken champions of women’s rights around the world. But here Obama’s record is arguably worse than any president in US history.

Obama has abandoned the women most at risk of gender-based discrimination, rape and murder – the women and girls of the Muslim world. Whereas the Bush administration liberated the women and girls of Afghanistan from the maniacally misogynist Taliban regime, the Obama administration is negotiating with the Taliban and setting the conditions for its return to power. If the signature image of the Bush administration’s war in Afghanistan was that of women voting, the signature image of Obama’s war in Afghanistan is the photo of 14-year-old Malala Yousafzai. This week Yousafzai was shot in the head by the Taliban in Pakistan for her defense of the right of girls to go to school.

Then there is the cause of good governance. American Jews like that.

But here, too, Obama fails to live up to liberal values of clean politics. Every day seems to bring with it another scandal related to the Obama administration.

This week we learned that the Obama campaign is illegally soliciting funds from foreigners.

According to a report published by the Government Accountability Institute, some 20% of visitors to the Obama campaign’s fund-raising site “my.barackobama.com” are foreigners, barred by US law from contributing to political campaigns. So, too, the Obama.com website was registered by Robert Roche, a US businessman living in Shanghai with ties to Chinese state-owned companies. Roche is an Obama campaign bundler. Sixty-eight percent of the traffic on the site comes from foreign users. Obama.com is currently managed by a Palestinian rights activist in Maine.

Finally, there is the cause of Israel and US-Israel relations that American Jews are assumed to care about.

After the fiasco at the Democratic National Convention when the widespread antipathy for Israel raging in the Democratic Party was broadcast on primetime television, the Obama administration has stopped even trying to hide its contempt for the Jewish state and its American Jewish supporters.

Whereas the US refused to walk out of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s obscene address to the UN General Assembly last month, US Ambassador Susan Rice chose to absent herself entirely from Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s address before the body.

Adding insult to injury, last week Obama appointed Salam al-Marayati to represent the US at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s annual 10-day human rights conference. Marayati is the founder and executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee. As Robert Spencer recalled this week, on September 11, 2001, Marayati gave an interview to a Los Angeles radio station accusing Israel of being responsible for the jihadist attacks on the US.

He is an outspoken supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah.

And Obama appointed him to represent America at a major human rights conference.

So what is it that drives over two-thirds of American Jews to support Obama? The only issues that come easily to mind are social issues – particularly the two flagship causes of American Jews these days – abortion and homosexual marriage.

While it is true that Obama shares their positions on these issues, it is hard to believe that these two issues have become the cri du coeur of more than two-thirds of American Jews.

It isn’t that it is wrong for people to support abortions on demand and homosexual marriage. And it isn’t wrong for people to oppose them. There are reasonable, Jewish arguments to be made for a woman’s right to abort her unborn children. But there are also reasonable Jewish arguments for constraining that right. There are Jewish arguments in favor of permitting homosexuals to wed. And there are Jewish arguments opposing such unions.

Then there is the relative urgency of the issues. With the US economy in a rut and American national security increasingly imperiled, are abortion rights and gay marriage really the American Jewish community’s top priorities?

True, there are some American Jewish fanatics who are propelled to near violence when faced with opponents of their beliefs. And they are capable of intimidating a large proportion of their fellow Jews into toeing their extremist lines. Their intolerance has been on display in all of its ugliness at synagogues around the US since the start of the election campaign. In one recent, outrageous incident, one gay marriage partisan managed to intimidate his congregation on Erev Yom Kippur.

On the most sacred evening on the Jewish calendar, at Anshe Emet synagogue in Chicago, congregant Gary Sircus led other congregants in walking out of services when, in keeping with synagogue protocol (and common courtesy), Rabbi Michael Siegel acknowledged the presence of US Rep. Michele Bachmann in the audience.

After staging the walkout, Sircus went home and began an online assault on Bachmann and on his synagogue for extending the outspoken and stalwart supporter of Israel the courtesy of acknowledging her presence at services.

Sircus wrote a letter of support to Jim Graves, Bachmann’s deep-pocketed Democratic opponent in her reelection campaign. In it, he referred to Bachmann as “this evil woman.”

Rabbi Siegel did not decry Sircus for his shocking behavior. Speaking to the Chicago Tribune Siegel said, “I am aware of the fact that our congregation’s policy in regards to [welcoming public officials to the community and honoring their presence] clearly caused pain to some members of our community on the most precious day of reconciliation on the Jewish calendar. That we regret deeply.”

In a letter of explanation to synagogue board members, Siegel spoke of the need to welcome visitors even if they don’t share the community’s “values.”

But when did the members of Anshe Emet take a vote to determine that support for gay marriage is their shared value?

Undoubtedly, Sircus’s success in embarrassing his entire community owed in part to his willingness to intimidate his fellow congregants with his moralistic sanctimony on Erev Yom Kippur.

But it isn’t only gay marriage champions who use intimidation tactics to silence their communities into conforming with their views. American Jewish Democratic partisans have taken a leading role in blocking dissenting voices from their midst.

For instance, this past May B’nai Emet Congregation in Boca Raton, Florida, invited Amb. Susan Rice to address the congregation. Synagogue officials not only rejected offers to have Rice debate opponents of Obama’s treatment of Israel. They barred community members known for their opposition to Obama from attending the speech. For these synagogue officials, the idea that their partisan prejudice might be challenged was simply unacceptable.

To be fair, there are some American Jews who have been willing to approach politics with an open mind. For instance, Susan Crown, of the Chicago-based Henry Crown business empire, has transferred her support from Obama to Mitt Romney.

In an interview with Chicago Magazine Crown explained that she switched candidates last May when Obama gave his speech calling on Israel to withdraw from Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria and contract to within the indefensible 1949 armistice lines. Crown said that her switch was due as well to economic and foreign policy considerations.

Crown’s arguments for transferring her support from Obama to Romney are all rational. On the other hand, the positions taken by the likes of Sircus and the management of B’nai Emet are emotional and unthinking.

Unfortunately, the polls indicate that more than two-thirds of American Jews are with the synagogue bullies at B’nai Emet and with Sircus, not with Crown.

For 70% of American Jews, party loyalty trumps all of their conceivable rational interests. For them, partisan loyalty is more important than facts. They do not want to use independent judgment. They just want to be Democrats.

The most disturbing aspect of the surveys of American Jewish voters is not that they are willing to vote for the most hostile US president Israel has ever experienced in order to remain true to their party. The most disturbing aspect of the American Jewish community’s devotion to Obama and the Democrats is that it indicates that the vast majority of American Jews have abandoned their faculties for independent thought and judgment in favor of conformism and slavish partisanship. They have rendered themselves unreachable.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

“Voting is habit-forming,”  Yes.  I see the first time voters in 2008 caught up in the Obama excitement of hope and change as future conservative voters.  Come out and vote wrong.  See how it goes for you.  Make the adjustment.  Come out and vote again - and try to do better the second time.  )

I've long favored (as I surmise the Framers would) eliminating as many uninformed voters as possible by having a citizen demonstrate basic knowledge of the government structure before being allowed to vote.  I would guess that a large percentage of voters in presidential elections cannot even name their two Senators and their House representative.  That alone ought to disqualify them.  In addition - I would prohibit anyone receiving government checks from voting.

Simon Wiesenthal Center: Obama should sever ties with Muslim Brotherhood for its call for jihad against Israel

Posted by Robert Spencer at www.jihadwatch.org on October 14, 2012

"We are not dealing with a Youtube video or a lone extremist Imam, but a call to anti-Semitic violence by a man who has tens of millions of followers and leads the organization that controls Egypt's future. It cannot be business as usual in Washington when such an assault is launched against the Jewish people." Indeed. Badie said: "The jihad for the recovery of Jerusalem is a duty for all Muslims." But Obama will pay no heed to this call from the Wiesenthal Center, and the mainstream media will not call him on it.

An update on this story. "Wiesenthal Center: Obama should sever ties with Brotherhood," from the Jerusalem Post, October 13 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

The Simon Wiesenthal Center on Friday called on US President Barack Obama to publicly condemn the latest call for jihad against Israel by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood's Supreme Guide Mohammed Badie and to sever all contacts with the organization until the threat is withdrawn.
The Center's call comes after Badie reportedly said in his weekly message to supporters that "The Jews have...spread corruption on earth [and] spilled the blood of believers," and therefore Arabs Should confront the Jewish state "Through holy jihad, high sacrifices and all forms of resistance."

In a joint statement, Rabbis Marvin Hier and Abraham Cooper, respectively founder and dean and associate dean of the Center, denounced Badie, saying his "rant confirms our long held view that Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood is the most dangerous anti-Semitic organization in the world today."

According to the statement, "We are not dealing with a Youtube video or a lone extremist Imam, but a call to anti-Semitic violence by a man who has tens of millions of followers and leads the organization that controls Egypt's future. It cannot be business as usual in Washington when such an assault is launched against the Jewish people."

They concluded by urging "President Obama to condemn the rhetoric and cut off all official and unofficial US contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood until they desist from their hate and war mongering."

Posted by Robert on October 14, 2012

Biden told a series of whoppers on Obama's "foreign policy," such as it is - during the debate.  That neither Ryan nor the debate moderator called him on these obvious lies (particularly about Benghazi) is regrettable, to say the least.  Look for this administration to throw Hillary Clinton under the bus next.  It's very clear that this is their plan.  Biden essentially said so in the debate.  "No one told us."  Oh, really?  Bill Clinton was furious about having the "race card" pulled on him during the 2008 campaign.  Now it's Hillary's turn to eat an excrement sandwich.

This is a critical point that ought to be made (G M's), but as neither Romney nor Ryan appear to have a solid grasp of the global jihadist objective or how it is steadily being advanced, I seriously doubt either of them will put it in those terms, as spot-on as that statement is.  David Horowitz made this point brilliantly in his book a few years back titled "The Art of Political War," in which he argued that the Left is quite adept at coming up with simple catch-phrases such as "tax cuts for the rich" that the bumbling, inept Republicans never seem to be able to match.  Kudos to G M for coming up with such an excellent, succinct way of framing the issue.

Frankly, however - I'm not nearly as concerned about this issue in the upcoming debate as Crafty seems to be, since despite the mainstream media's efforts to cover for him, Obama's failure on foreign policy appears to be becoming more obvious and more dangerous by the day.  I don't think this will be lost on the voters who watch the second and third debates (historically many fewer than the first one.)

I couldn't agree more with G M here.  Friedman is grasping for straws and creating a coherent "doctrine" out of thin air.  Even if one were to assume that there is a coherent theme driving the present administration's foreign policy (and I for the record do not), it's much more plausible that it is simply - as Dinesh D'Souza posits in his excellent film "2016" - anti-colonialism and a desire to see the U.S. diminished in stature on the world stage.

Obama Shows Contempt for His Oath of Office

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., October 9, 2012 - The Washington Times

Team Obama insists that next month's presidential election is "a choice, not a referendum." It sure seems to be the latter with respect to the two candidates' very different views on the Constitution. Mitt Romney makes plain at every turn his commitment to that document, while Barack Obama's conduct in office has marked him as the post-constitutional president.

Consider just a few examples of President Obama's systematic disregard of, contempt for and deviation from a national charter he swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend:

Mr. Obama has simply refused to uphold federal laws with which he disagrees, including the Defense of Marriage Act and immigration statutes.

After confirming that in the absence of congressional authorization he lacked the authority to give what amounts to an amnesty to young illegal aliens, Mr. Obama went ahead and declared it by executive fiat.

Despite repeated congressional objections to federal purchase of a state prison in Thomson, Ill., to which the Obama administration has sought to relocate jihadists currently held as detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Mr. Obama last week authorized its acquisition for $165 million.

Ever since taking office, the Obama administration has sought to accommodate Islamist demands that freedom of expression be curbed lest it offend Muslims and stoke violence. For example, in 2009, the administration co-sponsored a United Nations Human Rights Council resolution along those lines. In 2011, it launched the so-called "Istanbul Process" to find common ground with proponents of Shariah blasphemy laws who seek to strip us of our First Amendment freedoms.

In September, Mr. Obama announced at the United Nations, "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam" -- a stance indistinguishable from that of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban and al Qaeda.

A particularly ominous example of Mr. Obama's post-constitutional presidency involves his abdication of his first duty as commander in chief: to secure the common defense. Having successfully engineered two rounds of deep defense budget reductions totaling some $800 billion over the next 10 years, the president is intent on inflicting a further, devastating half-trillion-dollar, across-the-board cut pursuant to a process known on Capitol Hill as sequestration.

There is no getting around it: Cuts of this magnitude are going to result in tremendous disruptions to defense programs and attendant job losses in the associated industries. A federal law known as the Warn Act requires companies with more than 100 employees to give them notice of potential layoffs 60 days in advance. With sequestration due to kick in Jan. 2, this means the mandatory warning of potential pink slips to come would arrive just before the Nov. 6 election.

To avoid such a particularly untimely reminder of the president's dismal stewardship of his economic as well as national security portfolios, in July the Obama Labor Department issued guidance to defense contractors saying that the Warn Act's requirements would not be enforced. The pretext given was that since sequestration's potential effects on particular contracts had not been specified, there was insufficient basis to know the extent of the impact on employment and, therefore, the statute would not apply.

Of course, one reason the potential effects of sequestration are not known with precision less than three months before they are statutorily required to go into effect is that the Obama administration has ordered the Pentagon not to make any plans for implementing that next round of cuts. This directive was reaffirmed Sept. 27.
On Sept. 28, Team Obama advised contractors that, as the Hill newspaper reported: "They would be compensated for legal costs if layoffs occur due to contract cancellations under sequestration -- but only if the contractors follow the Labor [Department] guidance." In other words, the administration now wants the taxpayer to pick up the tab for violations of the law by those it has induced to engage in them.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, all Republicans, have been among those tirelessly warning for months of the catastrophe sequestration will inflict on the U.S. military. They issued a joint statement in response to the president's latest post-constitutional action which said, in part, "The Obama administration is cynically trying to skirt the WARN Act to keep the American people in the dark about this looming national security and fiscal crisis. The president should insist that companies act in accordance with the clearly stated law and move forward with the layoff notices.

In an important essay published Sept. 24 in the Wall Street Journal, former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey called on legislators to put Mr. Obama on notice: If, as widely expected, he proceeds after the election to yield to Islamist demands that he transfer or release the lead conspirator in the first World Trade Center attack, Omar Abdel-Rahman -- presumably to Egypt -- it "could be considered the kind of gross betrayal of public trust that would justify removal from high office." The same should apply to Mr. Obama's palpable contempt for the Constitution -- something sure to be even more in evidence if he secures re-election and, as he says, "more flexibility" in a second term.


Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy (SecureFreedom.org), a columnist for The Washington Times and host of Secure Freedom Radio on WRC-AM (1260).
© Copyright 2012 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.


Read more: GAFFNEY: The post-constitutional president - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/8/the-post-constitutional-president/print/#ixzz28uXUBwwp
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Very disturbing, indeed.  Stealth jihad is an ugly reality, and we Americans (and our elected leaders) had damn well better take it seriously, or we will be destroyed from within.  These jihadists are cunning and extremely well-organized.  They are also patient and determined.  We ignore them at our peril.  Anyone who wants to understand the the depth and seriousness of this problem would benefit from reading Robert Spencer's 2008 book, "Stealth Jihad."  I can't recommend it highly enough.

Glenn Beck's recent documentary "The Project," (a full year in the making, and just released last week) illustrates just how far this infiltration has progressed within our institutions in the four years since the publication of Spencer's book.  The 2-hour documentary can be viewed at www.theblaze.com/theproject/

Are Jewish Settlements Built on Arab Land?
Posted By Rachel Neuwirth and John Landau On September 28, 2012 @ www.frontpagemag.com

Is it really true, as much of the European and American press have been reporting for years, that Jewish “settlers” in the “West Bank” (more properly known as Judea and Samaria) are living on land that they have stolen from Palestinian Arabs?

This is in fact utterly impossible. Every time that the Israeli government has proposed or given tentative approval for the construction of Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, it has first advertised its intentions in Arab newspapers, and invited any Arabs who have claims to the land to come forward with them. Only if no such claims were put forward for at least six months; or if, after such claims were made, the Israeli court system had ruled against them following a painstaking and thorough review of the facts, in which the courts bent over backwards to be fair to all Arab claimants, did the Israeli government actually authorize the construction of Jewish communities in this disputed area. Israeli courts have forbidden the Israel government from confiscating any Arab-owned land for Jewish settlement since 1980. And the Israel government has not authorized any new settlements since the Israeli-Palestinian “peace process” began in 1993.

Not even the so-called “unauthorized” or “illegal” Jewish settlements, those that the Israeli government has not fully and expressly authorized, are built on Arab-owned land. Both the authorized and unauthorized Jewish communities were all built on what had been completely unoccupied, uncultivated and uninhabited “waste land.” No Arab homes were destroyed, no Arab residents were expelled, and no Arab farmland was seized in creating any of these Jewish communities—whether their construction was fully authorized by the Israeli government or not. And under the land ownership laws of Judea and Samaria — which date to when these territories were under Turkish rule, and which have been respected by all subsequent governments, including the Israeli administration — nearly all uninhabited and completely undeveloped “waste land” belongs either to the state, not to any private owner. While such land could legally be purchased from the state, there were almost no instances in which Arabs actually did purchase such “waste land,” because they would have had to pay taxes on it while deriving no benefit for the foreseeable future. Whatever few purchases of such land were made, were made by Jewish philanthropists hoping to provide land for future Jewish refugees or immigrants.

Why, then, have the notions that all of the Jewish “settlements” are “illegal” and, what is more, built on Arab-owned land taken such a firm hold on the belief-systems of the world’s governments and news media? One major reason has been the activities of Israel-based “Human rights” NGOs (“non-governmental organizations”) such as Peace Now, B’tselem, Yesh Din, Yesh Gvul and many others. These soi-disant human rights organizations, which are committed to ending the Israeli “occupation” of all land outside the country’s June 3, 1967 cease-fire lines, and to forcing the expulsion of the 300,000 Israelis who live outside those cease-fire lines (which were never legal borders), have published a series “reports” claiming that up to 30 percent of the land on which Israeli-Jewish “settlements” on the “West Bank” are built exist on what these groups describe as “privately owned Arab land” (or is it 38%? Or 32%? or 24% ? or 16%? Each “report” gives a different percentage figure, and sometimes there are even two contradictory figures within one “report”). These figures, as well as many other claims by the soi-disant human rights groups, are then immediately published as facts—first by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, which despite being published in Israel is actually a mouthpiece for the Palestinian Authority and its network of affiliated organizations—and then by The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, the The Washington Times, NPR, the BBC and a thousand other newspapers and electronic media services throughout the Western world.

However, when one actually reads in detail the lengthy reports on the web sites of these “human rights” groups that purport to document the supposed settler “land grabs,” one finds no credible evidence for these percentage claims, despite many footnotes and long statistical tables, charts, etc. Either these “reports” a) fail to give any original source at all for the statistics, or b) they claim that they are supported by thousands of Israeli government documents that these groups have received under Israel’s Freedom of Information law—but without quoting from a single specific document that supports their claims about Jewish settlements on “privately owned Arab land.”

A report issued by Peace Now titled “Breaking the Law in the  West Bank,” first published in November 2006, is a case in point. It is the one that claims that “nearly 40 per cent” (later, in the report’s fine print, specified down to  “38.76” per cent”) of settlements are built on “privately owned Arab land.” The report is also filled with graphs and charts, much of them about irrelevancies such as the exact number of square kilometers in each settlement, maps of the settlements and of the entire “West Bank” showing the location of settlements, even photographs (some of them, ironically, showing the beauty of these communities), which give a semblance of verisimilitude and accuracy to the report. But whenever claims are made about the amount of land in the settlements that belongs to Arabs, no documentary source is given. Despite all the graphs, charts, tables and maps in the 21-page report, we are never told precisely how Peace Now reached its conclusions about the extent of land owned by Arabs in the Jewish settlements

After the 2006 report aroused some criticism and questions in Israel, Peace Now issued a second report a year later, “clarifying” and “correcting” the one issued a year earlier. Peace Now claimed that this report was based on more than 3,500 documents received from the Israeli government since the original 2006 report was published. This of course raised the question as to how Peace Now had compiled the earlier report, complete with all those statistics and other detailed data without these documents. Be that as it may, the 2007 Peace Now report admits that the previous report had been wrong in claiming that 83.4% of the “settlement” of Maale Haadumim (actually a suburb of Jerusalem less than 5 miles outside the city limits) was owned by Arabs, and scaled down that claim to 0.5 percent—a 99.95 percent decrease in the amount of land in the community that Peace Now claimed was “privately owned” by Arabs. The total percentage of land in Jewish “settlements” alleged to be “privately owned” by Arabs was revised downward from 38 percent to 32 percent in the 2007 report. At the same time, the revised report stood by Peace Now’s earlier claims about Arab ownership of land in the other Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, and even increased the amount of land that it alleged was owned by Arabs in some of these communities. But even the “new” revised report, despite its claim to be based on Israeli government documents, fails to quote even one such document in support of these statistical claims, or even a specific document that states that any land at all in the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria is owned by Arabs and illegally occupied by Jews.

The claims made in these Peace Now reports were further undermined by a successful libel suit brought against the organization by the Jewish community of Revava, which Peace Now had claimed was 71.15 percent owned by Arabs. The community was able to prove in court that Jews owned 100 percent of its land and Arabs owned none of it. Peace Now was forced to pay a settlement of 20,000 shekels (about $5,000) in compensation and issue an apology.

However, even though both reports have been proven to contain serious inaccuracies, and even though Peace Now has even admitted that its 2006 report contained at least one major inaccuracy, Peace Now continues to display both reports on its websites. It has not even removed the false allegations about Maale Haadumim and Revava from the two reports, which it continues to publish on both its Israeli and U.S. web sites.

The world’s media and governments have accepted the false accusations against Israel of Peace Now, B’tselem and similar Israel-based groups because they are supported by plausible, scholarly-sounding language, by detailed (although completely undocumented) statistics, graphs and charts; because the authors are Israelis and Jewish, and most people can’t imagine that anyone could be so self-destructive and disloyal as to lie  about their own country; and of course because the claims of the “human rights” NGOs confirm the anti-Israel prejudices and predilections of most of the world’s governments and news media. The claims of the Israeli “human rights” groups, like those of similar Palestinian and Israeli Arab groups, are nevertheless falsehoods. It is high time that honest and responsible journalists and scholars, Israeli and non-Israeli, Jewish and non-Jewish, expose them for the frauds and lies that they are.

Documentation

Israeli policies for establishing settlements on undeveloped state land:

See: David Bar-Illan, Eye On the Media, Gefen Books, 1993, available from Amazon; David M. Phillips, “The Illegal-Settlements Myth,” Commentary Magazine,  Dec 01, 2009; CAMERA, “Backgrounder: Jewish Settlements and the Media,” by Ricki Hollander, October 5, 2001, http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=10&x_article=259;  CAMERA report of July 7, 1995, “Media Mangles Land Issues”; CAMERA report, April 5, 2011; Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Israeli Settlements and International Law,” 20 May 2001.

Real property laws in force in Judea and Samaria (the “West Bank”):

See: “Mawat Land,” Zionism and Israel—Encyclopedic Dictionary, and “The Land Question in Palestine”; Nadia Forni, “Land tenure policies in the Near East”; Moshe Dann, “Blood Libel; The Myth of  ”private Palestinian land,” Jerusalem Post, December 28, 2011 reprinted; “Palestine Papers: Jews legally own land in the territories,” February 9, 2011, 2011; “ Maayana Misken, “Jews to Reclaim Land in Jordan?”; Green-lined, “PA: Jews Owned Land in Judea and Samaria,”  Feb. 10, 2011.

Peace Now reports and international media coverage of them:

See: Peace Now, “Breaking the Law in the West Bank — One Violation Leads to Another: Israeli Settlement Building on Private Palestinian Property”; “G U I L T Y! Construction of Settlements upon Private Land – Official Data”; and http://peacenow.org/entries/archive3189#more, all on Peace Now’s Israeli web site; Steven Erlanger, “West Bank Sites on Private Land, Data Shows,” New York Times, March 13, 2007; Nadav Shragai and Agencies, “Peace Now:: 32% of Land Held for Settlements is Private Palestinian Land,” Haaretz.com, March 13, 2007.

Critical analyses of errors in the peace now reports:

CAMERA , “Update: Peace Now Map Based Only on Palestinian Claims,” December 2, 2006; Alex Safian, CAMERA, “Peace Now’s Blunder: Erred on Ma’ale Adumim Land by 15,900 Per Cent,”March 16, 2007; “Subject: Civil Administration Response to the ‘Peace Now’ Report“; Moshe Dann “Peace Now Flakes Out”; Maayana Miskin, “Peace Now to Pay and Apologize for Maligning Town,” December 11, 2008; CAMERA, Alex Safian, “Israeli Court : Peace Now Lied, Must Pay Now,” December 23, 2008.

Lest anyone try to make the tired argument endlessly repeated by the Left that a capital gains tax rate which is lower than the general income tax rate is "unfair," take note that there is sound reasoning behind this idea.  When income is taxed at the capital gains rate, that is the SECOND TIME the government has stuck its hand into that income.  The person has ALREADY PAID TAXES ON THAT INCOME AT THE REGULAR RATE BEFORE THEY MADE THE INVESTMENT.

Mitt Romney has given more money to charity over the past two years than either Barack Obama or Joe Biden have in the last DECADE.  Look at it as a percentage of their incomes and the picture is even uglier for Obama and Biden.  Nevertheless, the pathetic Left in this country continues to whine that Romney is a "spoiled rich brat" and "out-of-touch with working Americans."  And Barack Obama is IN TOUCH with them?  How has that worked out for the increasingly vast numbers of unemployed and underemployed over the course of his presidency?  Someone is out of touch, but it isn't Mitt Romney.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/09/23/chris-wallace-asks-obama-adviser-president-has-time-whoopi-goldberg-n#ixzz27Iq8zOCR

The Snopes.com citation to which JDN refers doesn't use the word "unconfirmed," the actual word used at the top of that snopes post - in all capital letters, I hasten to add - is "UNDETERMINED."  This is an utterly meaningless distinction.

Furthermore, I conducted a thorough search of Pamela Geller's web site - atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com - along with a Google and a Bing search, and FOUND NO SUCH STORY USING THE WORD CONFIRMED, AS JDN CLAIMS, EITHER ON HER WEB SITE OR IN THE RESULTS FROM EITHER SEARCH ENGINE.  Quite to the contrary, Geller has an update at the top of her post from Sept. 13th referencing the rape reports clearly stating that they are UNCONFIRMED.  She also notes that the story was run by the Washington Examiner and a Lebanese newspaper.  I encourage readers to verify this for themselves.

In addition, here is a story from hillbuzz.com going into more detail about the alleged sodomization.  Again - read it and form your own conclusions:  http://hillbuzz.org/breaking-news-two-sources-in-chicago-diplomatic-circles-identify-ambassador-chris-stevens-as-gay-meaning-state-department-sent-gay-man-to-be-ambassador-to-libya-64291

The root problem here is that the Obama administration has been lying and withholding information from the beginning regarding this incident.  We now know that Stevens was tortured before he was killed.  This is not in dispute.  In light of this fact, JDN's assertion that it is a fact that Stevens was NOT raped is simply absurd.

The Snopes.com citation to which JDN refers doesn't use the word "unconfirmed," the actual word used at the top of that snopes post - in all capital letters, I hasten to add - is "UNDETERMINED."  This is an utterly meaningless distinction.

Furthermore, I conducted a thorough search of Pamela Geller's web site - atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com - along with a Google and a Bing search, and FOUND NO SUCH STORY USING THE WORD CONFIRMED, AS JDN CLAIMS, EITHER ON HER WEB SITE OR IN THE RESULTS FROM EITHER SEARCH ENGINE.  Quite to the contrary, Geller has an update at the top of her post from Sept. 13th referencing the rape reports clearly stating that they are UNCONFIRMED.  She also notes that the story was run by the Washington Examiner and a Lebanese newspaper.  I encourage readers to verify this for themselves.

In addition, here is a story from hillbuzz.com going into more detail about the alleged sodomization.  Again - read it and form your own conclusions:  http://hillbuzz.org/breaking-news-two-sources-in-chicago-diplomatic-circles-identify-ambassador-chris-stevens-as-gay-meaning-state-department-sent-gay-man-to-be-ambassador-to-libya-64291

The root problem here is that the Obama administration has been lying and withholding information from the beginning regarding this incident.  We now know that Stevens was tortured before he was killed.  This is not in dispute.  In light of this fact, JDN's assertion that it is a fact that Stevens was NOT raped is simply absurd.

When will the Obama administration and/or our sickeningly hypocritical leftwing media acknowledge this???

The Sexual Pathology of the Libyan Attackers

Posted By Mark Tapson On September 21, 2012 @ www.frontpagemag.com

Soon after the terrorist attack that left four Americans dead in Libya, reports began coming in that U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens was not only murdered by the Muslim mob, but also sodomized both before and after his death, and his corpse dragged through the streets. This grotesque defilement was willfully suppressed by the mainstream media, who were focused like a laser on a much more horrific story: presidential candidate Mitt Romney talking like a conservative at a fundraiser. Thank goodness that in these difficult times we can count on the media to cover the news we really need to know.

As FrontPage Shillman Journalism Fellow Raymond Ibrahim writes,

Sexual abuse and degradation is a common tactic used against non-Muslims, especially women, as the repeatedly raped Lara Logan found… Nor are men immune from such rapes. In fact, the photos of Ambassador Stevens—stripped of clothes, bloodied and tortured right before he was killed—very much resemble the photos of Gaddafi right before he was killed. One U.S.-supported “freedom-fighter,” for example, can be seen sodomizing Gadaffi with a rod as others dragged him along.

Ibrahim finishes by noting that “the al-Qaeda affiliated men who sexually abused and killed Gaddafi are the same men who sexually abused and killed America’s ambassador.”

This revelation about the sexual denigration of the reportedly gay Ambassador Stevens raises several questions. First, when are so-called liberals going to shed the rose-tinted goggles of multiculturalism and get in touch with a righteous anger about a pathologically anti-gay, ragingly misogynist, mob culture that sexually violates and murders innocents?

When are American progressives, who whine about a mythical Republican War on Women, going to denounce this perverse sexual pathology in Arab culture? When are leftist academics, up in arms about the Bush administration’s enhanced interrogations of hardened terrorists, going to vent their fury against a culture that routinely commits sexual torture and mutilation?

Gay rights supporters work themselves into a lather over the Chick-Fil-A restaurant chain, which discriminates against neither gay employees nor gay customers. I suppose they’re unaware that most Arab and African nations walked out of an historic UN Human Rights Council debate on gay rights earlier this year, refusing to legitimize homosexuality. When are the “liberals” going to break their monastic silence about a theocratic culture that hangs gays from cranes, as in Iran, where President Ahmadinejad famously claimed they don’t have the problem of homosexuality there?

Obviously these are all rhetorical questions designed to underscore the left’s disgusting hypocrisy, because the answer to all of them is never. Breaking free of the mental bondage of multiculturalist indoctrination would cause the entire world view of leftists to come crashing down. They must cling to their delusion or risk a complete psychological meltdown.

Another question: If suspicions of Ambassador Stevens’ homosexuality are true, why did the administration send a gay man to an unstable hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism? Did it not realize that the possible discovery of his sexual orientation could have ramped up the danger for Stevens? Kevin Dujan at Hillbuzz reports that a Serbian consulate employee named Dino

told me it was no secret that Chris Stevens was gay and that “it was stupid to send him to Libya as the ambassador when he was a known homosexual.”

Dino explained in great detail that the brutal sodomizing of Stevens’ corpse was something that Muslims do to show the “utmost disrespect to the body” and that this is “a great insult in Islam” reserved for homosexuals. ”It is like making him a woman in death and he will be a woman now after life,” the Serbian explained to me.

Women should find it pretty offensive that this process of degrading a corpse through rape is considered “making him a woman in death” and “a woman after life.” Why aren’t feminists taking to the streets to condemn this misogynist barbarism? Oh, I forgot – they’re busy picketing Washington for free birth control, costumed as vaginas.

The American left, forever screaming about gay marriage, demanding free birth control, and spewing hate at conservative Christians whom they disparage as the “American Taliban,” is shamefully silent about real evil in the world, about the most intolerant ideology on the planet and one that stands in stark contrast to the tolerance they claim to revere.

A final question: President Obama proudly announced, almost three and a half years into his tenure, that he had “evolved” far enough to support gay marriage; when can we expect him to “evolve” enough to express outrage – not just a composed, rote condemnation of violence – at a culture that condemns homosexuals to a grisly death?

Some might argue that, to avoid igniting the Middle East tinderbox, the President should stay calm and not inflame matters more. Screw that. Islamic fundamentalists have dragged an American ambassador’s mutilated body through the streets, killed three more Americans, and stormed our embassies in other countries as well. It’s long past time for the President of the United States of America to present a righteous fury to the Islamic enemy, show them not one whit of deference or appeasement, and move to protect American interests and avenge American murders.

But that won’t happen, because we have a President whose sympathies lie with the Muslim fundamentalists seeking to tear down America and the West. Because of that he will excuse their torture and killing of homosexuals, their insanely hateful oppression of women, their violent disrespect toward our embassies, and their murder of Americans. We have a President who is busy yukking it up with David Letterman, partying with former drug dealer Jay-Z at a fundraiser, and basking in the adoration of the hosts on The View to give a damn about American lives or American interests.

2012 Tipping Point?

Center for Security Policy | Sep 17, 2012

By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

History is replete with examples of strategic miscalculations in which an over-reach - usually born of contemptuous disdain for a foe - led to disaster for the aggressor.  Think Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812.  Or Hitler's of the Soviet Union 131 years later. We may look back at September 11, 2012 as the kick-off date for such a tipping point in our time.

To be sure, the Muslim Brotherhood and its fellow Islamists - notably, al Qaeda franchises throughout the Middle East and beyond, other so-called "Salafists," Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia and the mullahs of Iran - were becoming increasingly aggressive towards us even before last week's mayhem in Libya, Egypt, Yemen, etc.  Team Obama (notably in the person of its hapless and overexposed UN Ambassador, Susan Rice) and its running dogs in the elite media would nonetheless have us believe that the upset is the by-product of an amateurish short video that disparages Mohamed.

In fact, as most sentient beings have realized by now, that film is but the latest pretext for Islamists to demand our adherence to what they call shariah blasphemy laws.  [Such laws are but a part of the larger, brutally repressive Islamic political, military and legal doctrine that prohibits any expression that offends, or otherwise is unhelpful to, their faith.]

Unfortunately, the Obama administration has repeatedly conveyed a willingness to accommodate - or at least tolerate - this threat to one of our most fundamental constitutional liberties: freedom of speech.  That willingness is part of a pattern of submissive behavior that has encouraged the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies to believe that America is in retreat and that shariah's inevitable, divinely-directed and global triumph is at hand.  Their response, predictably, is to redouble efforts to make us, in the Quran's words, "feel subdued."

Examples of such behavior abound.  Consider just a few of the more telling cases-in-point (for more, visit www.MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com):

In May 2009, President Obama insisted that Muslim Brotherhood representatives be in the audience for his first speech directed at the Islamic world.  It was delivered at Cairo University and freighted with apologies for past U.S. policies and efforts to associate himself with the beliefs and priorities of his audience.
Interestingly, Mr. Obama had already operationalized that policy approach two months before, by having the U.S. delegation to the UN Human Rights Council co-sponsor with Egypt a resolution drafted by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).  The object of the exercise was to further the OIC's longstanding objective of forcing UN member nations to prohibit and criminalize expression that offends Islam. 
In July 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton launched a formal effort with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation dubbed the "Istanbul Process" to explore ways in which our First Amendment rights could accommodate shariah blasphemy laws.  (Some of those playing an influential role in this exercise are discussed in a booklet about "The Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration" I just published with the David Horowitz Freedom Center: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/frontpagemag-com/the-muslim-brotherhood-in-the-obama-administration/.)
In December 2011, the Istanbul Process achieved an ominous milestone:  The odious UN Human Rights Council adopted, with strong U.S. support, Resolution 16/18 committing member nations to adopt "measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief."  Lest anyone think this a clever finesse, more or less in alignment with current U.S. law, the OIC's secretary general made clear that his organization did not view it as "the end of the road."  And, indeed, developments of the past week - both here and abroad, official and non-governmental - suggest that Team Obama is prepared to go farther, too.
Given such encouragement, it is not surprising that the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies would respond by demanding further accommodations to them and their shariah agenda.  What is a surprise, though, is that they are acting out their ambitions at this juncture - not after November 6th, when President Obama will, in his words, "have more flexibility."  It suggests that the Islamists have reached their tipping point, propelled to seek decisive domination by President Obama's perceived weakness, irresolution and submissiveness.

In the face of our enemies' overreaching aggressiveness, however, the American people now face a tipping point of their own.  If they arrive at the only sensible conclusion - namely, that four more years of the Obama administration's malfeasance with respect to jihadism of both the violent and the stealthy, pre-violent kind - they may just respond by refusing to re-up a presidency that enables and emboldens our foes and undermines our liberties and friends.  And should such a tipping point be realized, it will be one of truly epic historic proportions and prized by freedom-loving peoples forever.

Watch/read and make your own judgement as to who has the more persuasive argument:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/09/video-pamela-geller-on-cnns-erinburnett-abruptly-cuts-segment-at-hamas-cair-description-full-audio-secretly-recorded.html

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/09/fox-news-anti-jihad-ads-free-speech-or-offensive.html

This is particularly well stated by Bill Whittle in the last two minutes of the clip - but it is worth watching the entire piece. I couldn't have said it better myself:

www.therightscoop.com/must-watch-trifecta-the-end-of-america-as-we-know-it/

I agree with Everett about this.  I think it's particularly selfish for gay couples to intentionally have kids through artificial insemination or volunteer females carrying the child, only to give it up to two gay men.  I know of several situations of this type, and I think it is very misguided.  Even adoption by same-sex couples should be only a last resort, for the same reasons.

I'm glad to see a prominent gay person speaking out about this.  It demonstrates that the monolithic "gay community" portrayed by activists is a myth.  Those who fail to toe the party line, however - are ostracized and considered traitors by the rest of the group.  Not dissimilar to black political conservatives.

Rupert's comment about "too many children in the world" is foolish, however - IMHO. 

As many mainstream media personalities erupt in a hissy fit over what Romney said MONTHS AGO at a fundraiser (Mother Jones strategically released it now precisely to create such a frenzy), let's get some sane, factual analysis, shall we?

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/09/18/the-data-behind-romneys-47-comments/

As I have repeatedly stated: This President and his administration loathe the idea of American exceptionalism.  These disastrous results are the predictable outcome of policies designed to weaken our defenses.  This is not - I repeat - this is NOT an accident.  As Steyn strongly implies, this administration is deliberately weakening this nation - domestically and around the world with regard to our foreign policy.  This is by design.  When will those Americans in denial about this - including many conservatives - give up their pollyanna-ish fantasy that this president, like any other - wants what is best for the United States as founded, and for her people?  We have an enemy-in-chief.

I've been saying this since the man was elected.  He is not interested in American exceptionalism or American military superiority in the world.  The man has been a great success in enacting his agenda - which is clear from his actions, but never stated.  He has contempt for America - that is the fact of the matter.  Most people don't want to believe that - but then - most Germans didn't want to believe that Hitler was as evil as he turned out to be either.

I urge everyone to see Dinesh D'Souza's film 2016 - NOW.  It explains everything about what motivates Obama.  I can assure you it isn't love of this country.

Getting Over 9/11

Posted By Mark Tapson On September 11, 2012 www.frontpagemag.com

Eleven years ago, nineteen fanatical Muslims turned hijacked aircraft carrying hundreds of terrified passengers into missiles targeting symbols of American economic might. Nearly 3000 innocents died horribly that day, including hundreds of courageous, selfless first responders making a superhuman effort to rescue their fellow citizens. And for years, when the anniversary of that day rolls around, progressives and their Islamic allies have been rolling their eyes and urging Americans to “get over it.”

They’re weary of being bummed out by reminders of 9/11. They wish we’d forgive and forget that it happened. Stop bringing it up and “harshing their buzz.” Move on, move forward. Some of those people simply don’t grasp that we must not forget because we are still at war with the enemy that attacked us that morning; the rest are very much aware that we are still at war, and they want us to forget because they are siding with that enemy.

It may seem impossible for many to believe that that morning could be forgotten – just as it once seemed impossible to believe that our government could erase words like “jihad” and “Islamist” from our national security lexicon, preventing us from even naming or describing the enemy; or that our government could deem a terror attack on our own soil to be “workplace violence” and whitewash it of its Islamic motivation; or that an American President could announce that one of his duties was to “fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear”; or that he could proclaim us one of the world’s largest Muslim countries.

President Obama signed a proclamation last week designating Friday, September 7 through Sunday, September 9, 2012 National Days of Prayer and Remembrance. “Those who attacked us sought to deprive our Nation of the very ideals for which we stand,” the proclamation states. He is referring to al Qaeda, but the Muslim Brotherhood too seeks to deprive us of our ideals. The Brotherhood seeks the end of a free, capitalist, democratic America no less than al Qaeda does. And yet the President has literally invited them into our White House and has supported them in Egypt throughout the Arab Spring, including a $1 billion aid package to the new Egyptian regime.

So September 7-9 are National Days of Prayer and Remembrance. What about 9/11 itself? In a quiet, seemingly innocuous gesture three years ago, President Obama designated 9/11 as “The National Day of Service and Remembrance.” But the “Remembrance” part seems to be an afterthought, because the idea was to get Americans to “engage in meaningful service to create change… in four key areas”: education, health, energy/environment and community renewal. None of those seems to have anything to do with honoring 9/11, but that was the point: Muslim-American playwright Wajahat Ali (and one of the writers behind the Soros-funded “Fear, Inc.” report that smeared anti-jihadists as Islamophobic bigots) wrote in the Huffington Post at that time that “we are trying to move away from focusing on 9/11 as a day of horror, and instead make it a day to recommit ourselves to national service.”

Why? Because in order for Islamists and the radical left to advance their agenda of dismantling American exceptionalism and recasting America as the villain in our history books, they need Americans to put 9/11 behind us, let the victims slip from our memories, ignore that we are still at war with an enemy that danced in the streets to celebrate the attacks, and turn a blind eye to the fact that our civilization is under assault by a subversive stealth jihad.

Americans can commit themselves to public service any or every other day of the year; 9/11 should be reserved for solemn remembrance and renewed commitment to preserving American security, values and sovereignty. Greening your neighborhood? What does “green” have to do with 9/11? Only that it’s the color of Islam. Education? Fine – educate yourself and your children about 9/11 and the continuing threats of stealth jihad and “creeping sharia.” Environment and community renewal? Great – beautify your block by flying the Stars and Stripes on 9/11. It sends a simple message to the enemy and their useful idiots that you believe that making this day about installing fluorescent light bulbs trivializes the memory of 9/11′s victims, and that you will never let their deaths be erased from history.

How do things stand on this 9/11, eleven years later? Among other highlights, we captured 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and a SEAL team took out bin Laden (no thanks to the resistance of Obama, despite all the crowing about his “gutsy” choice to green-light the mission). To his credit, Obama has green-lit drones that continue to take out key al Qaeda terrorists, such as the traitorous Anwar al-Awlaki. We have foiled dozens of attempted terrorist attacks on our own soil. All to the good.

Now for the bad. We have a president who embraces the Muslim Brotherhood. His Secretary of State is actively facilitating the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s goal to criminalize “Islamophobia.” Our Dept. of Homeland Security has to be waterboarded before it will even mention the word “Islam.” We are dumping the problem of a nuclear Iran on our erstwhile ally Israel. We have a military leadership that would consider a lack of diversity to be the most tragic result of the Ft. Hood shooting. We are throwing our troops in Afghanistan under the bus in a chimeric effort to win the hearts and minds of people who have neither. Our news and entertainment media collude with the Brotherhood front group CAIR to perpetuate the victimhood myth that Muslim-Americans have suffered a terrible backlash ever since 9/11. This is a recipe for cultural suicide.

But perhaps the 9/11 complainers are onto something. Maybe Americans should get over 9/11. Here’s how I recommend we do that. The best way this country can “get over” 9/11 and honor the memory of the dead and their families is to crush Islamic fundamentalism out of existence, the way we crushed Japanese imperialism and Nazism. Lay waste to the ideology that threatens the fundamental values that America and the West hold dear. Stamp out threats to our freedoms, to human rights, to our hard-won civilization. When we have eradicated sharia law and its proponents from the face of the earth, then Americans can truly and freely “get over” 9/11. Until then, the unholy alliance of progressives and Islamists should be forewarned that true Americans will never forgive, never forget.