The American Kafir


Studying Antisemitism on Campus

Studying Antisemitism on Campus

by Phyllis Chesler
Jewish Ledger

A very gallant Dr. Charles Asher Small just delivered an important lecture at the 92nd St Y. in New York. Yes, this is the same Dr. Small who, in 2004, founded the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP), which he housed at Yale University from 2006-2011—until the Yale Corporation decided that the Center’s work on Islamic Judeophobia and specifically on Iranian genocidal Judeophobia threatened Yale’s “scholarly commitments” in the region.

Who could make this up?

This was the first time that Dr. Small spoke about this publicly.

Dr. Small is Canadian and grew up in Montreal. He speaks in a restrained and reasonable way about outrages and injustices. He is a gentleman and a scholar.

I was privileged to have met him in 2003 and to have worked with him while he was at Yale. I have also written about his work and its tragic demise at Yale.

This time, Dr. Small named names.

But, he first wondered why Israel, which is blamed for every conceivable wrong, is also to blame for whatever problems American Jews are having in terms of communal identity or renewal. He wondered how different American Jews and Jewish leaders are today when compared to the American Jewish leaders in the 1920s and 1930s, as economic problems worsened and a virulent antisemitism arose. “Sound familiar?”, he asked.

Dr. Small noted that antisemitism is different from all the other ‘isms’ such as racism and sexism. “It is inherently genocidal,” he said. It was “genocidal during the religious era when Jews were the wrong religion” and were accused of holding back the Messianic age by both “refusing to convert to Christianity” and for having committed “deicide.” And it is genocidal today. But there is a taboo today at work that impedes any rational search for the truth.

Small went on to say that no one is examining radical Islamic ideology No one is questioning the dominant world view. Instead, everyone is into postmodernism, cultural relativism and politically correct non-judgementalism. He defined anyone who has been formerly colonized as being a victim whose customs and traditions cannot be judged.

Charles and I agree on this new and clever form of racism and paternalism. Universal rights for me and thee – but not for the female victims of honor killing, forced child marriage, female genital mutilation, and forced veiling. Religious rights for Muslims in the West, but the lethal persecution of Christians, Hindus, and Jews in “Muslim lands.”

Meanwhile, Charles’ Institute at Yale was vibrant, dynamic and thriving. About 3 and a half years ago, a philanthropist offered Charles and his Institute five million dollars if Yale would raise 15-20 million dollars. Dr. Small delivered a strategic business plan. The development office said it was “wonderful.”

But the environment changed when the current Iranian regime suddenly listed Yale as an “enemy of the revolution.” Small and his Institute were blamed by some for having gotten Yale in trouble, resulting in Yale’s telling Small to stop dealing with radical Islam, radical Islamic Judeophobia, and Iran. Absent his dealing with those topics, he was told, he could enjoy a long and happy career at Yale.

But Radical Political Islam, not Islam the religion, not the Muslim people, but Radical Political Islam, the genocidal movement, is a key part of the irrational hatred against Jews and Israel in today’s world. When Charles convened in August of 2010, the largest academic world conference on global antisemitism to have ever been held, Radical Political Islam was part of the discussion. It couldn’t be ignored. It was not the focal point of the conference. It wasn’t even mentioned by most of the speakers. But it was included in some presentations by a few of the 107 speakers from 23 countries who made up the program.

What was to come was signalled when the assembled conference attendees were welcomed rather sourly by associate Yale Provost, Frances Rosenbluth. Before a word was spoken or paper presented, she warned that the scholarship to be presented needed be constrained and she pre-emptively labeled outcomes when she said presenters were “not to engage in Islamophobia.”

A young Palestinian actively blogged throughout the conference and in real time characterized speakers as “racists” and “Islamophobes.” Instead of measured analysis, dialogue and prudent deliberation, his name calling reverberated across the internet kicking off a firestorm which resulted, three days later, in the newly appointed PLO “ambassador” in D.C. writing to Yale President Levin charging Yale with “racism.”

Here’s the thing. Tell the truth about Radical Political Islamism and you will be branded a racist. Dare expose the Muslim practice of slavery, imperialism, colonialism, religious intolerance, and gender apartheid and you will find yourself branded a “conservative racist” and therefore demonized.

It happened to me early on, between 2003-2005.

It has happened to every single truth teller ever since, including Dr. Charles Small.

Small and his colleagues were attacked irrationally. National Public Radio chimed in and a Yale Professor accused the Institute of being similar to Black Panthers. The chorus grew and Yale had its excuse to end its relationship with the Institute and Charles Small. In so doing, Yale confiscated the film of the conference, framed a report which it marked ‘confidential’ (something they’d never done before in this kind of circumstance) and didn’t allow Charles Small or any of his colleagues at Yale to see it. These actions could hold the record for abruptness and lack of considered process extended when compared to all other departures. Adding insult to injury, with several week’s notice, Yale asked Charles Small to leave.

But it is now a year later and this quiet talk to a hushed audience at the 92nd St. Y marked the beginning of a new chapter in the struggle to tell the truth and expose the deception that is going on behind the curtain in academia today. The whole episode at Yale was instructive and underlines the urgent need for an independent institution that studies antisemitism in real time, and not merely as an historical artifact and novelty. Antisemtism is as virulent, threatening and genocidal as it has ever been and the need for a Charles Small and an organization like ISGAP, that is not afraid to seek the truth, is more pressing than it has ever been. If not now, when.



Media Attempt to Cover Up Obama Comments on Israel

Source Link: Family Security Matters

Media Attempt to Cover Up Obama Comments on Israel

Written By Roger Aronoff

The incident involving a live microphone that took place last week at the G20 summit in Cannes, France involving President Barack Obama, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, and the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, was an important revelation on several levels.

First, it revealed the true feelings that Obama and Sarkozy have toward Netanyahu, which is quite different from their public pronouncements and actions. No big surprise in either case. But the bigger story is how corrupt the media are to go along with the attempted deception.

What occurred is that the two presidents were speaking in what they thought was a private conversation. But what they overlooked was that the mics they were wearing were live, and a simultaneous translation of their conversation was being broadcast to the journalists outside the room. Those journalists were not to be given headphones until the session resumed, but a number of them had their own and were listening as a translator repeated the comments of the two men.

Initially, in the conversation, Obama was critical of Sarkozy for not letting him know in advance that France would be voting to allow the Palestinians membership in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). After they were voted in to the organization, the U.S. Congress voted to cut off its portion of the funding for UNESCO, as it is required by law to do if Palestine is admitted as a member of any international organization before it reaches a peace agreement with Israel. Obama, whose spokesmen have made clear that he once again will ignore Congress and do what he can to help UNESCO, was also reported to have asked Sarkozy to try to help persuade the Palestinians to stop their bid to gain full UN recognition as a state.

Sarkozy then said of Netanyahu, “I cannot bear him, he’s a liar.” To which President Obama reportedly said, “You may be sick of him, but me, I have to deal with him every day.”

A number of journalists heard this, but did not report on it after staffers from Sarkozy’s office went to the journalists and told them the comments were meant to be private. According to reports, French media tradition requires journalists to honor that privacy, and in keeping with that tradition, they were asked to sign agreements to that effect. Apparently many of them complied, “due to the sensitivity of the issue.” But it was a French website, Arret sur images, that first reported the conversation. Reporters from Reuters and the Associated Press confirmed the account of the conversation. Sarkozy’s and Obama’s offices have refused to comment.

There are a couple of excellent articles about this, though not much in the mainstream media. One is by Arnold Ahlert in Jewish World Review, in which he writes that “it is hard to decide which part of this story is more revealing: the incident itself, or the subsequent reaction by the Fourth Estaters whose commitment to the standards of journalistic integrity—or perhaps more accurately JournO-listic integrity—seemingly never reach the bottom of an apparently bottomless barrel.” And to the issue of reporters agreeing, after the fact, to keep this quiet, Ahlert writes, “What reporter in his right mind would sign anything that prevents him from reporting on a story made available, not by subterfuge or anything else resembling illegality, but by the carelessness of two world leaders? Since when did a legitimate ‘gotcha’ moment become off limits to the press?”

In a piece on, Joseph Klein discusses some of the history between Obama and Israel that makes Obama’s comments unsurprising: “…we all know what Obama really thinks. This is a president who has gone out of his way to visit Muslim countries in the same region as Israel, but has yet to visit Israel itself since taking office. Obama had no trouble bowing to the Saudi king, while insulting the Israeli prime minister at every turn.”

Added Klein, “Obama’s latest blast at Netanyahu recalls his snub of Netanyahu during the prime minister’s first visit to the Obama White House in March 2010. Obama presented Netanyahu with a list of demands, including a halt to all settlement construction in East Jerusalem. When Netanyahu resisted Obama’s charms, Obama picked up his marbles. He stormed out of the meeting and declared, ‘I’m going to the residential wing to have dinner with Michelle and the girls.’ Obama also refused the normal protocol of a joint photograph with the Israeli leader.”

As I detailed in a recent AIM Report, Obama has made the situation much worse through his heavy-handed demands, and an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is more distant as a result. Obama raised the stakes enormously when he came to office in 2009 by demanding that Israel freeze all building of settlements, something they had never done before, and which had not been a pre-condition of the Palestinians. Then Obama pushed the 1967 borders issue, to make that a starting point for negotiations rather than one of many issues to be resolved through direct negotiations. And add to Obama’s missteps the so-called Arab Spring; Iran’s continuing efforts to possess nuclear weapons and to threaten Israel, both directly and through surrogates including both Hamas and Hezbollah; and the participation in the Palestinian government of Hamas, which controls Gaza. It is clear that Israel is less secure than at any time in recent years.

The timing of this incident has been bad for Obama. After barely a year in office, in April of 2009, the Republican polling firm McLaughlin & Associates released a survey that showed that only 42 percent of American Jews would vote to re-elect President Obama, after having won 78 percent of the Jewish vote in 2008. He has slowly won some of that support back by trying to convince Jewish voters that he really does support Israel. A key test in that process came in September when he reluctantly made it clear that the U.S. would veto the Palestinians’ bid for statehood.

But this recent “live mic” revelation will clearly set back the Obama PR campaign to win over more Jewish voters. Contributing Editor Roger Aronoff is a media analyst with Accuracy in Media, and is the writer/director of the award-winning documentary “Confronting Iraq: Conflict and Hope.” He can be contacted at


Not In My Name

Source Link: FamilySecurityMatters

Written By Shari Goodman

While speaking to a young Jewish journalist from our local Jewish paper, he mentioned that his office staff will soon be meeting with the leadership of MPAC, (Muslim Public Affairs Council) a Muslim Brotherhood affiliated Islamic front group. He wondered what questions should be asked of them. That evening I could barely sleep. My adrenalin was racing as I thought of the numerous questions that should be posed by not only Jewish American leadership, but by our leaders in the halls of government. In today’s atmosphere of inter-faith kumbayas, would we not be better served if today’s leaders had the courage to ask the tough questions?

Question 1: Why do Muslims follow an Anti-Semitic doctrine that refers to Jews as the “sons of pigs and apes” and why should we Jews respect a doctrine that calls for our demise? In the Hadith Muhammad said: ‘The time [of judgment] will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: Oh, Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him!” (Bukhari 4.52.176 & 177, and 4.56.791.)

Question 2: Why are the nearly 300 verses that advocate violence towards non-believers not purged from the Koran?

Question 3: Since Taqiyya (deception) is permissable within Islam, how can we in the West trust what you say?

Question 4: The Koran states that Sharia Law supersedes all other laws. Do you agree with the Koran? And if you disagree, how can we trust that you are not practicing Taqiyya?

Question 5: Why has there been no fatwa or decree issued by an Islamic cleric against Osama Bin Laden?

Question 6: Why has there not been a decree or fatwa issued by an Islamic cleric against those Muslims who commit acts of terrorism against the non-believers?

Question 7: We see mass organized street protests against the offenders of Islam. Why have we not seen any massive organized demonstrations by the Muslim community against terrorism committed by Muslims here at home in the name of Islam? A demonstration of “NOT IN MY NAME” would have eased the fears of millions of Americans, but such demonstrations have not been forthcoming.

Question 8: The Muslim Student Association has wreaked havoc on our college campuses against not only Israel, but Jewish students and Jewish organizations have been the target of Muslim wrath. What has MPAC done to address and alleviate the assault on Israel and Jews?

Question 9: Many of our elite universities are the beneficiaries of millions of dollars of Saudi oil money in exchange for biased Middle East public policy departments hostile to the Jewish State of Israel. Do you condone such policy and if not, have you taken a public stand against such practice?

Question 10: The Hamas Charter calls for the destruction of Israel. Do you agree with that Charter? If not, then what steps have you taken to influence Hamas leadership to give up that quest? Any evidence to support your claims… releases, letters, etc.?

Question 11: Anti-Semitism today is primarily emanating from the Muslim World. A leading Egyptian Islamic cleric Yusuf al Qaradawi has recently called for the use of violence against Jews and the United States. Have you publicly denounced his comments?

Question 12: The Anti-Semitism we are now witnessing in Europe, not seen since the days of pre-World War II, is a direct correlation to the influx of Islamic immigration to that continent. Is Europe providing a glimpse of what is in store for American Jewry as Muslim continue their influx here at home?

Question 13: Why do Muslim nations prohibit the construction of churches and synagogues within their midst while you continue to build mosques funded by Saudi money here in the United States?

Question 14: Islamic textbooks published with Saudi money are being used here in Islamic schools. Anti-Semitic material has been found in these textbooks. Do you monitor what is being taught and can we see a copy of the textbooks?

Question 15: When we look at a map of the world and the numerous conflicts throughout the globe, we note that just about all of the conflicts are between Muslims and their non-believing neighbors. In India, Thailand, Chechnya, Africa, Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt, etc. we are witnessing the slaughter of Jews, Christians, and Hindus. Consequently, should we in the West not be weary of the danger Muslim immigration poses to the rest of us here at home?

The questions noted must be asked and answered. Words alone are hollow without demonstrable deeds. It is those deeds that shall determine whether we in the West can rest assured that we have nothing to fear from the Islamists among us, and it is only then when we can begin the Kumbaya.

Family Security Matters Contributor Shari Goodman is Chapter Leader at Calabasas-West Valley ACT! For America, Calabasas, Ca. The views expressed here are hers and do not necessarily represent the views of ACT! For America or of Family Security Matters.


It’s Time for the Jews to Stand Up for Themselves

Source Link: FrontPageMag

Written By David Horowitz

I was not looking forward to my speech at Brooklyn College last night during “Israel Apartheid Week.” The campus atmosphere was so hostile to Jews that no student organization was willing to host my appearance, not even the Jewish organizations – and with 3,500 Jewish students on campus, there were several. My visit was only made possible by the courage of one professor, Mitchell Langbert, who reserved a room in the school library and the bravery of one student, Yosef Sobol, a Jewish immigrant from Ukraine who organized the event.

The college paper, Excelsior, is edited by a 9/11 “truther” who had declared on the Internet that a memorial should be erected to Mohammed Atta and the 9/11 terrorists and who had turned the Excelsior into an anti-Israel propaganda sheet. Despite the fact that the Jews who attend Brooklyn college are members of a minority who are the victims of eight times the number of hate crimes that are committed against Muslims — let alone Arabs — according to FBI statistics, faculty required all incoming freshman to read a single book – about discrimination against Arabs in America: “How Does It Feel To Be A Problem?” Faculty also hired an instructor who was an activist for Hamas and its terrorist state in Gaza.

For two weeks prior to my arrival an adjunct professor at the college had been calling on students and political radicals to protest my appearance, while denouncing me as a “racist” and “McCarthyite.” This professor is a Muslim member of the International Socialist Organization, a communist party that seeks a “dictatorship of the proletariat” in America. He urged students and outsiders to attack the event both outside the auditorium and inside it during my speech.

My bodyguard – a requisite at any campus at which I speak – called campus security two days before the event and was told the policy of the university was that protesters who tried to obstruct my speech would not be removed from the room. Consequently, I was fully prepared for the fact that I might not be able to speak at all and readied myself for the battle.

But then something totally unexpected happened. A trustee of the CUNY system, Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, was aware of Yosef’s efforts decided to intervene. He demanded that the university protect the students who had invited me and to see that their event took place. In all my years traveling to over 400 universities this had never happened before. As a result of Wiesenfeld’s intervention, there were seven armed and imposing guards at the entrance to the hall. They inspected each individual, wanding them and searching their bags before they entered. The campus Chief of Public Safety was there too, along with an official from the university who warned would-be protesters that they would be removed if they obstructed my speech.

And so I was able to speak for an hour in a civil atmosphere, and the students who came were able to hear what I had to say. Let me pause here to say that campus violence which comes exclusively from leftists and Muslim radicals, and the obstruction of speakers, which comes exclusively from the same source, would disappear if university administrators did their job and if university trustees met their responsibility to ensure that an appropriate atmosphere prevails on their campuses. Would that there were a hundred trustees like this one.

Brooklyn College is a commuter school and it was a blustery and rainy evening, but the library auditorium was filled with over 100 people, mainly students, virtually all of them either Jewish or Palestinian, with the Jews representing about 80 percent of those present. I began by asking everyone how it felt to go through a “checkpoint” – the “injustice” of checkpoints being a focus of recent demonstrations by the newly created “Palestinian Club” whose members constituted 20 percent of the audience that night. I said, “Well, our checkpoint made me feel safe, and that is the point of checkpoints – to protect the innocent from attacks by people who want to kill them.”

I then addressed the atmosphere of intimidation that prevailed at Brooklyn College as a result of the attacks by the anti-Israel and pro-jihad left. The Brooklyn College administration had ignored and thereby encouraged these attacks as had university administrations across the country in the face of a nationwide campaign by leftists and Muslim activists to silence those who opposed them. I recalled how Nazis and Communists in the 1930s had conducted a joint campaign to break up the public meetings of their opponents and how that had spelled the end of democracy in Germany and the rise of the totalitarian state.

I said the frontline battle in our present war with totalitarianism was the First Amendment’s right to disagree. When protests were designed to shut down speakers, when speakers were defamed in advance of their appearances, one side of the argument was effectively silenced, and if that were allowed to continue we would soon lose our democracy. I said the attacks on freedom of speech had already gone so far in this country that you couldn’t mention terror and Islam in the same breath without being labeled a bigot or an Islamophobe, accused of labeling all Muslims as terrorists.

Even President Bush who had heroically defended us against the attacks of Islamic terrorists could not identify our enemies by name for fear of offending other terrorists and their sympathizers and allies. He could not identify them as Islamic extremists or Islamic radicals or Islamic jihadist which is what they call themselves. I happened to be speaking on the day Congressman Peter King opened his hearings on the radicalization of Muslims in America and had watched the attacks on those hearings on my hotel television screen. I said we had reached a point in our country where we could not even make inquiries about the threat of domestic terrorism posed by militant Islamists who are responsible for 17,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11 without being attacked as “McCarthyites” and “bigots.”

This is the primary political strategy of all Islamic terrorists and their enablers – to identify anyone who speaks about Islamic terrorism as someone who is attacking all Muslims as terrorists. The terrorists seek to identify themselves with Islam, to hide themselves and their sinister agendas in the Muslim community and use its numbers as a protective shield. The charge that an attack on one Muslim terrorist is an attack on all Muslims is an insult to the Muslim community and abuse of its members. All Muslims are not terrorists but there are also not enough Muslims coming forward to separate themselves and Islam from the radical jihad, or to condemn organizations like Hamas. Here I mentioned a Muslim, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, who had testified that day and who said, “This is our problem, and it is our responsibility to solve it.”

Finally, I praised  Wiesenfeld (but did not feel free at the time to divulge his name) who made the evening possible. He had struck an important blow for democracy at Brooklyn college against the jihadist assault.

I then read a series of statements by Palestinian leaders and by the spiritual head of the Muslim Brotherhood each of which promised to finish the job that Hitler started. Here are two:

Mahmoud Al-Zahar, founder of Hamas said in 2007: “There is no place for you Jews among us, and you have no future among the nations of the world.  You are headed to annihilation.”

In that same year, Ahmad Bahar, Acting Chairman of Gaza Parliament said:

“Be certain that America is on its way to disappear,… Allah, take hold of the Jews and their allies, Allah, take hold of the Americans and their allies… Allah, count them and kill them to the last one and don’t leave even one.”

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know who these people are, I said. “They are Nazis, and they want to kill the Jews and destroy the Jewish state. Their goal is not peace but to push the Jews of Israel into the sea. On campuses all across America, I said, the Muslim and socialist left are chanting “From the river to the sea…” I was then interrupted by a voice from the audience who turned out to be the Muslim Marxist organizer of the protest, who completed the chant “…Palestine will be free.” I pointed out that the eastern boundary of Israel is the river and the western boundary is the Mediterranean sea, and that this was just another way of saying we want to kill you Jews and destroy your state and push you into the sea. They are Nazis.

I said the embargo on free speech is already so far advanced in America that we speak of a “peace process,” as though there was one. There is not a single Palestinian leader willing to recognize the Jewish state.  Both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority want to “liberate” Palestine “from the river to the sea.” How can you make peace with people who don’t want you to exist?  How can you negotiate a peace with Nazis who want to kill you? You can’t. You have to demand that they stop being Nazis or that the people who support them elect other leaders. I said we have to stop capitulating to the censors of our language and call things by their right names. That is the only way to have clarity and to begin to be able to defend ourselves.

I then asked why the left is willing to embrace Hamas Nazis who want to kill the Jews. Leftists would answer this question by claiming that Palestinians are oppressed, and that it is the Jews who are responsible for their suffering. The Jews stole their land and put them under military occupation and have since subjected them to all manner of indignities, like checkpoints. I then said, let’s put off the question as to whether there is any truth in these claims, and just look at the claim that suffering explains their resort to suicide bombings and their desire to kill the Jews and push them into the sea.

For thousands of years nations, ethnic groups, races and religions have suffered. They have been enslaved, they have been occupied, they have been oppressed. But never in the history of mankind until now has their been a people like the Palestinians who strap bombs on their own children and tell them to blow themselves up and kill other children, and that if they do so they will go to heaven and become saints. No other religion besides Islam makes murderers into saints. In the entire history of mankind no people has sunk to such moral depths as the Palestinians in their war against the Jews.

Let’s also look at the claims that Jews oppress Palestinians rather than the other way around. Let’s begin with biggest lie of the entire Middle East conflict —  that Israel “occupies” Arab land, let alone “Palestinian” land. To begin with, there hasn’t been a political entity or state called Palestine since Roman times, when Rome affixed the name Philistina (or “Palestine) to the homeland of the Jews which is Judea and Samaria, which is today the Palestinian occupied West Bank. The Romans did this because the Philistines, who were not Arabs, were the Jews’ enemies and they wanted to humiliate the people they had conquered and dispersed to the four corners of the globe.

In the second place the entire region around the Jordan out of which Israel was created was not Arab and had not been for four hundred years. The Arabs’ claim to Israel is about as credible as the Dutch claim to New York. For four hundred years prior to the creation of the state of Israel – not to mention Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq – the land belonged to the Turks who are neither Palestinians nor Arabs.

The state of Jordan was also created out of what was called the Palestine Mandate, when it was administered by the victorious powers in World War I. The majority of Jordan’s population are Arabs who today would be referred to as “Palestinians” – a “nationality” created in 1964 to combat the Jewish state. The “Palestinians” of Jordan are ruled and oppressed by a Hashemite minority. But no one is calling for their liberation. That is because the true goal of the Palestinian liberation movement is not a Palestinian state (which has been rejected by the Arabs as recently as 2000) but to push the Jews into the sea.

I went on to discuss the other indefensible lies that make up the total case against Israel – for example that Jewish settlements are a problem. There are a million Muslim Arabs settled in the state of Israel, who enjoy more rights as Israeli citizens than the Muslims or Arabs in any Muslim or Arab state. If Muslim communities in Israel are not a problem, why are Jewish communities in the Arab world or on the West Bank or in Gaza? Because the Arabs and Muslims of the Middle East are racists and refuse to live side by side with any non-Arab or non-Muslim people. That is the straightforward, factually accurate, but politically incorrect answer.  There were two democracies in the Middle East after the Second World War: Israel and Lebanon. Lebanon was actually a Christian democracy. Democratic Lebanon has been destroyed by the Islamic jihad and the Christians of the entire Middle East are under the gun or in flight.

I had encouraged the Brooklyn students to erect a “Palestinian Wall of Lies” ( that we had created to combat the malignant “Israel Apartheid Wall” that the anti-Israel, anti-Jewish left on campus was going to erect during “Israel Apartheid Week.” When the Brooklyn College administration learned of these plans they banned both walls. This is what a victory looks like in collegiate America today.

“Israel Apartheid Week” is a hate week against Jews, nothing more nothing less. Israel is, in fact, the only state in the Middle East that is not an apartheid state. Jews have created the only multicultural society in the Middle East, the only society that respects the rights of all ethnic and religious groups – and all genders as well. Jews have built the only society that respects women and gays. The very name “Israel Apartheid Week” is thus an obscenity whose only purpose is to demonize the Jewish state and make it vulnerable to the terrorist armies who whose rockets are poised to destroy it and whose goal is to push its Jews into the sea.

If this campaign had been directed against African Americans or any other campus ethnic group – including and especially Muslims – no university community would tolerate it. But because it is directed against Jews, Israel hate week is protected and funded by student governments and protected by university administrators. Moreover, and most disturbingly, the Jewish organizations on campus have been unwilling to stand up for themselves and to claim the same rights and respect as the groups who are attacking them. The Hillel organization on the Brooklyn College campus is 1,000 Jews strong but it would not sponsor our event. The Palestinian Club is 100 Muslims strong, but they came to attack it.

By now you are probably wondering about the reaction of these members of the Palestinian Club who came to protest my speech. You are wondering how they responded to the detailed arguments I made refuting their claims and self-justifications or to my statement that while Palestinians were indeed suffering, the cause of their suffering was their own leaders and the Arab states who for sixty years have rejected peace because they want to push the Jews into the sea. The answer is that they didn’t. It was as though members of the Palestinian Club had not heard a word I said.

I have had the same experience on a score of campuses where I have confronted audiences, which included sizeable contingents from the Muslim Students Association, a front for the Muslim Brotherhood and a sister organization to Hamas, along with their leftwing enablers. The reactions at the end of my talks are always the same. The only way I can truly convey what happens is to recount a speech I arranged for the Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, who is under indictment for “insulting Islam” in the Netherlands. Wilders made very clear that he was not opposed to Muslims but to an intolerant and totalitarian ideology that demanded total submission to its doctrines and oppressed minorities whom it regarded as “infidels.”

During his speech Wilders turned to address directly the two dozen leftists and Muslims in the audience. He appealed to them saying “Look, I am doing your work. You say you are for the rights of women and gays. Under Sharia law and in many Islamic countries gays are hung from cranes and women are treated as chattel, denied education, and beaten with impunity by their husbands. I oppose the version of Islam that oppresses women and homosexuals. You need to do so as well.”

As soon as Wilders had finished his speech, the Muslims and leftists in the audience stood up en masse and started chanting “Racist, sexist, anti-gay, Geert Wilders go away!” and marched from the room.

So it was with the Muslims who came to protest my talk. When they went to the microphones to ask questions after the speech they all had one talking point and it was the strategic talking point of the jihadists: “Mr. Joe McCarthy” (this is how the leader of the protest actually addressed me, “you said that all Muslims are terrorists….” Others before him had made the identical charge bolted from the room. None had even made a pass a questioning the history I had reviewed or the facts I had presented.

What struck me afterwards was this. Every Muslim in the room was a member of the Palestinian Club; most I was told afterwards were from Ramallah. But not one of them spoke as a Palestinian. I had said that Palestinians had elected two terrorist governments to rule over them, that Palestinians were willing to kill their own children in order to kill other children, that their schools taught their children to hate and kill Jews, that as a people they had sunk to the lowest moral level in history.  I had said that they were indistinguishable from Nazis. And not one Palestinian in that room stood up to defend themselves as Palestinians. To a man and woman they said, “You are accusing all Muslims of being terrorists.

I said to them, you are acting as foot soldiers for the terrorists – which provoked an outraged cry. I confronted the professor ringleader and said: “Will you condemn Hamas?” He hemmed and hawed and stuttered, and then began his evasion of the question, but everyone in the room who was not a member of the Palestinian Club knew they already had their answer. Yes these Muslim students from the “Palestinian Club” were all supporters of the terrorist war against the Jews.

There was one questioner who actually did offer an intellectual challenge to an argument I had made, and did make an attempt to defend Palestinians as an ethnic group – as opposed to a religious sect of Islam. This person was a Jew from Hillel who suggested that Japanese kamikaze pilots were akin to suicide bombers and therefore Palestinians were not the only people in history who had sunk so low. But, of course, kamikaze pilots were soldiers not civilians, and they targeted battleships and aircraft carriers not women and children in pizza parlors.

When it was over, I was glad I had come. I was proud of the small vanguard of Jewish students who had invited me and arranged my appearance, and come to my speech. I was proud of Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, the Jewish trustee who had gone out of his way to protect me, and the students who came to hear me. And I was gratified that they understood my message and would take it to the rest of the Jewish community at Brooklyn College: If we are not for ourselves who will be?

It is the same message I take to other campuses where my audiences are mainly non-Jewish. Israel is the canary in the mine. The chant of the Islamo-Nazis in the Middle East – shouted by millions – is,  “Death to Israel! Death to America!” If we in America do not stand up for ourselves now, there will be no America tomorrow.

David Horowitz was one of the founders of the New Left in the 1960s and an editor of its largest magazine,Ramparts. He is the author, with Peter Collier, of three best selling dynastic biographies: The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty (1976); The Kennedys: An American Dream (1984); and The Fords: An American Epic (1987). Looking back in anger at their days in the New Left, he and Collier wrote Destructive Generation (1989), a chronicle of their second thoughts about the 60s that has been compared to Whittaker Chambers’ Witness and other classic works documenting a break from totalitarianism. Horowitz examined this subject more closely in Radical Son (1996), a memoir tracing his odyssey from “red-diaper baby” to conservative activist that George Gilder described as “the first great autobiography of his generation.”


A new Holocaust?

Source: Ynet

Op-ed: Combination of threats may end up leading to mass murder of Israeli Jews
Manfred Gerstenfeld

On January 27th, 66 years ago, the Auschwitz extermination camp was liberated. In many countries, it has become Holocaust Memorial Day. On a day which recalls absolute evil, it is natural to ask questions such as: Will Iran succeed in making an atom bomb and if so, when will it become operational? In light of the many years of threats by its leaders, will Iran use it against Israel? These seem to be the most realistic aspects of a far more diverse discussion of whether once again, there can or will happen a “genocide of Jews” (which is a more adequate expression than “Holocaust.”)

The debate over these topics has already lived on for many decades. One incident concerned the Jews in the Soviet Union. Recently, a conversation between American President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger from 1973 was published. It was revealed that both men did not consider it of any importance for the United States if Jews in the Soviet Union were to be sent to gas chambers. Kissinger has recently apologized for this statement.

At the beginning of this century, the outburst of new anti-Semitism – often cloaked as anti-Israelism – led to a revival of this discussion. In 2002, American columnist Ron Rosenbaum wrote that author Philip Roth had coined the term “The Second Holocaust” in his novel “Operation Shylock” written in 1993. Rosenbaum was of the opinion that sooner or later Arab radicals would hit Tel Aviv with an atom bomb. Writer Leon Wieseltier answered that Hitler was dead and there was no reason to worry.

This debate has lost its theoretical character for several years. The American government informed the Israeli government in August 2010 that Iran will have an atom bomb in another year. Since then, a computer worm in Iran’s nuclear installation has probably led to its delay. In Israel, a discussion is now taking place on when the Iranian bomb will be operational. Vice Premier Moshe Ya’alon estimates that this will take approximately three years. Meir Dagan, until recently head of the Mossad, thinks that this will not happen before 2015.

The numerous and murderous threats by Iran’s highest spiritual and political leaders such as the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, his successor Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to destroy Israel, turn it into the main target of such a bomb. It is now clear that other countries are also worried. From documents leaked by WikiLeaks, we learn that Saudi Arabia had asked the United States to bomb Iran. The underlying thought is that Shiite Iran would encounter little risk in using an atom bomb against Sunni countries which can hardly retaliate.

The Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi told US Air Force General T. Michael Moseley in 2007 that the waterways for oil transport from the Middle East would be threatened by an Iranian bomb. He asked the American army to stop Iran’s nuclear program “by all means possible.” The same request was made in 2009 by the King of Bahrain to US General David Petraeus.

Many Iranian leaders have an apocalyptic world view. Former Iranian President Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani said in 2002 that “the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam.”

The Pakistani threat

The publicity around the threat of genocide is focused mainly on Iran. Another possible nuclear threat can manifest itself much faster. From documents exposed by WikiLeaks we know that authorities in the United States, Great Britain and Russia are worried that Islamic terrorists could come into possession of Pakistani atom bombs or fissile material.

American Ambassador in Karachi Anne Patterson informed Washington at the beginning of 2009 that it was not probable that an Islamic militant would steal an entire weapon. However, the probability existed that someone in the nuclear installations could slowly smuggle out sufficient material to make a bomb.

Last September, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari warned that the survival of his country was threatened by a combination of extremist forces and giant floods. If Pakistan disintegrates, the threat can suddenly become much larger because one doesn’t know into whose hands the atomic arsenal could end up falling.

Meanwhile, the US has recently begun to take nuclear threats seriously again. Emergency exercises have been planned to inform the public in big cities on how best to protect themselves in case of a nuclear explosion.

All this plays out in a world where uncertainty and vulnerability will surely increase in the coming years. Israel will have to try to protect itself as best as it can against apocalyptic desires for genocide in the Muslim world. However, what is often seen as an Israeli problem is never that exclusively. Many others would do well to realize that the scenario of a new genocide by way of an atomic explosion could develop differently than expected. Such a bomb could be blown up in many different places.

There is however another lethal threat against Israel which is far more complex. It can be the ultimate result of the ongoing de-legitimization of Israel. A large diversity of Jew- and Israel-haters in many countries participates in this demonization, pursuing an almost endless number of strategies. Boycotts, divestment and sanctions are only a limited part of their multiple tools. Such a fragmented threat is typical of a post-modern society. All these are part of the “method of the thousand cuts to delegitimize Israel,” as former Canadian Minister of Justice Irwin Cotler called it.

Once combined, all of this anti-Israel propaganda and related activities could lead to such huge political pressure that Israel would have no choice but to return to indefensible borders – those which Abba Eban once termed “the Auschwitz borders.” If this scenario comes to fruition, it increases the possibility of a – be it delayed – mass murder of Israeli Jews.

Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld has published 19 books, several of which deal with Israel’s international relations


As Rosh Hashanah 2010 approaches—A look back at Obama’s last 19 months

I was doing a search for Obama having anything to state to the Jewish American’s about Rosh Hashanah, and also trying to find where the supposed President of the entire United States of America has even had any respect for Christian Holidays like he seems to have many for the Muslim Americans. I came across this excellent article below.

As I expected very few if even any speeches to the Judea-Christian population, which the last I checked, is the majority in the United States. And Obama has the audacity to state he cannot go around with his Birth Certificate plastered on his forehead because about 1/4 of the United States citizens thinks he is Muslim. Hmmm maybe Barack Hussein Obama it is because we judge you by your actions and not your usual rhetoric. Walt

As Rosh Hashanah 2010 approaches—A look back at Obama’s last 19 months

Source: Canada Free Press
By Christopher Massie  Monday, September 6, 2010

In 1952, the National Day of Prayer formally became law. Prior to that, this day had been recognized by the United States Congress as an official day of religious observance, based on previous calls for a day of prayer by the American government since as early as 1775. No president, regardless of insidious court challenges, has ever bypassed this sacred day of America’s right to closeness with God, so even the great divider Obama could not devise a secular-socialist plot to undermine such a profound day of historical implication.

But oh my, how he would try. According to the National Day of Prayer Task Force “Every President since 1952 has signed a National Day of Prayer proclamation”; ‘the audacity of non-authorship’ would surely have resulted in impeachment for number 44.

No, it would not be through the avoidance of penning the Proclamation that Obama would inflict a permanent black eye on the National Day of Prayer of 2010. His would be more subtle; a southpaw undercut you’d have to see coming to fully contemplate. First, there would be the words—few, well placed, and so subtle that even this author skimmed right past them at first reading. With emphasis added, here is that Proclamation:

“NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America do hereby proclaim May 6, 2010, as a National Day of Prayer. I call upon the citizens of our Nation to pray, or otherwise give thanks, in accordance with their own faiths and consciences, for our many freedoms and blessings, and I invite all people of faith to join me in asking for God’s continued guidance, grace, and protection as we meet the challenges before us.”

It would require comparing the entire article as located on the White House web-site, and as signed by Obama, to that written and signed by George W Bush, and others, before the above became crystal clear. Through the ever so subtle tweaking of the Proclamation to include “or otherwise give thanks”, Obama acknowledged—for the first time in history—an alternative to prayer within the nation’s call to prayer! Furthermore, by adding that one seemingly innocuous word “consciences” to the Proclamation, he incorporated into a document requiring a belief in faith the inclusion of secularists, atheists, antitheists, God-less elitists and more. In short, with 5 well placed words, our once God-fearing Proclamation was rendered the secular-socialists pledge of allegiance.

Additionally, with respects to prayer, no matter the creator one is speaking to, God is a prominent theme; when we pray, we pray to God. As an author of a document calling for a nation of 307 million to pray, it would be logical, even reasonable then, for a majority of the recipients of said letter to witness the occasional reference to Him. Barack Hussein Obama’s Proclamation of prayer, quite to the contrary includes one mention of God; compare that to Bush’s 15 allusions to the Almighty and that’s one “blame Bush” we could do with more of.

Secularization of the Proclamation

If that secularization of the Proclamation had been the sole transgression on Obama’s part, perhaps the issue could have been back page news. Not THIS Liberal; his agenda far outstrips the comparatively mild Clinton improprieties of what seem like centuries past. No, Obama had a message for Christians and Jews, and this day was just the day Barack Hussein Obama II had been awaiting.

Enter William Franklin Graham III (Evangelist Franklin Graham). Reverend Graham was originally scheduled to be the honorary chairman and main speaker at the 2010 annual Day of Prayer event that was held this year at the Pentagon. Obama’s administration, after receiving faxes and letters from the “Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF)”—the group representing Muslim communities in America—decided it would disinvite Mr. Graham. Well, ain’t that swell. Obama, under pressure from the Muslim community, fires one of the most prominent religious figures in the free world.

A lot of folks in the Muslim community point to Franklin Graham’s attitude towards radical Islam as their justification for crucifying the Reverend. The pressure on Obama, precipitated by the MRFF, stemmed from the piecing together of assorted talking points spliced into one overtly biased opinion of Graham by various sources, all dating back to the horrific days of 9/11. Rather than interview Graham himself, Obama allowed out-of-context statements to be used towards the end goal of the complete removal of religion from the Day of Prayer.

As we say, however, the truth will set one free. Here is an actual interview with Graham that Obama COULD have been a part of—if truth had EVER been a part of Obama’s agenda:

Male reporter: “Strong language from Mikey Weinstein. What’s your response to his group’s angry reaction to your invitation to the Pentagon?”

Graham: “Well, first of all, the United States, about 89% of the American people would profess to have some Christian background, connection or faith.Right now the US military is engaged in a war…in two wars…and I believe that ourNation and the men in the military need our prayer. Of course by coming to the Pentagon we’re not talking about Islam or Hindus or Buddhists. We’re just talking about men and women to pray for our Nation during this time of war. I have a son who is in Afghanistan‚Äìthis is his fourth tour. He’s a graduate of West Point. I know many people in the military and we certainly want to support them with our prayers. The majority of the United States are Christians, they are not Muslims. We’re Christians and we don’t want to attack the Muslims. We don’t want to say anything bad about them. We love them and we want them to know that Jesus Christ died for their sins and rose from the grave and, if they are willing to repent of their sins and receive Christby faith, that God will hear from heaven and heal their hearts. I want them to know the truth: that Jesus Christ is the son of the living God…”

Female reporter: “Let me interrupt you for just a moment. Mikey Weinstein’s claim is not whether or not there is a majority Christian population in this country. It’s that the US Military represents people of all faiths and that by having made anti-Islamic comments, the concern is there are people there…there are Islams(sic) in the US military who are offended by what you have said.”

Graham: “Well, you know, I’m offended by what Islam’s done, what Islam’s said. You have to understand, I know Islam very well and I work all over the world. I love the Muslim people but I disagree with the religion of Islam. I do not believe it is the truth. I don’t believe that Muhammed(sic) is a prophet of God. Now, I know they believe it and that’s fine and they can believe it. But I’m a Christian and I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of the living God…and we care for Muslim people and we love them and we want them to know the truth. So, coming to the Pentagon, we’re not attacking the Muslims, we’re praying for our Nation. So, you have a couple of people that have a fax machine and a letterhead and they’ll fax a letter to someone, making a complaint. I think it would be a slap at Christians all across this country if the Pentagon listened to these people. It would be a slap in the face of millions of American Christians, hundreds of thousands of Christian families in the military…”

Male reporter: “But you can understand why people of the Muslim faith would be insulted if you called Islam a “very evil and wicked religion,” even if only a handful of people of the Muslim faith actually carried out evil deeds. I mean, you might disagree religiously on the concept of God, but they feel insulted. How do you assuage that fear of “them” (I think he meant “theirs”) and do you agree that pehaps(sic) your son and other American troops would be in danger if you made an appearance?”

Graham: “No, let me tell you something, my son is in danger every day from Muslims that are wanting to take the lives of American troops. So, it’s not going to have anything to do with what I say or don’t say. We’re at war with Islamic Fundamentalists‚Äìthat’s what we are doing and we can’t ignore that. We certainly can’t allow a few Muslims in this country to deny Christians the right to pray for its leaders and to pray for its nation. I love the Muslim people, I really do. I care for them and I work in many Muslim countries and I’ve spent tens of millions of dollars helping Muslim people…”

Female reporter: “Briefly, before we go…”

Graham: “…I care for them and love them.”

Female reporter: “You do seem to be saying, though, there’s a place for prostelytizing (sic) at the Pentagon.”

Graham: “Well this isn’t prostelytizing (sic)…we’re not prostelytizing (sic). And the Muslims, they go to the Pentagon they have Ramadan and they have Islamic prayers at the Pentagon. But here’s a handful of Muslims saying that we cannot pray at the Pentagon like they do? We can’t have the same rights in our own country? This is ridiculous! I just think it would be a slap in the faceof millions…tens of millions of Christians if the Pentagon did this…and the Christian families in the US military. It would just be a real offense and I just hope that the Pentagon doesn’t even consider this. This would be a great mistake.”

Male reporter: “OK, Reverend Graham, thanks so much for joining us to present your side of the story. We appreciate it.”

Graham: “Well thank you and God bless.”(

Perhaps it was Graham’s mention of Ramadan that drove Obama over the edge; perhaps Obama WAS privy to the interview.

There can be no doubting the palpable charge in the air in New York City today. This feverous pitch can be felt across the country as Americans from both sides of the political fence wrestle not only with one another but within themselves as well over the proposed mosque being planned only blocks from Ground Zero. Thousands of words have been spoken. Countless hours of television time have been dedicated to the people whose passions require face time for the clear expressions of their mutual causes. Millions of dollars are invested by those who would benefit from the completion of the plans to build; likewise millions have been spent by those who would benefit from the scrapping of those plans to build. Lines have been drawn in the concrete; battle lines are no longer hypothetical—you know where you stand on this issue.

Organizations in favor of the mosque—and it IS a mosque (by definition: any place wherein more than one Muslim gathers en mass to pray, in a pre-planned, scheduled and ordained way, is a mosque)—are dubious in nature at best. One such group in favor of the building—known as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), directed by National Executive Director Nihad Awad—recently scalded not only Republicans, but the Obama administration as well, for what they perceive as complacency towards the enforcement of their community rights. Speaking for CAIR, Awad said:

“The Democratic leadership also could have been more forceful in defending the American Muslim community’s rights (one notices the obvious lowering of the head by Awad here—a tell-tale sign of Taqiyya) uh, to freedom of religion.”

As the leader of CAIR, he—and CAIR itself with him as the head of the organization—flagrantly tosses about such bigoted rhetoric as “Islamophobia”, “Islama-phobe” and other such words of the ilk. Nihad Awad has been allowed to deceive without remorse (a well-known practice taught in the Qur’an, identified as Taqiyya): (Video)

Practice of Taqiyya

This practice of Taqiyya leads to the acceptance in his mind and heart of the use of such deceptive terms as “moderate” to describe himself and CAIR when Awad speaks to American journalists. When in reality, CAIR, Awad, and other groups he is affiliated with have been condemned by the FBI to such extents that all relationships have been officially severed between CAIR and the Feds; a direct order from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. These actions, to include a now alleged co-conspiracy between Awad and the imam funding the mosque near Ground Zero, Feisal Abdul Rauf, unequivocally establish him and his groups as extreme: (Video)

One last matter of utmost importance as it relates to the false truths so frequently spoken by Nihad Awad. The vast majority of readers will have never cracked the pages of the Qur’an; much less have studied it as this author has. It is a disturbing piece of work. If no other nugget of educational information is extrapolated from this article, may the sole message be this: (Video)

The imam, whom has become the face of the mosque near Ground Zero, too is shrouded in mystery to the average American; spending more time on “missions of understanding” overseas than here in the States answering questions regarding the money trail. Research into Feisal Abdul Rauf reveal precisely the same double speak one unearths when delving into the despicable world of his counterpart in deceit, Nihad Awad—indeed, two peas in a pod. Rauf’s words to the English speaking world would have those of us so inclined towards freedom of religion, tolerance and other such Constitutional aspects believe he’s a classic example of misunderstood intentions; a man scorned and persecuted for his religion.

On one hand, he preaches to a New York paper thus:

“My colleagues and I are the anti-terrorists. We are the people who want to embolden the vast majority of Muslims who hate terrorism to stand up to the radical rhetoric. Our purpose is to interweave America’s Muslim population into the mainstream society.”

Yet, as truth has revealed, through reading numerous quotes of his, written in Arabic on his websites, Arabic news-sites, and in Arabic newspapers, Rauf’s true intentions actually align more with the teachings of the Qur’an: the complete subjugation of all religions worldwide (particularly Christianity and Judaism in America—known as the infidels in the Qur’an) to Islam. Considering that Americans have neither the requisite time for scanning the internet in search of every news-worthy source of Arabic-written Islamic propaganda, nor—more than likely—a solid working knowledge of the language, how then are we to know of Rauf’s printed words as found in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere “over there”?

Glad you asked:  (Video)

Considering these issues now come to light, it begs the question: in what manner, precisely, Mr. Awad—and you as well Rauf, considering you fellows are considered co-conspirers by the FBI—would you have liked to see Obama “be more forceful”? Did you not recall that Mr. Obama worked VERY hard at the secularization of this nation’s National Day of Prayer? Did it escape you that number 44 does NOT condone a religious figure of any kind being associated with this nation’s most sacred days? Can you not understand that a day as important as the National Day of Prayer, or 9/11—as has already been established by Obama’s actions back in April—simply MUST be devoid of religious leanings, implications or references to God, Godliness or worship of any kind? (Video)

Obama’s actions on the mosque near Ground Zero, plainly stated, can no longer be considered political correctness. Waffling, flip-flopping, back-tracking be damned—Obama’s first response was his answer. From centrists to radical right wing nut jobs, America was outraged, and rightly so. This statement from Obama—a nation splitting, spirit eviscerating, scathing comment along the lines of “Let them eat cake”—was so unbelievable, so surreal that no other president in history could have uttered those words.

Should we have been so shocked? Consider what the man has done to the Jews of this nation; another dubious achievement award he’ll have a stupendously hard time fitting into the trunk as he drives off the front lawn in 2012. Bibi has a framed photograph of Winston Churchill prominently placed upon his office wall. Churchill, Britain’s father of Zionism, the man who wrote the Churchill White Paper of 1922 that was to establish peace, unity and mutual respect between the Jews and Arabs of Palestine at his meeting of the Zionist Organization in 1921, is one of 2 of Netanyahu’s great heroes. After the devastation of 9/11, the United States was proudly presented with a bust of the great Churchill—a bust that has graced the Oval Office for a decade. Obama’s first order of business upon taking up residence was to return the beloved gift so graciously dedicated to our country. Obama’s first insidious gesture would be far from his last.

At the end of March 2010, Bibi was scheduled to meet with the chosen one to present plans that would satisfy Obama’s demand for the cessation of Israeli plans for growth. Typical for such meetings are the proverbial photo shoots with the media—scrapped for this event. Also customary, polite, and well, down-right expected, is dinner between the heads of state. So dissatisfied with the first moments of their meeting was Obama however, that he literally left the room, stating crudely, “let me know if there is anything new”. So infuriated was the Jewish community that Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America called the insult, “racist”. So infuriated was Netanyahu by his treatment that it led to accusations of “hazing”, with Netanyahu’s newspapers stating it was “treatment reserved for the President of Equatorial Guinea”. Faux pas? Gaffe? NO; a trend in the making!

As I reported just days after the incident occurred:

“A Turkish backed flotilla, against the warnings of Israel (also ignoring the invitation by Egypt), and harboring what many reports called mercenaries (confirmed as carrying gas masks and other non-humanitarian related cargo), under cover of nightfall, sailed towards Gaza at the end of May, 2010. Sailing into hostile waters, the flotilla was warned to turn back, as this region has been sealed off by blockade to secure Israel from further bloodshed as it endured when Hamas took control of Gaza three years ago. When the flotilla continued its course, Israeli troops descended and took control of the flotilla. International outrage against Israel ensued, as the world was convinced this flotilla was humanitarian in nature, yet Obamarefused to weigh in for days; other than to, in classic form, throw Hillary under the bus, having her comment that this situation in Gaza was, “unsustainable and unacceptable.” When Obama finally DID gesture towards the Middle East, his response was NOT a gesture towards the true victim, Israel. It would be to invite Mahmoud Abbas to the White House—the first week of June 2010—to sign a taxpayer backed check for nearly a billion dollars for “aide” to the Palestinians.” (

This check to Abbas, these actions against Israel and Netanyahu, these blatant, arrogant ally-destroying maneuvers by Barrack Hussein Obama—not to mention the removal of Christianity and Judaism from the one day Obama was forced to leave in place (very much to his chagrin)—serve to etch into stone the promise made when he swore to Abbas, Palestine, Arabs, and the world that: “Jerusalem will belong to the Palestinians”.

As the Holy day of Rosh Hashanah quickly approaches—officially beginning in 2010 at sunset September 8—Americans of faith are encouraged, once again, to observe the divider-in-office.

Not a single important national holiday has been observed by this president.

Memorial Day and D-Day were snubbed. The Fourth was blasphemed by his verbal assault on the Constitution and very near cursing of the Founding Fathers from his balcony overlooking pre-selected guests. The National Day of Prayer came and went with nary a mention; yes, the Proclamation was written—but the crass actions, secular vernacular and insults leveled against a prominent religious figure spoke volumes as to Obama’s TRUE intentions for our day of Prayer.

And what of the days Obama has celebrated? Never in 65 years of its remembrance has a president of this country attended the celebrations marking the Hiroshima bombings. Yet on August 6, 2010, that’s precisely what Obama called for; sending a representative from his administration on the road—to continue along with the “apology tour du Obama 2010.”

And, lest we forget, there is this, all important, extremely American past time—an event that every president should consider as a unifying moment in our nation’s new destiny: (Video)

So, as we search this week for those sweetest apples, remembering the customs of this most Holy time of the year, let not your hearts be weary—nor let your minds be even a fraction of a bit shocked—when the least-holy and most un-patriotic president to ever have the audacity to sit within that hallowed place called the White House completely overlooks Rosh Hashanah 2010—he’ll probably be golfing with Rauf.


I am a refugee


Print Edition

Photo by: Ariel Jerozolimski/The Jerusalem Post

I am a refugee

As a descendant of a family forced out of Algeria, my father and I – and the millions of other Jews from families who were expelled from Arab countries after 1948 – are entitled to redress.
As a sitting member of a democratic government, it might appear strange to declare that I am a refugee. However, my father, his parents and family were just a few of the almost one million Jews who were expelled or forced out of Arab lands. My father and his family were Algerian, from a Jewish community thousands of years old that predated the Arab conquest of North Africa and even Islam. Upon receiving independence, Algeria allowed only Muslims to become citizens and drove the indigenous Jewish community and the rest of my family out.

While many people constantly refer to the Arab or Palestinian refugees, few are even aware of the Jewish refugees from Arab lands.

While those Arabs who fled or left Mandatory Palestine and Israel numbered roughly 750,000, there were roughly 900,000 Jewish refugees from Arab lands. Before the State of Israel was reestablished in 1948, there were almost one million Jews in Arab lands, today there are around 5,000.

An important distinction between the two groups is the fact that many Palestinian Arabs were actively involved in the conflict initiated by the surrounding Arab nations, while Jews from Arab lands were living peacefully, even in a subservient dhimmi status, in their countries of origin for many centuries if not millennia.

In addition, Jewish refugees, as they were more urban and professional, as opposed to the more rural Palestinians, amassed far more property and wealth which they had to leave in their former county.

Financial economists have estimated that, in today’s figures, the total amount of assets lost by the Jewish refugees from Arab lands, including communal property such as schools, synagogues and hospitals, is almost twice that of the assets lost by the Palestinian refugees. Furthermore, one must remember that Israel returned over 90 percent of blocked bank accounts, safe deposit boxes and other items belonging to Palestinian refugees during the 1950s.

EVEN THOUGH the number of Jewish refugees and their assets are larger than that of the Palestinians, the international community only appears to be aware of the latter’s plight.

There are numerous major international organizations devoted to the Palestinian refugees. There is an annual conference held at the United Nations and a refugee agency was created just for the Palestinian refugees. While all the world’s refugees have one agency, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the Palestinians fall under the auspices of another agency, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).

UNWRA’s budget for 2010 is almost half of UNHCR’s budget.

Equally impressive is the fact that UNHCR prides itself on having found “durable solutions” for “tens of millions” of refugees since 1951, the year of its establishment. However, UNRWA does not even claim to have found “durable solutions” for anyone.

If that is not distorted enough, let’s look at the definitions and how they are applied: normally the definition of a refugee only applies to the person that fled and sought refuge, while a Palestinian refugee is the person that fled and all of their descendants for all time. So, according to the UNRWA definition of conferring refugee status on descendants, I would be a refugee.

However, I do not consider myself so; I am a proud citizen of the State of Israel. The Jewish refugees found their national expression in Israel, so to, the Arab refugees should find their national aspirations being met by a Palestinian state.

WITH DIRECT negotiations about to resume between Israel and the Palestinians, the spotlight will be returned to this issue. The so-called Palestinian ‘right of return’ is legal fiction. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194, the supposed source for this ‘right’ does not mention this term, is not legally binding and, like all other relevant United Nations resolutions uses the intentionally ambiguous term ‘refugees’ with no appellation.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, still seen as the primary legal framework for resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict asserts that a comprehensive Middle East peace settlement should necessarily include “a just settlement of the refugee problem.”

No distinction is made between Arab refugees and Jewish refugees.

In fact, one of the leading drafters of the resolution, Justice Arthur Goldberg, the United States’ Chief Delegate to the United Nations, said: “The resolution addresses the objective of ‘achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem.’ This language presumably refers both to Arab and Jewish refugees.”

In addition, every peace conference and accord attended or signed between Israel and its Arab neighbors uses the term “refugees” without qualification.

During the famous Camp David discussions in 2000, president Clinton, the facilitator and host of the negotiations said: “There will have to be some sort of international fund set up for the refugees. There is, I think, some interest, interestingly enough, on both sides, in also having a fund which compensates the Israelis who were made refugees by the war, which occurred after the birth of the State of Israel. Israel is full of people, Jewish people, who lived in predominantly Arab countries who came to Israel because they were made refugees in their own land”.

In 2008, the US Congress passed House Resolution 185 granting, for the first time, equal recognition to Jewish refugees, while affirming that the US government will now recognize that all victims of the Arab-Israeli conflict must be treated equally.

I am proud of the fact that the Knesset passed a resolution in February of this year that will make compensation for Jewish refugees expelled from Arab countries after 1948 an integral part of any future peace negotiations. The Israeli bill stipulates that “The state of Israel will not sign, directly or by proxy, any agreement or treaty with a country or authority dealing with a political settlement in the Middle East without ensuring the rights of Jewish refugees from Arab countries according to the UN’s refugee treaty.”

Before 1948 there were nearly 900,000 Jews in Arab lands while only a few thousand remain. Where is the international outrage, the conferences, the proclamations for redress and compensation? While the Palestinian refugee issue has become a political weapon to beat Israel, the Arab League has ordered its member states not to provide their Palestinian population with citizenship; Israel absorbed all of its refugees, whether fleeing the Holocaust or persecution and expulsion from Arab lands.

People like my father, the hundreds of thousands who came to Israel and the millions of Israelis descended from these refugees are entitled to redress. It is vital that this issue return to the international agenda, so we don’t once again see an asymmetrical and distorted treatment of Arabs and Jews in the Israeli-Arab conflict.

The writer is Israel’s Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Anti-Semitic Cartoons on Progressive Blogs

Source: JCPA

by  Adam Levick

Published September 2010

The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the Board of Fellows of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs

No. 101, 1 September 2010 / 23 Elul 5770

Anti-Semitic Cartoons on Progressive Blogs

Adam Levick

  • Political cartoons often have more of an immediate impact in reinforcing negative stereotypes about Jews than a lengthy essay. By far the largest output of anti-Semitic cartoons nowadays comes from the Arab and Muslim world. A yet uncharted field of hate cartoons against Jews is that in progressive blogs.
  • Anti-Semitic cartoons found – and seemingly tolerated – on progressive blogs such as Daily Kos, MyDD, Mondoweiss, and Indymedia are mainly expressions of anti-Israelism, a more recent category of anti-Semitism than the religious and ethnic-nationalist versions.
  • Traditionally the core motif of anti-Semitism is that Jews represent absolute evil. The cultural notion of what that means has changed over the centuries. Nowadays absolute evil is often expressed as Jews or Israelis being Nazis. Indeed, the cartoon motif most frequently appearing on the progressive blogs is imagery equating Israel with Nazi Germany. Others reflect Jewish conspiracies, Zionists controlling the world, the blood libel, or show Jews as animals.
  • Most of the progressive blogs discussed, containing such anti-Semitic imagery cited in this essay, generally fail to remove such hateful cartoons, despite blog policies expressly prohibiting posts that contain “hateful” or “inflammatory” content.

Cartoons have to express ideas in an easy-to-understand way. Therefore they are often accessible even to people who cannot read. Cartoons are also an efficient way to transmit hate and prejudices, including anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism in cartoons has been investigated, among others, by the Belgian political scientist Jöel Kotek in his book Cartoons and Extremism.[1] Political cartoons often have a more immediate impact in reinforcing negative stereotypes about Jews than a lengthy essay.

The largest output of anti-Semitic cartoons nowadays comes from the Arab and Muslim world. Outside it one also finds a significant number of anti-Semitic cartoons in many countries. In Europe, for instance, over the past decade such imagery has been particularly strong in countries such as Norway and Greece.[2]

A yet uncharted field of hate cartoons against Jews is that in progressive blogs. They are mainly expressions of anti-Israelism, a more recent category of anti-Semitism than the religious and ethnic-nationalist versions. Traditionally the core motif of anti-Semitism is that Jews represent absolute evil. The cultural notion of what that means has changed over the centuries. In current times absolute evil is often expressed as Jews or Israelis being Nazis. This charge is usually identified with the virulent anti-Semitic cartoons on right-wing extremist sites and in Arab media. This motif, however, is also the main one found in anti-Semitic cartoons on progressive blogs.

Also the three major submotifs of anti-Semitism are expressed in cartoons on progressive blogs. The first one is that Jews lust for power. In progressive blogs this is manifested mainly as caricatures on Jewish conspiracies and Zionists controlling the world. The second major anti-Semitic submotif is that Jews lust for blood, and progressive blogs include cartoons accusing Jews of infanticide. The third anti-Semitic submotif, namely, that Jews are inferior beings, is expressed on these blogs in cartoons showing Jews as animals.

The cartoonist most frequently appearing on the progressive blogs analyzed here is Carlos Latuff. He is an extreme left-wing political activist who won second place in the notorious Iranian Holocaust Cartoon Competition. Latuff is one of the more prolific anti-Semitic cartoonists on the web, with a staggering amount of work dedicated to advancing explicitly anti-Semitic political imagery.

Israel as a Nazi State

The U.S. State Department’s 2008 report[3] on “Contemporary Global Anti-Semitism” asserts regarding the new anti-Semitism:

Comparing contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis is increasingly commonplace. Anti-Semitism couched as criticism of Zionism or Israel often escapes condemnation since it can be more subtle than traditional forms of anti-Semitism…those criticiz­ing Israel have a responsibility to consider the effect their actions may have in prompting hatred of Jews. At times hostility toward Israel has translated into physical violence directed at Jews in gener­al.

The European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia presents a similar definition.[4]

The 2009 report on anti-Semitism by the Stephen Roth Institute noted that anti-Semitic attacks on Jews worldwide doubled from the previous year. The study also points out that extreme anti-Israel sentiments, such as equating Israel with Nazi Germany, are often the catalyst for such attacks.[5] As the report observes, “The dramatic increase in anti-Semitic manifestations in West European countries was influenced considerably by the virulently anti-Israel discourse and propaganda that portrayed Israel as a Nazi state and consequently delegitimized its right to exist.”

As analyzed in an interview with Kotek in 2004,[6] as well as by Arieh Stav in his 1999 book on anti-Semitic cartoons in the Arab world,[7] the charge that the behavior of the Jewish state is similar to that of Nazi Germany has been a staple in the Arab media for years, used as a tool for demonizing and delegitimizing Israel. As Kotek noted, “Long before [Ariel] Sharon came to power [as prime minister], the theme of the Israeli as a Nazi was well-represented in the Arab caricature. According to it, all Zionists from Peres and Barak to Sharon are inspired by Nazi methods.” As Stav pointed out, “The idea of NaZionism…was a central theme of the Soviet Press [during the Cold War] and had considerable impact on Egypt and Syria…particularly during the Lebanon War and the Intifada, as well as in the Western Press. The Arabs…are in the vanguard of this trend. The Judeo-Nazi Motif is among the central themes of Arab propaganda.”[8]

The following cartoons illustrate how the hate motif of Israel as a Nazi state appears regularly on progressive blogs. As Kotek remarks, “Cartoons [that] convey the idea that Jews behave like Nazis [would] lead readers to conclude that Israel, alone among the nations, has no right to exist. Such cartoons represent a continuation and rebirth of the malicious Zionism=Racism charge codified in 1975 – later repealed – by UN member states (Arab and Soviet bloc) who at the time were openly dedicated to Israel’s destruction.”

The above cartoon, showing a bloodstained Israeli flag with the Magen David morphed into a swastika, is posted[9] on the progressive blog Daily Kos. It accompanies a column by a Kos blogger entitled: “Eulogy before the Inevitability of Self-Destruction: The Decline and Death of Israel.” While it is important to note that this post elicited an overwhelmingly negative response by Kos readers, it is also certainly worth noting that the graphic and accompanying story – which warns of “A Zionist movement multiplying like cancer cells” – was still posted on the site as of August 2010.  The section on “posting privileges” at Daily Kos clearly stipulates that “hateful” or “inflammatory” posts will be deleted.[10]

The cartoon above by Derkaoui Abdellah, presumably comparing Israel’s security fence with Auschwitz, won first prize at the abovementioned 2006 Iranian Holocaust Cartoon Competition in Tehran.[11] It was also posted on Daily Kos, and is still up at the site as of August 2010.[12] The Kos blogger who posted the cartoon referred to it as “merely” depicting “a political statement that what the Israelis are doing in building the wall around the Palestinian territories echoes what was done to them in the past.” While much of the commentary regarding the cartoon was negative, it needs to be asked why – again, given that Daily Kos reserves the right to delete material that is hateful – such a hideous cartoon would appear at this progressive site at all, let alone remain there to this day.

In a post entitled “Zionism was and remains a racist ideology,” Daily Kos blogger Ben Heine – who also participated in the Iranian Holocaust Cartoon Competition[13],[14] – shows Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman as Adolf Hitler. Any pretense that this cartoon only vilifies Lieberman can be refuted by the word Zionism colored in blood in the background, along with the vicious-looking skull in Lieberman’s hand wrapped with the Israeli flag. Though the image, and accompanying text, was removed[15] from Daily Kos, merely citing “copyright reasons,” the post attracted 564 comments, many of them defending the cartoon. One such comment suggested that “the artist was not claiming Jews are Hitler. He was [merely] comparing the behavior of Avigdor Lieberman to Hitler.”[16]

The Latuff cartoon above, showing Sharon kissing Hitler, appeared on the (Washington) DC Indymedia site.[17]

The above is another Latuff cartoon on the DC Indymedia site[18] comparing the war in Gaza with the genocide of Jews by the Nazis.[19]

The above Latuff cartoon was published by Indymedia[20] on Holocaust Remembrance Day.

The above is yet another Latuff cartoon on Indymedia.[21] It makes sure there is no doubt that the Jewish state has morphed into the new Nazi Germany by showing the tracks of the Israeli tank shaped like swastikas.

The above cartoon by Pat Oliphant, portraying Israel as a jackbooted, goose-stepping, mindless Nazi-like monster, was initially published in the New York Times and the Washington Post.[22] Eventually it was reproduced on several extremist right-wing websites, as well as in a publication of the terrorist organization Hizballah with the heading “Zionist Nazism.”[23] The progressive blog Mondoweiss reprinted the cartoon and defended it by saying, “Considering the next foreign minister [Avigdor Lieberman] has been widely called fascist, and recommended nuking Gaza, I see no reason to criticize it.”[24]


The blood-libel motif originated in the twelfth century in Christian England.[25] It alleged that the Jews needed Christian blood for their Passover service and, clearly, were evil. In today’s Arab world this staple image of unbridled hatred has mutated into the alleged quest for Palestinian blood.[26] The blood libel sees Jews not only as murderers, but murderers who prefer to target children.

The abovementioned U.S. State Department report on anti-Semitism notes, for instance: “In Bahrain, in June 2002, the independent news­paper Al-Wasat published a cartoon depicting a Jewish man impaling a swaddled infant on a spear, furthering the anti-Semitic blood libel that Jews kill children” (emphasis added).

The cartoon above by Latuff, depicting former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert cradling a dead Palestinian baby, was published on Indymedia.[27] It suggests that not only do Israeli leaders intentionally kill Palestinian children, but also that such child murder is popular among the Israeli public and helps Israeli politicians get elected.

The Latuff cartoon above was posted by MyDD blogger shergald, and is still up at the progressive blog as of August 2010. It is posted under the title “Gaza Holocaust Has Begun.”[28] While the theme of the cartoon is child murder, the title corresponds to the Israel-as-Nazi theme. The appearance of more than one anti-Semitic motif is not an isolated phenomenon.

The hate motif of infanticide also appeared in a 2003 cartoon by Dave Brown in the progressive British daily The Independent. The cartoon shows Sharon eating the head of a Palestinian baby and saying, “What’s wrong? Have you never seen a politician kissing a baby?”[29] It won Britain’s 2003 Political Cartoon of the Year Award. After receiving numerous complaints, the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) decided that the cartoon did not breach its code. In the wake of the controversy surrounding the publication, a blogger at Daily Kos – who goes by the name “Neocons will ban me” – posted the same cartoon under the heading “Champions of Free Expression.”

This Latuff cartoon above, appearing on the Indymedia site,[30] is clearly meant to evoke the iconic Holocaust photo (below)[31] of a little Jewish boy in the Warsaw Ghetto raising his hands in surrender to the Nazis. The Israeli soldier in the cartoon has a look of pleasure as he terrorizes a Palestinian child.

Jews Control the Government/Zionist Conspiracy

The term ‘‘Zionist Occupation Government” (or ZOG) has been a staple of right-wing extremists for some time.[32] The State Department’s definition of anti-Semitism includes: “stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective – such as, especially but not exclusively, a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.”

The above cartoon[33] was posted on Daily Kos but was eventually taken down for reasons that were never clearly stated.[34] It was accompanied by a story by the author alleging that the vast Jewish conspiracy was preventing Dr. Juan Cole from being appointed to a position at Yale. The Kos blogger, named “Grand Moff Texan,” made the following comments that are still up at the site (as of 1 August 2010): “I have a problem with the fact that Yale decided not to hire someone because a bunch of Israel-first, rightwing flacks went and scared Yale’s Jewish donors, and they in turn scared administrators at Yale.  That’s three groups of people right there who need to reconsider what country they live in.”

The above image – commenting on efforts by the pro-Israel media watchdog group, CAMERA, to challenge anti-Israel distortions on Wikipedia – suggests a Jewish-Zionist world conspiracy to “rewrite history,” and was posted by shergald on MyDD.[35] The image was still up at the site as of August 2010. The post contains a title, “Zionist Infiltration,” that is the kind of rhetoric typically also used by right-wing extremists such as David Duke. The title has not been deleted despite the blogger user agreement at MyDD prohibiting the use of “inflammatory titles.”


Zoomorphism is a common theme throughout the world. As Kotek noted in the abovementioned interview, “To abuse one’s adversaries, one dehumanizes them by turning them into animals. In Nazi and Soviet caricatures, the Jew is often depicted as a spider or an octopus – perceived as an evil animal.”

The anti-Semitic idea of Jews, or Israel, as savage beasts is not typically expressed on the mainstream web.  However, a regular Mondoweiss[36] blogger, called Seham, linked to a Latuff cartoon within his “Flotilla News List” post.  Mondoweiss is funded by The Nation Institute.

The cartoon above represented a commentary on the May 2010 flotilla incident off the coast of Gaza. It combines both the cartoonist’s frequent claim that Israel has become a Nazi-like state and imagery portraying the Jewish state as a beast, with its tentacles wrapped around the flotilla – which is emblazoned with the word freedom. The ten comments in the thread below were all positive.

The Nazis often portrayed the Jews as an octopus with tentacles wrapped around the world. The above caricature, however, is updated to include the post-Holocaust anti-Semitic notion that the Jewish state has morphed into the old Nazi state. Below, for comparison, is a Nazi anti-Semitic cartoon from about 1938 in which an octopus with a Star of David over its head encompasses the world with its tentacles.


The use of such extreme and hateful cartoons by a site as radical and open to expressions of outright anti-Semitism as Indymedia is not unexpected. The site has even been criticized by the socialist Left[37] for its defense of expressions of Holocaust denial. The use of such images by such “mainstream” sites as Daily Kos and MyDD[38] is much more surprising, and may represent an ominous development within a significant segment of the progressive community. (One blogger at another mainstream Democratic blog, Democratic Underground, linked to the main Carlos Latuff site and said Latuff was a “radical” but “great” – a post that is still up at the site as of August 2010.)[39]

This author’s 2009 report on anti-Semitic themes in the progressive blogosphere found both “Israel as a Nazi state” and “excessive Jewish control/conspiracy” to be present to varying degrees at the three most popular progressive blogs: Daily Kos, Salon, and Huffington Post.[40] Although Mondoweiss does not have a fraction of the traffic of Daily Kos and MyDD, the blog’s creators and contributors have posted on the most widely read progressive blog, Huffington Post. In addition, the influential Talking Points Memo (the twelfth most popular political website),[41] and via it TPMCafe, now syndicate Mondoweiss’s posts.[42] The Nation, which, as noted, funds Mondoweiss, has been one of the standard-bearers of liberal-Democratic thought for years and is the twenty-fourth most popular political website overall.

As Indymedia Watch, an Indymedia watchdog group, noted,[43] “Indymedia was set up to fill a void in the corporate media. Unfortunately, as a largely un-moderated, unrestricted medium it was promptly over-run by bigots…who confuse free-speech with hate-speech. I believe the Indy Media [sic] experiment has failed.”

The question of how the more mainstream liberal-Democratic blogosphere will respond to the continuing presence of such hate speech in their own ideological community remains open. Indeed, given these blogs’ increasing power and influence within the progressive “activist” circles, the way they respond may affect the broader acceptance of such hateful canards for generations to come. For committed antiracists – or anyone, for that matter, truly concerned about the values of tolerance and diversity, and the future direction of the entire “progressive” movement – the seeming refusal to take such trends seriously represents, at the very least, an egregious case of hypocrisy.

More important, the failure to act in the face of such clear expressions of Jew-hatred constitutes a shameful – and potentially calamitous – moral abdication.


Progressive Blogs in This Report

Daily Kos: Daily Kos[44] is an American progressive blog publishing news and opinion.  It was recently ranked as the tenth most popular political website in overall traffic. Daily Kos functions as a discussion forum and group blog for a variety of activists, whose efforts are primarily directed toward influencing and strengthening the Democratic Party.

The site makes clear that “This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog…with one goal in mind: Electoral victory.” Additionally, the site features a participatory political encyclopedia, glossaries, and other permanent content. Daily Kos was founded by Markos Moulitsas in 2002. In June 2006, members of Daily Kos organized the first-ever political blogger convention, called YearlyKos, in Las Vegas, Nevada. The event was attended by approximately one thousand bloggers and featured appearances by prominent Democratic Party leaders. Subsequent annual conventions became known as Netroots Nation and also were attended by an array of prominent Democratic leaders.

As this author’s report on progressive blogs demonstrated, some bloggers on Daily Kos freely advance narratives of a moral equivalence between Israel and Nazi Germany, as well as more general tropes suggesting Jewish conspiracy. The impunity they seem to enjoy in engaging in such toxic commentary about Jews, and the Jewish state, is notable given the site’s explicit warning that posts or comments may be deleted that: “Contain hateful or defamatory writing; Are deliberately designed to inflame; Contain deliberately inflammatory titles.”

MyDD: MyDD is one of the more popular and influential progressive blogs on the web.[45] MyDD describes itself[46] as “a group blog designed to discuss campaigns, the progressive movement, and political power. We do polling, research, commentary, analysis, and activism.” Jerome Armstrong, the founder of MyDD, has consulted and worked for many organizations and campaigns, including Jon Corzine’s successful 2005 campaign for governor of New Jersey and the presidential efforts of Howard Dean and Mark Warner. Armstrong coauthored the acclaimed book Crashing the Gate. The site prohibits comments and posts that contain inflammatory titles or remarks. Yet, as this report demonstrates, posts containing political cartoons advancing the infanticide and conspiracy narratives about Jews are still found on the site. MyDD is ranked fifty-seventh in overall web traffic among liberal political blogs.

Mondoweiss: The site, funded by The Nation Institute,[47] is an openly anti-Zionist Jewish blog.[48] Philip Weiss, an investigative journalist who, together with Adam Horowitz, runs the blog, does not think Israel should exist. Mondoweiss consistently advances, among other classical anti-Semitic tropes, the argument that Jews exercise too much power over U.S. foreign policy[49] and that Jewish progressive voices on the Middle East are censored, or at least muzzled, by the “right-wing” organized Jewish community. Further, the site argues, accusations of anti-Semitism are cynically used to stifle debate.

Weiss, the main blogger, states that “Zionism privileges Jews and justifies oppression, and this appalls me. Saying I’m anti-Zionist is a sincere expression of my pluralist, minority-respecting worldview.” Weiss has complained of the “suffering of Palestinians that has been perpetrated politically in large part by empowered American Jews who are all over the media and political establishment.”

Weiss also called for a quota on Jews who work in the media, saying, “I would like Jewish participation in mainstream media roundtables on the Middle East held to 50 percent or lower. That is my quota.” He refers to Zionism as an ideology of “apartheid and ethnic cleansing,” and even stated his support for Hizballah when it competed in the 2009 Lebanese elections.[50]

Interestingly, Weiss (like fellow anti-Israel liberal Glenn Greenwald)[51] also has published essays at Patrick Buchanan’s paleoconservative magazine The American Conservative.[52] This odd political alliance seems to find common cause in their mutual hostility toward Israel and willingness to propagate classic anti-Semitic tropes – such as the charge of dual loyalty – while engaging in such rhetoric.[53] [54]

Fellow Mondoweiss blogger Adam Horowitz has said, “[if] they are asking if I support a Jewish state…the simple answer is no.”[55] Cartoons have appeared at Mondoweiss that equate Israel and Nazi Germany, and one recently appeared that falls under the zoomorphism category (Israel as a bloodthirsty animal).

Indymedia: According to its homepage, “Indymedia is a collective of independent media organizations and hundreds of journalists offering grassroots, non-corporate coverage. Indymedia is a democratic media outlet for the creation of radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of truth.”

Indymedia was founded as an alternative to government and corporate media, and seeks to enable people to publish their media as directly as possible. The site, however, has become a forum for hate-mongers and conspiracy theorists.[56] The uses of terms such as ZioNazis is common.[57]  9/11 Truth narratives are advanced frequently.[58] [59] According to traffic statistics from Alexa, Indymedia is the tenth most visited liberal website.

Carlos Latuff

Carlos Latuff is a Brazilian political activist and cartoonist with a staggering portfolio of political cartoons, many of which openly express anti-Semitic themes. He advances the narrative that Israel is a unique and immutable evil in the world.[60]  His work includes imagery clearly indicating moral equivalence between Israel and Nazi Germany, which he has explicitly acknowledged to be his view.[61] The Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism noted that Latuff’s “portrayal of [former] Israeli Prime Minister Sharon is reminiscent of the antisemitic caricatures…in Julius Streicher’s [Nazi publication] Der Sturmer.”[62]

Latuff’s works have been posted on various Indymedia websites and blogs as well as several newspapers and magazines such as JAMI, the magazine of the Islamic Front for the Iraqi Resistance,[63] the Lebanese newspaper Al Akhbar,[64] and other formats such as anti-Israel academic Norman Finkelstein’s official website.[65] Latuff participated in the 2006 Iranian International Holocaust Cartoon Competition, and won second place for his cartoon comparing Israel’s West Bank barrier with the Nazi concentration camps.

Ian Black, writing for The Guardian, a daily not known for its philo-Semitic tendencies, noted that Latuff was among those cartoonists “drawing, without inhibition, on judeophobic stereotypes in the service of the anti-globalisation movement.”[66] Latuff also has employed antiblack racist themes in criticizing President Barack Obama.[67]

*     *     *


[1] Jöel Kotek, Cartoons and Extremism (London: Vallentine Mitchell, 2009).


Manfred Gerstenfeld, “Analyzing Cartoons to Capture the Essence of Anti-Semitism” (review of Jöel Kotek, Cartoons and Extremism: Israel and the Jews in Arab and Western Media), Jewish Political Studies Review, vol. 21, nos. 1-2 (Spring 2009)


“Contemporary Global Anti-Semitism: A Report Provided to the U.S. Congress,” U.S. State Department, 2008


Working Definition of Anti-Semitism, European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2005

[5] “Anti-Semitism Worldwide,” Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism,” 2009.


interview with Jöel Kotek, “Major Motifs in Anti-Semitic Cartoons,” Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism 21, 1 June 2004


Arieh Stav, Peace: The Arabian Caricature – a  Study of Anti-Semitic Imagery (Jerusalem: Gefen, 1999)

[8] Ibid., 183.


Nepos Libertas, “Eulogy before the Inevitability of Self-Destruction: The Decline and Death of Israel.” Daily Kos, 13 May 2008


Markos Moulitsas, “Meta Madness Diaries,” Daily Kos, 3 January 2006

[11] http:/

Website of Iranian Holocaust Cartoon Contest, 2006


Jerome A. Paris, Daily Kos, 3 November 2006



Ben Heine, “Zionism Was and Remains a Racist Ideology,” Daily Kos, 5 April 2007


Ben Heine, “The Artwork That Ate Israel,” 6 April 2007


Reader comment by “glow dog,” Daily Kos, 5 April 2007


DC Indymedia, 3 November 2003


Indymedia, November 2007



UK Indymedia, 28 January 2009


UK Indymedia, 4 January 2009


“SWC Denounces  Oliphant Anti-Israel Cartoon That ‘Mimics the Poison of Nazi and Soviet Propaganda’; Urges Nytimes.Com and Other Websites to Remove It,” Simon Wiesenthal Center, 25 March 2009


Tom Gross, “WaPo/NY Times Anti-Semitic Cartoon Becomes Hezbollah Propaganda,” National Review Online, 12 April 2009


Philip Weiss, “Is It Just a Star of David or a Flag,” Mondoweiss, 26 March 2009


“Blood Libel,” Jewish Virtual Library


Menachem Milson, “What Is Arab Anti-Semitism?” MEMRI, 27 February 2004


“Ehud Olmert’s Dreams,” UK Indymedia, 15 January 2009


Shergald, “The Gaza Holocaust Has Begun,” MyDD, 1 March 2008


“A Century of Satire, Wit, and Irreverence,” The Independent, 27 November 2003


“Gaza Ghetto,” DC Indymedia, 24 December 2008


“The Boy in the Photo,” Holocaust Education and Archive Research Team


“A Visual Database of Extremist Symbols, Logos and Tattoos,” Anti-Defamation League


“Downsizing Anti-Semitism,” Judeoshpere, 5 July 2006


Grand Moff Texan, “Isryale,” Daily Kos, 14 June 2006


Shergald, “Zionist Infiltration at Wikipedia,” MyDD, 22 April 2008


Seham, “My Flotilla Newslist,” Mondoweiss, 31 May 2010


Andy Newman, “Fallout as Indymedia Embraces Anti-Semitism,” Socialist Unity, 12 February 2008


“The 50 Most Popular Liberal Sites,” Right Wing News (per Alexa), 26 May 2009


SteeplerOt, “The Art of Resistance,” Democratic Underground, 28 December 2006


Adam Levick, “Anti-Israelism and Anti-Semitism on Progressive U.S. Blogs/News Websites: Influential and Poorly Monitored, Post Holocaust and Anti-Semitism 92, 1 January 2010


“The 25 Most Popular Political News Websites,” EBiZ, August 2010


“You Can Now Follow Mondoweiss at Talking Points Memo,” TPM Café, 25 May 2009


“The End,” Indymedia Watch, 16 March 2007


“About Daily Kos,” Daily Kos


Evan Carmichael, “The Top 50 Political Blogs of the Year,” 2009


“About MyDD,” MyDD


“Journalism Fellows at The Nation Institute,” The Nation Institute


Philip Weiss, “What J Street Is Up Against,” Mondoweiss, 17 March 2009


Philip Weiss, “Liberals Like to Deceive Themselves about Jewish Power,” Mondoweiss, 22 October 2009


Philip Weiss, “On the Verge of Lebanese Elections Nasrallah Defies Obama and Israel,” Mondoweiss, 19 May 2009



Philip Weiss, “The Long Fuse to the Iraq War,” The American Conservative, 28 January 2008




Philip Weiss, “Mr. Horowitz: Tell Us What You Think of the Two-State Solution,” Mondoweiss, 15 March 2009


Michael Totten, “Portland Indymedia Speaks,” Middle East Journal, 7 July 2005


“Zionazis Fires on Jenin Market, Many Hurt, Two Killed,” Chicago Indymedia, 1 June 2002


“9/11 Truth Conference,” Radio Indymedia, 6 June 2006


“9/11 Truth Conference” (audio file), Radio Indymedia


“Latuff Palestine Cartoons,” ArtIntifada, 10 January 2009


“Interview with Carlos Latuff,” Intifada (Voice of Palestine), 17 April 2010


“Annual Report: General Analysis 2003,” Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Antisemitism and Racism


“The Interview I Gave for the Magazine of The Islamic Front for the Iraqi Resistance (JAMI),” Tales of Iraq War by Latuff, 2 June 2008


“Article about My Art in the Lebanese Newspaper ‘Al Akhbar,'” Tales of Iraq War by Latuff, 15 April 2008


“Latuff Gallery,” Official Website of Norman G. Finkelstein


Ian Black, “Cartoon Symbols of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict,” The Guardian, 19 December 2008


Harry A., “Latuff: Anti-Jewish and Anti-Black Racist,” Harry’s Place, 9 February 2010

*     *     *

Adam Levick is the Managing Editor of CiF Watch. His essays have been published in the Jerusalem Post and The Guardian, as well as the blogs: Elder of Ziyon and Z Word. Before moving to Israel in 2009, Adam Levick worked in the Civil Rights Division at the National Office of the Anti-Defamation League, where he was responsible for monitoring progressive journals and political blogs in the U.S.


Coming August 31: ‘Direct Access’ Stimulus Grants for the Muslim Brotherhood

The below article should give every citizen of the United States pause. Obama is using our tax payer dollars to support and fund The Muslim Brotherhood. Walt

Source: Big Peace

By  Christine Brim

Think of it as ACORN reborn, with a slice of Jihad on the side.

On August 31, this coming Tuesday, the Muslim Brotherhood-associated “Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations” (CCMO) will bring 25-30 Muslim leaders of 20 national Muslim groups to attend a special workshop presented by the White House and U.S. Government agencies (Agriculture, Education, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services etc.) to provide the groups “funding, government assistance and resources.”  The workshop will apparently provide special access for these Muslim Brotherhood organizations: the organizers pledge to provide “direct access” and “cut through red tape.” Government and Muslim groups will hold an Iftar dinner (breaking the fast of Ramadan) after the workshop.
muslim brotherhood
The event was announced in an email newsletter sent August 27 by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism finance trial, long associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, the global Islamist network (great backgrounder here from Hudson Institute).   Here are three key paragraphs from the email (the entire article on the August 31 event from the ISNA email is pasted below this post as reference):

This year, a phenomenal next step has been made where government iftars become coupled with workshops to provide resources and benefit the Muslim community. The US Department of Agriculture (DOA) and the Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations (CCMO) have paired the first of such events, scheduled for August 31, 2010.

…Leaders from Muslim organizations around the nation, particularly social service organizations, are invited to a workshop with representatives from the DOA, Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, Health and Human Services, the White House, Department of Education, the Department of Homeland Security, and more. Twenty five to thirty Muslim leaders representing 20 Muslim organizations are expected to attend the workshop.

According to a representative of CCMO, this workshop is designed to clarify how Muslim nonprofits, mosques, Islamic centers, and social service organizations can strengthen their communities through more direct access to opportunities provided to social service agencies at the Federal level. “It will hopefully help cut through some of the red tape and shine light on the many opportunities for funding, government assistance, and resources that we just don’t know about at the local level,” said Elsanousi.

The Problem: Your Money, redistributed to the Muslim Brotherhood

This workshop constitutes an abdication of their professional responsibility by all government participants – and a taxpayer-funded government stimulus program for the attending Muslim Brotherhood-associated groups.  The Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1928, is a global Islamist political movement dedicated to imposing Shariah law on all nations and institutions.  Their credo is “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

Why do we think some of these groups attending, possibly all, may be associated with the Muslim Brotherhood?

Because the sponsoring organization – the Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations (CCMO), co-sponsoring with the Department of Agriculture – has a long history of associations with the Muslim Brotherhood.  They also signed a 2009 American Muslim Task Force statement threatening to “suspend” relations with the FBI, because the FBI was investigating possible links to homegrown terrorism in mosques and other Muslim organizations.

Not so evident on the current website, of course. This happens all the time with groups associated with the Muslim Brotherhood – the current CCMO website has a LOT less information than the older ones preserved at (aka “The Wayback Machine”). Here are the previous websites for the CCMO from 2004-2008. The pre-whitewashed CCMO websites are highly revealing. They expose the degree to which this Administration intends to direct taxpayer money (and “reduced red tape”) to Muslim Brotherhood-associated organizations in the U.S.

The Administration has not revealed which 20 groups and 25-30 leaders will attend the special workshop, but if they include the 41 CCMO members listed in 2007, the attendees could include the following groups , which I’ve linked to descriptions published by The Investigative Project (please support their work):

The Islamic Society of North America, an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Terrorism Finance trial, and the source of  Friday’s email promoting this CCMO/Department of Agriculture Event;

The Council on American Islamic Relations, shunned by the FBI, several of its leaders indicted or convicted for terrorism,  a possible violator of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, sued for fraud by Muslim, Hispanic and African-American families, named as an unindicted co-conspirator (CAIR fundraiser advertised at the CCMO site);

The International Institute of Islamic Thought , the “think tank” of the Muslim Brotherhood, described at that link by The Grand Jihad author and former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy.  One of the current and longest serving officers of CCMO is Imam Johari Abdul-Malik, founder of the educational arm of IIIT, the Fairfax Institute and the Director of Outreach Program for Dar-ul Hijrah “Terror” Mosque – more on him below.

The Muslim Public Affairs Committee , exposed in that linked 88-page  IPT report particularly for their defense of terrorists and terrorist financers. MPAC advertised here at the CCMO site for an event co-sponsored by Islamic Free Market Institute, the latter described in Paul Sperry’s pathbreaking book Infiltration)

The Dar al Hijrah Mosque (known as the “Terror Mosque” in Northern Virginia for its links to imprisoned, indicted or wanted terrorists as vividly described by Frank Gaffney), advertised here at the CCMO site.

The Muslim American Society “Freedom Foundation” run by three-time felon Mahdi Bray (MASFF Fundraiser advertised at the CCMO site). The Muslim American Society was originally founded as the U.S. branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. MAS leader  Mahdi Bray was elected on September 7, 2003 to the Executive Committee by over 40 CCMO member organizations.

I suggest that the Administration knows these groups are linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. They think that’s a good thing.

This isn’t incompetence; it’s intentional.

The CCMO Officers: Muslim Brotherhood Leaders

These are not just your garden-variety Muslim Brotherhood operatives. The CCMO officers include leading national and international figures in the Muslim Brotherhood, settled in the Washington DC suburbs to enjoy “direct access” to the Administration and Congress.  CCMO is a major U.S. node in the loosely coordinated Muslim Brotherhood network. Just the fellows to give your tax dollars as stimulus money!

CCMO appears to have started as an umbrella organization in the late 1980s, when so many Muslim Brotherhood organizations were expanding. According to this 2005 article at Washington, DC’s Muslim Link Newspaper, CCMO was 18 years old in that year, making the start date around 1987.

Who are these CCMO officers? We could write a book on each of them; their personal biographies are the tale of the Muslim Brotherhood’s ongoing “Project” to bring Shariah Law to America. Here are brief sketches on a few (Mahdi Bray, previously a CCMO officer and linked above, is not on the current CCMO board):

Dr. Iqbal Unus


Unus, like fellow CCMO officer Anwar Haddam below, holds the position currently of “Member at Large” on the CCMO boardDaniel Pipes notes that Unus unsuccessfully sued anti-terrorism researcher Rita Katz, and that his house was searched in the Green Quest investigation.  He’s a leader in an alphabet soup of groups named as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism finance trial, or known to be associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.  Just review his published biography ( pdf ) from a 2007 “Islamophobia Conference” in Turkey (here’s the conference program in Google translation to English).  Several of the organizations he directs are listed in “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America,” the Holy Land Foundation terrorism finance trial’s most famous document (p. 32), which I noted in brackets below in Unus’ bio below:

Dr. Iqbal Unus is director of The Fairfax Institute (TFI), the instructional division of International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) [listed on p. 32], located near Washington, D.C., U.S.A., where he has also served as director of human development and director of administration since 1989. Between 1995 and 1998, he taught and worked at the Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences as dean of students and registrar. Prior to joining IIIT, Dr. Unus served as secretary general of Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) [listed on p. 32] after having worked as director of administration and assistant secretary general since 1977. Between 1980 and 1982, Dr. Unus taught in the applied sciences and nuclear engineering departments at King Abdul Aziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Dr. Iqbal Unus has had a wide ranging volunteer service experience in the Muslim community in the United States for over 37 years. Some of the prominent offices he has held include president of the Muslim Students Association [listed on p. 32] of the United States and Canada (1975), several offices including president of the Association of Muslim Scientists and Engineers (AMSE) [listed on p. 32], member of Majls ash Shura of Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) [listed on p. 32], trustee of Amana Mutual Funds Trust, working committee member of International Council of Awqaf and Non-Governmental Organizations (ICANO), board member of Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations in Washington Area (CCMO), and trustee of All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS).

In his lecture at the 2007 Islamophobia conference, Unus stated, “Western academic institutions must reevaluate their curriculum on all levels and purge material that may encourage or promote violence or hatred towards others through Islamophobia and xenophobia.” Why this is important: the Department of Education will attend the August 31 workshop to provide “direct access” to grants.  Americans have a right to know if the DoE will be talking to Unus on August 31 about funding projects to purge school curricula according to Unus’ standards.

Johari Abdul-Malik

Johari at CAIR Press Conference

Johari is a convert to Islam; he was formerly Winslow Seale of Brooklyn New York. Johari is currently CCMO Treasurer, and he has previously been Chairman of CCMO. He is the Director of Outreach at the Dar Al Hijrah Islamic Center near Washington DC. Dar al Hijrah is exposed in this report from the Investigative Project, in which the Department of Treasury’s Enforcement Communications System (TECS) records describe it as “a mosque operating as a front for Hamas operatives in U.S.,” “is associated with Islamic extremists,” “has been under numerous investigations for financing and proving aid and comfort to bad orgs and members,” has “been linked to numerous individuals linked to terrorism financing,” and “has also been associated with encouraging fraudulent marriages.”

Furthermore, his history of statements defending terrorist recruiter and trainer Al-Awlaki, promoting violence against Israel, and claiming that Islam will be the “first religion” in America are standard Muslim Brotherhood doctrine. His advocacy of terrorism against Israel in 2001 was particularly troublesome: he enthuses over specific acts of terrorism, with a passing nod to avoiding civilian casualties, almost as murderous as the violent guerrilla warfare in Algeria endorsed by CCMO officer Anwar Haddam (see below):

I am gonna teach you now. You can blow up bridges, but you cannot kill people who are innocent on their way to work. You can blow up power supplies… the water supply, you can do all forms of sabotage and let the world know that we are doing it like this because they have a respect for the lives of innocent people.

In the last two months, after highly critical media exposure on the radicalism of the Dar al Hijra Mosque, Johari has suddenly modified his behavior.  On June 8, 2010, Johari announced his resignation from a variety of openly- Muslim Brotherhood-connected organizations, remaining as a representative of those interests on interfaith boards. He resigned from:

1. Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA)

2. Muslim Council of America (MCA)

3. American Muslim Task-Force (Representative of MANA)


5. North American Imams Federation (Founding Board member)

6. Georgetown U – Chaplain Advisory board

7. University of MD-Chaplain Board

Also to his credit, on June 20, he published a post urging the removal from Islamic store (also his neighborhood store) of two sets of publications or recordings: 1) those by Dar al-Hijrah’s previous Imam, terrorist Al -Awlaki, and 2) the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Christian Broadcasting Network had just exposed the bookstore for carrying radicalizing materials.

Whether Johari’s statements reveal a tactical retreat, in the face of public exposure of the Muslim Brotherhood associations of his prior directorships, or a genuine rejection of the Muslim Brotherhood ideology, remains to be determined, since he retained his leadership positions in CCMO and Dar al Hijrah. This administration reportedly has favored Dar al Hijrah previously with a government contract from the U.S. Census Bureau costing taxpayers $23,000/month since November 2008, and serious questions should be asked about how much “direct access” Dar al Hijrah will have at the August 31 workshop.

Anwar N. Haddam


Haddam is listed at the CCMO website as Member-At-Large on the Board (a title held earlier by Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation head Mahdi Bray). Prominently displayed in the menu of the CCMO websites from 2004-2008 (but whitewashed from the current site) is this report – First Impressions: American Muslim Perspectives on the 9/11 Commission Report – sponsored by CCMO, published by IIIT (see above) and edited and authored by another coalition of Muslim Brotherhood-associated groups, the American Muslim Task Force. Of the several authors for the Report, one to note is Anwar N. Haddam.   According to his bio in the “First Impressions” book, Haddam is a long-time and currently listed board member of CCMO, “elected to the Algerian Parliament in December 1991… currently Advisor to the Islamic Front for Salvation (FIS-Algeria)… involved with the Algerian Islamic Movement.”
What the bio doesn’t mention is that the Clinton Administration kept Haddam detained for four years, based on classified evidence. He had already been banned from Algeria. In late 2000, in spite of efforts to prevent his release from detention by Attorney General Janet Reno and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), he was granted asylum in the U.S. by the Board of Immigration Appeals. That decision, according to an assessment at Sheikh Qaradawi’s, was due to “political pressure from the Muslim community in Europe and the US, as well as from members of the US Congress.”

Earlier, in 1996, Daniel Pipes and Patrick Clawson had conducted an extraordinary in-depth interview with Haddam, published in the Middle East Quarterly, which exposes his absolute dedication to imposing an Islamist State in Algeria based on Shariah law, regardless of the costs in human life or liberties. Haddam himself wrote a revealing memoir of his leadership of the banned Islamic Front for Salvation. Algeria is an example of what happens when a somewhat secular Muslim-majority country is targeted by the Muslim Brotherhood – in this case, Haddam’s Islamic Front for Salvation – to force it to become an Islamic state. Decades of civil war, over 200,000 dead – and under this administration, a remorseless leader invited to the White House for “direct access” to grants using your money.

Here’s the abstract of a speech Haddam made in 2009, in which he describes himself (and the nature of his political party) in words relevant for the August 31 meeting: “The author of this paper – who has been in charge of the international relations of one of the first contemporary political parties of Islamic obedience…” Just to drive the point home here, that means he considers himself in the U.S. in official capacity (detained or not), representing a political party that is a leader in creating the Islamist state: “political parties of Islamic obedience.” And to connect the dots, that would be the same “Shariah-Compliant State” – also known as a state of “Islamic obedience” – that Ground Zero Mosque Imam Rauf is promoting for the U.S. and worldwide through his Shariah Index Project.

Congress should ask: will CCMO be given “financial assistance” to help further Haddam’s political goals for Algeria, working among the expatriate community here in the U.S. – or his goals for America?

Faizul Khan

Faizul Khan is Assistant Secretary-Treasurer for CCMO. He was the imam, recently replaced, at the Maryland Muslim Community Center Mosque attended for years by Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Malik Hasan, until Hasan moved to Texas and shortly after killed thirteen people and wounded dozens. (He also reportedly attended services at CCMO-related  Dar al Hijra Mosque in northern Virginia.) Khan is also on the board of ISNA, an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism finance trial.

In interviews after the shootings, Imam Feizul Khan referred to Hasan as “very devout.” This is, to say the least, an understatement. In fact, it’s not unlike another CCMO officer (and Dar al Hijrah spokesman) Johar minimizing the radicalism of al-Awlaki when the latter attended Dar al Hijrah. Somehow, terrorists Hasan and al-Awlaki were merely devout in these two CCMO-related mosques right before they went completely jihadist on America.

Stephen Schwartz exposed the radical associations of Khan’s mosque in November 2009 in this article in the NY Post. Schwartz found that Faizul’s Mosque website advertises for the Shariah Compliant “Amana Mutual Fund” which he states is still under investigation by the FBI. Faizul’s Maryland mosque also “hosted at least four talks by Enver Masud, the founder of The Wisdom Fund, the main Muslim ‘truther’ group in America.”

So, what is to be done between now and Tuesday, August 31?

Let’s review.

CCMO – the Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations – is co-sponsoring the August 31 event with the Department of Agriculture. CCMO has deep and broad ties, possibly dating since 1987, to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The issue: If the Obama administration is preferencing one religion over others for special workshops, “direct access” and cutting red tape for financial assistance, that’s not only wrong, it may be unconstitutional; combining the funding workshop with an Iftar dinner just makes it worse.

One solution: Cancel this meeting, and schedule one for all religious organizations. If government grants are to be given to religious groups (a policy some question, but set that aside here), then all grant applicants of all religions, including Muslims should be treated equally.  And if Muslim social service groups attend, they should be ones without ties to the Muslim Brotherhood or other Islamist groups dedicated to imposing Shariah law in the U.S.

An alternate solution:  Keep the event as currently planned – apparently arranged and dominated by CCMO – but open it up to the media (including network, cable, radio, Big Peace, bloggers, etc.) as well as organizations with expertise on the Muslim Brotherhood, like the Investigative Project, the Middle East Forum, NEFA Foundation, Hudson Institute, the Center for Security Policy and many others.  Let the sunshine in…

After all, surely this administration – and CCMO –  have nothing to hide?


Here’s the email in entirety:

Iftar with Our Government:

Serving up Resources for American Muslim Communities

In celebration of Ramadan, ISNA leadership and staff have been busy attending iftars hosted by the White House, State Department, Federal and State Agencies, Embassies, elected officials and interfaith partners.

“These iftars are a place to celebrate the diversity of America with our partners in the government and interfaith communities,” said ISNA Director for the Office of Interfaith and Community Alliances Dr. Sayyid Syeed. He adds, “They are also evidence that Muslims and our traditions are more regularly incorporated into the mosaic of cultures and traditions that form the foundation of American life.”

Although these iftars are important symbols of the transition of Muslims into mainstream American culture, according to ISNA Director of Community Outreach Mohamed Elsanousi, they are also a very important place for brainstorming and the development of practical ideas to help the Muslim community.

“Muslim community members have been asking for more from these iftars for years now. They have contacted ISNA and requested that we work with our partners in government to make the dinners more useful to our communities at the local levels,” said ISNA Director of Community Outreach Mohamed Elsanousi.

This year, a phenomenal next step has been made where government iftars become coupled with workshops to provide resources and benefit the Muslim community. The US Department of Agriculture (DOA) and the Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations (CCMO) have paired the first of such events, scheduled for August 31, 2010.

“ISNA is happy to join other nation-wide Muslim organizations and participate in this workshop. We absolutely expect that there will be more of these paired iftars and workshops in future Ramadans,” said Elsanousi.

The Workshop: So what exactly is this workshop, you may ask. Leaders from Muslim organizations around the nation, particularly social service organizations, are invited to a workshop with representatives from the DOA, Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, Health and Human Services, the White House, Department of Education, the Department of Homeland Security, and more. Twenty five to thirty Muslim leaders representing 20 Muslim organizations are expected to attend the workshop.

According to a representative of CCMO, this workshop is designed to clarify how Muslim nonprofits, mosques, Islamic centers, and social service organizations can strengthen their communities through more direct access to opportunities provided to social service agencies at the Federal level. “It will hopefully help cut through some of the red tape and shine light on the many opportunities for funding, government assistance, and resources that we just don’t know about at the local level,” said Elsanousi.

The Iftar: Following the workshop, the DOA will host an Iftar to acknowledge and thank Muslim employees for their dedication and to the DOA. Keynote speakers will discuss the issues of increasing access to healthy foods for all communities and the powerful communal and sacred aspects of food. In addition to the DOA employees and representatives of various Muslim organizations, the DOA also invited Muslim employees from various other government agencies. The Deputy Secretary of the Department of Agriculture is also scheduled to attend.


Shari’a for Dummies

Source: FrontPageMag

By Nonie Darwish

Imam Feisal Abdel Rauf claims that the U.S. constitution is Sharia compliant. Now let us examine below a few laws of Sharia to see how truthful Imam Rauf is:

1- Jihad, defined as “to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion,” is the duty of every Muslim and Muslim head of state (Caliph). Muslim Caliphs who refuse jihad are in violation of Sharia and unfit to rule.

2- A Caliph can hold office through seizure of power meaning through force.

3- A Caliph is exempt from being charged with serious crimes such as murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking and in some cases of rape.

4- A percentage of Zakat (charity money) must go towards jihad.

5- It is obligatory to obey the commands of the Caliph, even if he is unjust.

6- A caliph must be a Muslim, a non-slave and a male.

7- The Muslim public must remove the Caliph if he rejects Islam.

8- A Muslim who leaves Islam must be killed immediately.

9- A Muslim will be forgiven for murder of: 1) an apostate 2) an adulterer 3) a highway robber. Vigilante street justice and honor killing is acceptable.

10- A Muslim will not get the death penalty if he kills a non-Muslim, but will get it for killing a Muslim.

11- Sharia never abolished slavery, sexual slavery and highly regulates it. A master will not be punished for killing his slave.

12- Sharia dictates death by stoning, beheading, amputation of limbs, flogging even for crimes of sin such as adultery.

13- Non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims under the law. They must comply to Islamic law if they are to remain safe. They are forbidden to marry Muslim women, publicly display wine or pork, recite their scriptures or openly celebrate their religious holidays or funerals. They are forbidden from building new churches or building them higher than mosques. They may not enter a mosque without permission. A non-Muslim is no longer protected if he leads a Muslim away from Islam.

14- It is a crime for a non-Muslim to sell weapons to someone who will use them against Muslims. Non-Muslims cannot curse a Muslim, say anything derogatory about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam, or expose the weak points of Muslims. But Muslims can curse non-Muslims.

15- A non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim.

16- Banks must be Sharia compliant and interest is not allowed.

17- No testimony in court is acceptable from people of low-level jobs, such as street sweepers or bathhouse attendants. Women in low level jobs such as professional funeral mourners cannot keep custody of their children in case of divorce.

18- A non-Muslim cannot rule — even over a non-Muslim minority.

19- Homosexuality is punishable by death.

20- There is no age limit for marriage of girls. The marriage contract can take place anytime after birth and can be consummated at age 8 or 9.

21- Rebelliousness on the part of the wife nullifies the husband’s obligation to support her, gives him permission to beat her and keep her from leaving the home.

22- Divorce is only in the hands of the husband and is as easy as saying: “I divorce you” and becomes effective even if the husband did not intend it.

23- There is no community property between husband and wife and the husband’s property does not automatically go to the wife after his death.

24- A woman inherits half what a man inherits.

25- A man has the right to have up to 4 wives and none of them have a right to divorce him — even if he is polygamous.

26- The dowry is given in exchange for the woman’s sexual organs.

27- A man is allowed to have sex with slave women and women captured in battle, and if the enslaved woman is married her marriage is annulled.

28- The testimony of a woman in court is half the value of a man.

29- A woman loses custody if she remarries.

30- To prove rape, a woman must have 4 male witnesses.

31- A rapist may only be required to pay the bride-money (dowry) without marrying the rape victim.

32- A Muslim woman must cover every inch of her body, which is considered “Awrah,” a sexual organ. Not all Sharia schools allow the face of a woman exposed.

33- A Muslim man is forgiven if he kills his wife at the time he caught her in the act of adultery. However, the opposite is not true for women, since the man “could be married to the woman he was caught with.”

34-It is obligatory for a Muslim to lie if the purpose is obligatory. That means that for the sake of abiding with Islam’s commandments, such as jihad, a Muslim is obliged to lie and should not have any feelings of guilt or shame associated with this kind of lying.

The above are clear-cut laws in Islam decided by great Imams after years of examination and interpretation of the Quran, Hadith and Mohammed’s life. Now let the learned Imam Rauf tell us: What part of the above is compliant with the U.S. Constitution?

Nonie Darwish is the author of “Cruel and Usual Punishment; the terrifying global implications of Islamic law” and founder of Former Muslims United.


Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood Journalist Says Jews Spreading Venemous Hatred Against Islam

Source: Global Muslim Brotherhood

By GlobalMB

Palestinian “journalist”  Khalid Amayreh has penned another virulently anti-Semtic article for the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood website, this time accusing “Zionist Jews of spreading venomous hatred against Islam and concludes that “a real alliance is being forged between Zionism and European neo-Nazism.” The article opens by accusing “Zionist Jews” of inciting genocidal hatred against Muslims using “the Jewish controlled media and show biz”:

From Sydney to California , Zionist Jews are spreading venomous hatred against Islam. A few years ago, we were witnessing mere instances and isolated occurrences of Jewish hatred and/or fear of Islam and Muslims. Now, it is very much morbid mass hysteria sustained by rampant and unrelenting incitement and distortion of facts. In New York , for example, fanatical Zionist Jews don’t stop invoking the 9/11 events to generate hatred against Muslims as if Islam and its estimated 1.6 billion followers condoned the diabolical terrorist acts. In recent weeks, the sick supremacists have been at the forefront of a maliciously racist campaign aimed at inciting local politicians and officials to outlaw the planned construction of a Muslim house of worship in the multi-ethnic, multi-cultural melting-pot city of eight million people. The Jewish supremacists’ message is as hateful as it is brazen: Islam is terror and Muslims are terrorists. This is the same message the Third Reich disseminated against European Jewry prior and during the Second World War. Of all people, Jews ought to realize that vilifying and dehumanizing an entire religious or ethnic community of people can lead to genocide, since incitement generates hatred and hatred can easily lead to murder. Words do kill. This virulent Jewish Islamophobia is by no means confined to the American arena, where the Jewish-controlled media and show biz have been inciting against Islam for ages.

Read the rest here [1]

The article is reprinted [2] at Ikhwanophobia, an affiliated [3] Egyptian Brotherhood website.

In previous articles for the Egyptian Brotherhood website, Amayreh has called [4] Israel a “sick and cannibalistic society that is as bestial as Nazi Germany was during the Holocaust” , accused [5] Israel of the “wanton slaughter of children [which] occurs each day and every day of the year, and called [6] Jews “a cancer on the world.”


Farrakhan Demands Reparations from Jews

Source: National Review

By Daniel Pipes

His latest anti-Semitic outburst.

Louis Farrakhan recently sent a three-page letter (PDF copy below) along with two books to the heads of 16 Jewish organizations.

Dated June 24, 2010, the letter is resplendent with a crescent-and-moon flag and Farrakhan’s impressive-sounding title (“National Representative of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad and the Nation of Islam”). In it, he announces that the books (volume two of The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews and Jews Selling Blacks: Slave Trade by American Jews) present

an undeniable record of Jewish anti-Black behavior, starting with the horror of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, plantation slavery, Jim Crow, sharecropping, the labor movement of the North and South, the unions and the misuse of our people that continues to this very moment.

Farrakhan challenges the recipients of his letter — who range politically from Jeremy Ben-Ami (of J Street) to Lee Rosenberg (of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) to Morton Klein (of the Zionist Organization of America) —

to find one act committed by me or those who follow me that has injured one Jewish person, stopped Jews from doing business, hindered their education, injured their families, sullied or desecrated their synagogues.

“You will not find one,” declares Farrakhan, who then asks: “on what basis do you charge me and us as being ‘anti-Semitic’?” Quite the contrary, Farrakhan avers, “we could now charge you with the most vehement anti-Black behavior in the annals of our history in America and the world. We could charge you with being the most deceitful so-called friend, while your history with us shows you have been our worst enemy.” Farrakhan could also dwell on the fact that Jews are “sitting on top of the world in power, with riches and influence, while the masses of my people here in America, in the Caribbean, Central and South America and elsewhere in the world are in the worst condition of any member of the human family.”

He could make these points, he notes, but he chooses not to: “I do not write this with vitriol, hatred, bitterness, or a spirit of vengeance.” Instead, he hopes to establish ties with Jews: “I have pleaded with you over the years for a sensible, intelligent dialogue. You have rejected me.” Despite prior failures, the publication of these two books inspires Farrakhan to try anew: “I again ask you for a dialogue.”

For Farrakhan, “dialogue” equals reparations. Because Jews “are in a position to help me in the civilizing work that The Honorable Elijah Muhammad was given to do by Allah (God).” More specifically: “This is an offer asking you and the gentiles whom you influence to help me in the repair of my people from the damage that has been done by your ancestors to mine.” In other words, after years of unsuccessfully demanding reparations for blacks from the U.S. government, he is now looking to Jews to make amends for their alleged past injustices.

Farrakhan presents this moment as both a unique opportunity for Jews (“This is a wonderful way of the present generation of Jews to escape the Judgment of Allah”) and as an ultimatum:

you may either gather your forces for an all-out struggle against me, the Nation of Islam, and the truth that I and we speak and write, or as an intelligent and civilized people, we can sit down and carve out a way forward that can obliterate the stain of the past and render us, Jews and Blacks . . . in a new, honorable, and mutually respectful relationship.

Should Jews spurn this offer, Farrakhan threatens “disgrace and ruin”:

should you choose to make our struggle to our people more difficult, then I respectfully warn you . . . that the more you fight and oppose me rather than help me to lift my people from their degraded state, Allah (God) and His Messiah will bring you and your people to disgrace and ruin and destroy your power and influence here and throughout the world.

He signs off with “Respectfully and Sincerely Submitted, The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan, Servant to the Lost-Found Nation of Islam in the West.”

Some comments:

(1) In a major speech on June 26, Farrakhan announced having sent these books to more than the named Jewish leaders:

we have published Volume No. 2 of The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews. . . . I sent this book, and another one that is printed called Jews Selling Blacks, to Mr. Abraham Foxman of B’nai B’rith [sic], and to all the leaders of the major Jewish organizations. I sent it to President Obama, to Rahm Emanuel, to David Axelrod, to Timothy Geithner, to Larry Summers, to Ben Bernanke.

(2) According to Farrakhan’s publication, The Final Call, none of the Jewish leaders responded to his letter other than to denounce it.

(3) The “Nation of Islam Historical Research Team” (note the absence of individuals’ names) produced the first volume of The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews in 1991. In brief, the first volume was akin to The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, not a scholarly tome but an artifact of conspiracist propaganda intended solely to spawn hatred against Jews. Harold Brackman began to demolish its scholarly pretensions in Ministry of Lies, and Saul S. Friedman finished the job in Jews and the American Slave Trade.

(4) Attempts to blame the trans-Atlantic slave trade on Jews reminds one of conspiracy theories blaming 9/11 on Jews: In both cases, Jews are brought gratuitously into a story overwhelmingly about Muslims.

(5) Farrakhan relies on obvious but clever duplicity in his letter: “we could charge you” with a host a charges, but will not do so. We are offering you a deal but if you turn it down, “disgrace and ruin” await you. The letter amounts to an unsubtle attempt at extortion.

(6) It also offers a perverse example of benign anti-Semitism, whereby a person hopes that Jews will use what he imagines to be their power to help him — in this case, appealing for help with “the gentiles whom you influence.”

(7) One might think that with Barack Obama in the White House and Africa enjoying high economic growth rates, Farrakhan would stop focusing on Jews to “lift my people from their degraded state.”

(8) The letter fits a pattern of anti-Semitism on Farrakhan’s part that goes back to his re-establishing the Nation of Islam in 1978. In contrast, under Elijah Muhammad, who died in 1975, Farrakhan and the NoI more generally evinced little interest in Jews.

(9) Klein of ZOA calls this letter “a veiled call for violence against Jews,” and he is right: Farrakhan full well knows he will not get the reply he demands.

(10) Farrakhan has praised Obama as “the hope of the entire world,” the “one who can lift America from her fall,” and as one sent by “the Messiah.” Obama’s presidency has apparently emboldened him to renew his attacks on Jews.

(11) Where are the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim American Society, and the Muslim Public Affairs Council? One awaits their condemnations of Farrakhan.

— Daniel Pipes ( is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. © 2010 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.

View this document on Scribd


Video: Barack Obama and the New Black Panther Party-More Hate Rants About Whitey and Jews Comments from Various NBPP Members..

Source: Impeach Obama

“Some claim that Barack Obama is not responsible for what others say.

They say he cannot control who supports him.

If that is true…

Why allow the New Black Panther Party on your Website? “

Vodpod videos no longer available.


Obama: Israelis suspicious of me because my middle name is Hussein

Yea that’s what it is. That’s the ticket, it has to be your name, Barack Hussein. It surely wouldn’t have anything to do with your anti-Semitic actions, now would it Barry??  Barry forgot to tell how many other anti-Semitic individuals he has in his administration, you know like John Brennan, Susan Rice and on and on. What a moron B. Hussein Obama or Barry Soetro, is.

U.S. president tells Channel 2 Israel is unlikely to attack Iran without coordinating with the U.S.

By Haaretz

U.S. President Barack Obama told Channel 2 News on Wednesday that he believed Israel would not try to surprise the U.S. with a unilateral attack on Iran.

In an interview aired Thursday evening, Obama was asked whether he was concerned Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would try to attack Iran without clearing the move with the U.S., to which the president replied “I think the relationship between Israel and the U.S. is sufficiently strong that neither of us try to surprise each other, but we try to coordinate on issues of mutual concern.”

Obama spoke to Channel 2’s Yonit Levy one day after what he described as an “excellent” meeting with Netanyahu at the White House. The two leaders met alone for about 90 minutes Tuesday evening, during which time they discussed the peace process with the Palestinians, the contested Iranian nuclear program, and the strategic understandings between their two countries on Tehran’s efforts to achieve nuclear capabilities.

Netanyahu promised Obama during their meeting that Israel would undertake confidence-building measures toward the Palestinian Authority in the coming days and weeks. These steps are likely to include the transfer of responsibility over more parts of the West Bank over to PA security forces.

During the interview Wednesday, when confronted with the anxiety that some Israelis feel toward him, Obama said that “some of it may just be the fact that my middle name is Hussein, and that creates suspicion.”

“Ironically, I’ve got a Chief of Staff named Rahm Israel Emmanuel. My top political advisor is somebody who is a descendent of Holocaust survivors. My closeness to the Jewish American community was probably what propelled me to the U.S. Senate,” Obama said.

“I think that sometimes, particularly in the Middle East, there’s the feeling of the friend of my enemy must be my enemy, and the truth of the matter is that my outreach to the Muslim community is designed precisely to reduce the antagonism and the dangers posed by a hostile Muslim world to Israel and to the West,” Obama went on to say.

Obama added that he believed a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians could be achieved within his current term. “I think [Netanyahu] understands we’ve got a fairly narrow window of opportunity… We probably won’t have a better opportunity than we have right now. And that has to be seized. It’s going to be difficult.”

The American President entirely sidestepped the question of whether the U.S. would pressure Israel to extend a current 10-month moratorium on construction in West Bank settlements, failing to give a clear answer. The moratorium is set to expire in September, and Netanyahu has announced that he would not extend the timeframe. The U.S., however, views continued Israeli settlement construction as a serious obstacle to peace efforts.

When asked whether he thought Netanyahu was the right man to strike a peace deal with the Palestinians, the U.S. President said that “I think Prime Minister Netanyahu may be very well positioned to bring this about,” adding that Israel will have to overcome many hurdles in order to affect the change required to “secure Israel for another 60 years”

In a separate interview with another Israeli media outlet, Obama proclaimed that he was not “blindly optimistic” regarding the chances of a Middle East peace agreement.
Israel is right to be skeptical about the peace process, he said in another yet-to-be-aired interview that was taped on Wednesday. He noted during the interview that many people thought the founding of Israel was impossible, so its very existence should be “a great source of hope.”

Meanwhile on Wednesday, Netanyahu told U.S. Jewish leaders that direct Palestinian-Israeli talks would begin “very soon”, but warned that they would be “very, very tough.”
Netanyahu told his cabinet earlier this week before flying to Washington that the time had come for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to prepare to meet directly with the Israelis, as it was the only way to advance peace.

Israelis and Palestinians have been holding indirect talks mediated by Obama’s special envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell. Aides to Obama sounded a hopeful tone regarding the negotiations last week, telling reporters that the shuttle diplomacy between the two sides had paid off and the gaps have narrowed.

At a meeting with representatives of Jewish organizations at the Plaza Hotel late Wednesday, Netanyahu discussed the efforts to promote Middle East peace. “This is going to be a very, very tough negotiation,” he said, adding “the sooner the better.”
“Direct negotiations must begin right away, and we think that they will,” he said.

Why Obama is a cultural Muslim

Source: Washington Times

By Jeffrey T. Kuhner

President Obama is betraying the Jews. He is a cultural Muslim whose sympathies lie with the Islamic world in its life-death struggle against Israel. Unless American Jews wake up and speak out against Mr. Obama‘s pro-Arab, anti-Israel policies, the Jewish state faces a possible nuclear war – and even annihilation.

Mr. Obama met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu this week. The goal: to repair the public rift in relations between Washington and Jerusalem.

“The bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable,” Mr. Obama said. “It encompasses our national security interests, our strategic interests, but most importantly the bond of two democracies who share a common set of values and whose people have grown closer and closer as time goes on.”

Don’t believe him. In front of reporters, Mr. Obama may praise the Jewish state. But behind the scenes, he is selling the Jews down the river.

According to a recent story in World Tribune, a prominent intelligence news website, administration officials have assured the Saudi royal family that Mr. Obama is determined to pressure Mr. Netanyahu into accepting an independent Palestinian state encompassing the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital. Mr. Obama – like many in the Arab world – believes that the key to Middle East peace is resolving the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

It isn’t. Rather, an independent Palestine will be an Islamic stake aimed at the heart of the Jewish state. Israel‘s withdrawal to pre-1967 borders will leave Jerusalem vulnerable to an all-out military assault. The Arabs will have the strategic means to implement their overriding ambition since the creation of Israel in 1948: wiping out the Jews.

The democratically elected Hamas regime that runs the Gaza Strip openly calls for the destruction of the Jews. The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank led by President Mahmoud Abbas systemically indoctrinates Palestinians about the “evil Zionist state.” Palestinian television, schools and state-controlled media all preach that Israel is inherently “illegitimate” and must be “eliminated.” The overwhelming majority of the Palestinians (and Arabs) don’t want peace. They want conquest.

The notion of two states, in which Jews and Palestinians are living side by side in mutual coexistence, is an illusion. If the Palestinians abandoned their guns, there would be peace. If the Israelis abandoned their guns, there would be genocide.

The root cause of the violence in the Middle East has nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is a distraction, a convenient excuse consistently used by Arab tyrants to cover up the real disease afflicting the region: radical Islam. From its inception, Islamic civilization has been at war with its neighbors. The Muslim faith has spread throughout centuries by the sword and violent jihad. It is why Christians and Jews were slaughtered and expelled from Arab lands during the Middle Ages. It is why the Ottoman Turks invaded and conquered Spain, Portugal, the Balkans and parts of France and Italy, even reaching the gates of Vienna.

It is why the Saudis today continue to spend billions of dollars funding extremist madrassa all over the world. It is why Islamofascists, such as the Taliban and al Qaeda, seek a global caliphate based on Shariah law. It is why Iran‘s revolutionary Shiite mullahs are marching toward a nuclear bomb.

From its inception, political Islam has been at war with the West – first, with Christendom, and now with its modern secular variant, liberal democracy. There is no escape for either Israel or America. Islamists despise the Jewish state because it is the West’s strategic bulwark in the Middle East – a democratic outpost in a region marked by economic backwardness, authoritarianism and religious fanaticism. The United States is the bastion of the free world, the last great power of the West. Hence, for Islamic radicals, these two nations must be smashed. It is a fight to the finish – and only one side can emerge victorious.

For all of his flaws (and there were many), former President George W. Bush understood this seminal reality. This is why he fought the war against Islamic terrorism. It is also why he was the most pro-Israel leader in U.S. history. He understood one simple truth: Israel‘s struggle is the West’s struggle.

Mr. Obama is the anti-Bush. He is virulently anti-Israel, championing appeasement toward radical Islam. The reason lies in Mr. Obama‘s background and worldview – one that makes him uniquely unqualified to prosecute the war on terror.

During his youth, Mr. Obama was raised and educated as a Muslim. His father and stepfather were Muslims. When Mr. Obama attended a Catholic school in Indonesia, he was registered as an Indonesian citizen and “a Muslim.” In public school, he was also identified as practicing Islam. Under the name “Barry Soetoro,” he was compelled to take daily Islamic religious instruction, recite prayers, study the Koran and learn Arabic. His former classmates and teachers remember him as a devout Muslim.

For example, Rony Amir, a childhood pal of young Barry, described Mr. Obama as “previously quite religious in Islam.”

“We previously often asked him to the prayer room close to the house,” Mr. Amir said. “If he was wearing a sarong [waist garment worn for religious or casual occasions] he looked funny.”

Nor is Mr. Obama‘s sympathy for Islamic culture limited to his youth. In an interview with the New York Times, Mr. Obama described the Muslim call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

The Times also noted that Mr. Obama recited, “with a first-class [Arabic] accent,” the opening lines of the Muslim call to prayer.

Here are the first few lines:

Allah is Supreme!

Allah is Supreme!

Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme!

I witness that there is no god but Allah

I witness that there is no god but Allah

I witness that Muhammad is his prophet …

Mr. Obama says he is a practicing Christian. Yet, there can be no denying that his Muslim heritage and Islamic background infuses his thought and actions.

Culturally, he is America’s first Muslim president. He refuses to admit there is a war against Islamist terrorism. His counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, even denies that jihad is a motive for Muslim extremists. He publicly excoriates Israel for building Jewish apartments in East Jerusalem, but calls for “engagement” and “dialogue” with Iran. He seeks a rapprochement with Syria, downplaying its ties to Tehran and support for Hezbollah. He is prematurely pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq. He has imposed crippling rules of engagement that make victory all but impossible in Afghanistan – for fear of killing civilians and “angering” the Muslim street. He demands Gitmo be closed. He calls for terrorists, like Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to be tried in civilian court. He has ordered that NASA’s “foremost” mission be “outreach” to the Islamic world – not space exploration. And he adamantly embraces Palestinian statehood, even at the mortal risk posed to Israel.

In short, Mr. Obama seeks to coddle the Islamic world. The result is that Iran is on the verge of acquiring the bomb. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – like all fanatics – is a serious man. He vows to slay the Jews of Israel once and for all. Mr. Obama is not some grand peacemaker. Rather, he is a naive, foolish leftist who – blinded by his ideological and cultural blinkers – is playing right into the blood-soaked hands of America’s enemies.

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times, president of the Edmund Burke Institute and the daily host of the “Kuhner Show” on WTNT 570-AM from 5 to 7 p.m.


New Yorkers fight three new mosques

We all need to support the groups and/or individuals who are protesting the building of Mosques. The reason being the Sauds have invested billions of dollars supporting the building of Mosques in the United States. The religion of the House of Saud is Wahabism. Al Qaeda’s and the The Muslim Brotherhood ideology is based on Wahabism, the masterminds of the 9/11, the suicide bombers of in Spain, or England or Indonesia are all Wahhabis. The gruesome beheading of hostages, mass killing of civilians by bombs and spreading of terror is nothing new to these people.

Terrorist Organizations such as Al Qaeda and The Muslim Brotherhood as outlined above are of the Sauds religion Wahhabi and are known for persecuting and murdering of non Islamic religious groups such as Christians and Jews. Saudi Arabia will not even allow the building of Christian Churches or Synagogues.

New Yorkers fight three new mosques

Project planned near ground zero

STANDING THEIR GROUND: Protesters object to proposed construction of a mosque near ground zero. Three separate plans to build mosques in the city are being met with anger. (Associated Press)

Source: Washington Times

By Hillary May

Holy wars are breaking out all over New York.

Three separate plans to build Muslim worship centers in New York City have proved more difficult and contentious than expected, igniting protests by local residents and anti-jihad activists and prompting charges of “Islamophobia” and bigotry.

The three projects raise different sets of issues, are set in three different boroughs and are still in the planning stages.

But together, they show that building a mosque in New York is not like building a pizza parlor — whether it’s logistical concerns about neighborhood traffic and changing demographics, the sanctity of the World Trade Center site, or backyard politics.

New Yorkers have not been shy about their opposition, and a recent poll on the most contentious of the three projects — involving a Muslim center just two blocks from the site of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack — shows residents stoutly opposed.

“This is about radical Islam wanting to colonize the world,” said Joan Moriello, a community activist fighting one of the other projects. “They pretend to be tolerant, they pretend to be loving but they aren’t. It’s just starting to come bubbling up to the surface.”

However, those kinds of reactions cause Muslim groups to cry “foul” and say objections about zoning and noise are mere covers for religious intolerance.

The Muslim American Society, a Washington-based nonprofit group, is determined to build mosques in Brooklyn and Staten Island. A separate organization called the Cordoba Initiative, which seeks to improve relations between Islam and the West, plans to build an Islamic center just a few minutes’ walk from the site of the Sept. 11 attack.

“The Staten Island issue and the Brooklyn issue are kind of bifold,” said Lana Safah, a spokeswoman for the Muslim American Society. “On the one side, you have a community that is concerned with logistical issues such as traffic and noise, and those are concerns we absolutely acknowledge. On the other hand, there is a lot of outside influences. There are things that are planting seeds of doubt.”

The property of the proposed mosque on Staten Island was owned by St. Margaret Catholic Church until the Rev. Keith Fennessy decided to sell the vacant convent to the Muslim American Society in May. The group wants to use the property on Fridays for a community center and prayer hall.

The sale, however, is in the hands of the parish’s board of trustees, which includes the pastor, two lay members of the congregation, the archdiocese’s vicar general and the archbishop.

The decision to sell the convent was met with overwhelming opposition, which led Father Fennessy to write a letter in June to Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan withdrawing the pastor’s support of the sale.

The parish’s board of trustees has not set a meeting date to discuss the future of the property.

While the community awaits the meeting, Staten Islanders have rallied against the proposed mosque, carrying signs of protest near the property.

“This is all very shocking,” said Ms. Moriello, who pointed out that Staten Island already has five mosques. “I really don’t know who was thinking this was a positive move. People have been so disenchanted.”

The Muslim American Society has been widely accused of having ties to the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood.

Opponents of the Staten Island sale, and critics of the Muslim American Society more generally, have zeroed in on a videotape of the society‘s president, Mahdi Bray, supporting the Muslim Brotherhood at a 2000 rally outside the White House. Also, the 1993 founding of the Muslim American Society involved Muslim Brotherhood members, including Mohammed Mahdi Akef, now supreme guide for the Brotherhood in Egypt, and Ahmed Elkadi, then the leader of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.

Ibrahim Ramey, the human civil rights director for the Muslim American Society, defended his group as a peaceful organization in an open letter to the press.

“We know that we must overcome prejudice and fear, and even racism, just as other religious groups in this nation have confronted the same barriers,” he wrote.

Ms. Safah said neighbors were angry and fearful because they know little about the organization.

“We acknowledge that people have fears, especially from an organization they have not heard of much,” she said.

Protesters also have rallied against plans for a mosque in Sheepshead Bay, a neighborhood in Brooklyn.

The Muslim American Society also is funding this project, a four-story mosque and community center intended to serve 1,500 people. The site is surrounded by homes, prompting fears among residents that the mosque will cause noise, traffic and a parking shortage.

Although much of the opposition stems from quality-of-life concerns, some people are wary of the reported connections between the Muslim American Society and the Muslim Brotherhood.

“It’s about the Muslim American Society,” said Pamela Gellar, an author and anti-jihad and pro-Israel blogger.

“It was originally the Muslim Brotherhood and they changed the name to make it more acceptable. I can understand why [the neighborhood] would not want the Muslim Brotherhood building a huge edifice there.”

The Muslim Brotherhood is an international entity founded in 1928 as a youth organization. Its primary goal is to make the Koran and associated Muslim traditions the “sole reference point” for family, society and the state. The group’s headquarters are in Cairo, though the group is officially banned in Egypt.

According to its official website, the Muslim Brotherhood‘s objectives include efforts to “inform the masses, Muslim and non-Muslim of Islamic teachings.” The organization says it opposes violence as a means of achieving political goals, though it has spawned violent offshoots and the Egyptian government accuses it of numerous killings.

Perhaps the group’s most well-known member was Sayyid Qutb, whose book “Milestones” calls for using jihad to overthrow political structures in the Muslim world. His other works criticized Western society for moral and social decadence. Jihadists worldwide, including Sept. 11 mastermind Osama bin Laden, cite Qutb as a formative influence.

Mr. Ramey called the backlash “religious bigotry” and “hatred.”

“Is this really happening in America — a nation that boasts of its religious tolerance and pluralism?” he said in his letter. “Sadly, the answer is, yes.”

The furor over the Brooklyn mosque led 150 Muslim families to hold a peaceful demonstration this summer calling for respect for their right to pray and teach Islamic values, which they say condemn terrorism and violence.

Building plans must be approved by the New York City Department of Buildings, which has not set a date for a hearing on final approval of the project.

But perhaps the most controversial plans lie near the heart of ground zero, the site of the Sept. 11 attack in Lower Manhattan.

The Cordoba Initiative plans to build a $100 million, 13-story mosque and Islamic cultural center just two blocks from the site. Despite protests from families affected by Sept. 11, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg supports the project, arguing that the mosque’s construction is about religious freedom.

“If somebody wants to build a religious house of worship, they should do it and we shouldn’t be in the business of picking which religions can and which religions can’t,” he said in an official statement in support of the plan. “I think it’s fair to say if somebody was going to try to on that piece of property build a church or a synagogue, nobody would be yelling or screaming. And the fact of the matter is that Muslims have a right to do it, too.”

Ms. Gellar said the issue is rooted in the location.

“It would be an insult, a stab in the eye, to build a megamosque,” said Ms. Gellar. “It’s a war memorial — it shouldn’t be a mosque. Not that we shouldn’t build mosques in New York, but a mosque at ground zero is offensive.”

The Washington Times sent the Cordoba Initiative an e-mail request for an interview but received no answer.

Pollsters have also got into the furor.

The Quinnipiac University Polling Institute released a survey July 1 that showed that New York City voters opposed the ground zero plan 52 percent to 31 percent, with 17 percent undecided. According to 42 percent of voters, the mosque “is an insult to the memory and families of 9/11 victims.”

Opposition polled higher than support in most demographic groups, including Democrats (45 percent to 37 percent), despite the findings that 56 percent of New Yorkers say they know a Muslim personally and more claim to have a favorable view of Islam than an unfavorable one (44 percent to 28 percent).

The poll of 1,183 New York City registered voters, conducted June 21-28, had an error margin of 2.9 percentage points.

It also found strong differences in the city’s boroughs — 46 percent of Manhattanites support the project and 73 percent of Staten Islanders oppose it — suggesting that the mosque fights have become entangled.

“Liberal Manhattan accepts the mosque and trusts Islam. Staten Island, where there’s controversy about another proposed mosque, is more skeptical,” Maurice Carroll, the institute’s director, said in his group’s news release.

Though she was not speaking specifically about the Quinnipiac poll, Ms. Safah agreed with that theory.

“The unfortunate reality is that we’re all being linked,” she said. “We are all being backed into this corner with people saying, ‘You’re a Muslim — prove yourself.’ It’s unfortunate. It’s impeding upon our rights as Americans to worship freely.”

Plans for the Cordoba project must be approved by the New York City Landmark Commission, which will hold a public hearing Tuesday.

“The issue that is up for debate is whether the building has architectural, historic and cultural significance for New York,” said Lisi de Bourbon, the communications director at the New York City Landmarks Commission. “It’s strictly a matter of preserving the integrity of the building.”

Ms. Safah said there would be no misunderstanding if people only took the time to get to know their Muslim neighbors.

“If these communities maintain an open mind, I think we’ll more than get along fine and build great relationships,” she said.

Ms. Moriello said that will not be enough.

“In the end, it’s just us or them,” she said. “The sense that ‘we are all one and we are all working together’ is just not a reality.”


Suspected Munich massacre mastermind dead, reports say

Source: CNN
By the CNN Wire Staff


  • Palestinian Authority news agency reports Abu Daoud dead at 73
  • Mahmoud Abbas sends condolences to Daoud’s family
  • Palestinian terrorists killed 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics
  • “Black September” was viewed as a triumph in Arab world

Abu Daoud, seen in 1977, was also known as Mohammed Oudeh.

(CNN) — Abu Daoud, the man who claimed to be the mastermind behind the massacre that marked the 1972 Munich Olympics, has died, according to the official news agency of the Palestinian Authority.

On September 5 of that year, Palestinian terrorists killed 11 Israeli athletes who were taken hostage.

Daoud, also known as Mohammed Oudeh, died Friday night, the WAFA news agency reported Saturday. The former Palestinian politician and commander in the Fatah and Palestinian Liberation Organization movements was 73.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas sent his condolences to Daoud’s family, WAFA reported.

“He wrote in his letter to his family, ‘He is missed. He was one of the leading figures of Fatah and spent his life in resistance [against the occupation] and sincere work as well as physical sacrifice for his people’s just causes,’ ” the news agency quoted Abbas as saying.

In the early hours of the attack in Munich, eight Palestinian terrorists entered the Olympic Village in the German city.

They stormed the apartments housing the Israeli athletes and took control. Hours later, the world woke up to the image of a masked man on the balcony of the Olympic Village.

A Palestinian terrorist peers over a balcony in a famous image from the 1972 Munich crisis.

From the Olympic Village, the Palestinian terrorists issued ultimatums, demanding the release of 200 Arab inmates from Israeli prisons or they would start killing the athletes in Munich, one every hour. Eventually, all the Israelis, five terrorists and one German police officer were killed in what would be remembered as “Black September.”

“The hardest part was the ultimatums,” Ankie Spitzer, wife of Israeli fencing coach Andre Spitzer, who was killed in the incident, told CNN in a 2005 interview. “Every time, you die a little bit because you think now it’s going to happen to him.”

The Games were put on hold for a few hours.

In the Arab world, “Black September” was viewed as a triumph. Weeks later, the three captured Palestinian terrorists were freed by the German government after a Lufthansa plane was hijacked in the Balkans. The men got a heroes’ welcome when they arrived in Libya.

Ironically, Daoud was allowed back into the West Bank for several years by Israel, at a time in the 1990s when relations with Palestinians were improving.

In 2006 — around the release of Steven Spielberg’s “Munich” — he gave several interviews in which he indicated he had no regrets about the Munich attacks.

“I regret nothing,” he told Germany’s Spiegel TV. “You can only dream that I would apologize.”

Daoud also published an autobiography, giving a first-hand look at the rise of the Palestinian resistance leading up to the attack at Munich. The book is titled “Memoirs of a Palestinian Terrorist,” as well as, “Palestine — A History of the Resistance Movement, by the Sole Survivor of Black September.”


Holocaust: a huge word made small

Source: LA Times

The Holocaust was a horrific atrocity and watershed event in human history. The meaning of the word is being distorted and demeaned in political rhetoric and casual comparisons.

Marvin Hier

Over the last few years, U.S. political discourse has been saturated with opponents accusing each other of Nazi-like policies or behavior. Most recently, it was California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown who likened the attack ads of Meg Whitman, his Republican opponent in the race for governor, to the tactics employed by Nazi propaganda chief Josef Goebbels.

Brown later called me to say he regretted citing Goebbels. But most of the comparisons are made without apology.

In this column, Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Hoess’ surname is misspelled as Hess.

Last week, Sarah Palin criticized President Obama’s handling of the BP crisis in a tweet to followers recommending they read an article by Thomas Sowell that compared Adolph Hitler’s use of a financial crisis to give himself dictatorial powers to Obama’s role in creating the BP escrow fund.

A few months ago, speaking about the controversial Arizona immigration bill (a bill that the Wiesenthal Center criticized), Lillian Rodriguez Lopez of the Hispanic Federation reportedly compared the measure to tactics used by the Nazis in Germany.

The Holocaust was a watershed event in the history of mankind, in which 6 million Jews — one-third of the world’s Jewish population — were exterminated. But today the word is used in ways that cheapen it.

Last fall, Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida spoke on the House floor about the need for universal healthcare, saying Americans die every year because they lack insurance. “I apologize to the dead and their families,” he said, “that we haven’t voted sooner to end this holocaust in America.”

In 2007, former Arkansas governor and Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee used the word in speaking out against abortion. “For the last 35 years we have aborted more than 1 million people who would have otherwise been in our workforce,” he said, “had we not had the holocaust of liberalized abortions under a flawed Supreme Court ruling in 1973.”

And syndicated columnist David Sirota recently applied the term to the BP gulf oil disaster, saying, “Every American who uses oil — which is to say, every American — is incriminated in this ecological holocaust.”

The continued misuse and trivialization of the word prompted Elie Wiesel, Nobel laureate and chronicler of the Holocaust, to discontinue using it. “Whatever mishap occurs now, they call it ‘holocaust,'” Wiesel said. “I have seen it myself in television in the country in which I live. A commentator describing the defeat of a sports team, somewhere, called it a ‘holocaust.'”

Wiesel is right. There are many injustices and manifestations of evil in our world, even in our own country, the greatest of democracies. Standing up to them is not only our right but our obligation. But that obligation does not include distorting and demeaning the word that has come to stand for the great evil that was the Holocaust.

The Holocaust was a total eclipse of humanity. It was not about going to the back of the line or eating in a different part of the restaurant or being escorted to the border without recourse. The Holocaust had one purpose: the total annihilation and extinction of a race.

The Holocaust was the story of ordinary Germans: students, doctors, men and women of culture, who were not demented, who listened to Bach and Beethoven, who loved their families, who were not diagnosed as psychopaths, but who, nonetheless for six years, rounded up men, women and children and escorted them to the gas chambers.

As the commandant of Auschwitz, Rudolf Höss, wrote in his confession before he was tried and executed in Poland: “Up to this point, it was not clear to me, nor to Eichmann, how the killing of the expected masses was to be done — perhaps by gas, but how and what kind of gas. I was always horrified of death by firing squads, especially when I thought of the large numbers of women and children who would have to be killed. Now I was at ease, we were all saved from these blood baths and the victims would be spared until the last moment…. I also watched how some women, who suspected or knew what was happening, even with the fear of death all over their faces, still managed enough strength to play with their children and talk to them lovingly. Once, a woman with four children, all holding each other by the hand to help the smallest ones, passed by me. She stepped very close to me and whispered, pointing to her four children, ‘How can you murder these beautiful, darling children? Don’t you have any heart?'”

That was the Holocaust. It is not the BP oil disaster, it is not healthcare, it is not Arizona law, it is not the attack ads of Meg Whitman, it is not abortion, and it is not even horrific violations of civil rights.

The enormity of the crimes of the Holocaust was such that if you were to try to call out 2,000 of the names every day of the 6 million who perished, it would take more than eight years to complete the task. That’s what a holocaust is.

Rabbi Marvin Hier is the Founder and Dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center.


Rev. Jeremiah Wright: Jews Control Flow of Info

Source: Newsmax

By: Ronald Kessler

As might be expected, the mainstream media have ignored the latest rant from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., President Obama’s minister, friend, sounding board, and mentor for 20 years.

As reported recently by the New York Post, Wright told a seminar he taught at the University of Chicago that Jews control the flow of worldwide information and oppress blacks in Israel and in the United States.

“White folk done took this country,” Wright said. “You’re in their home, and they’re gonna let you know it.” Addressing blacks in his class, Wright said, “You are not now, nor have you ever been, nor will you ever be, a brother to white folk. And if you do not realize that, you are in serious trouble.”

Wright said the educational system in America is designed by whites to mis-educate blacks “not by benign neglect but by malignant intent.”

The civil-rights movement was never about racial equality, Wright said. Instead, “It was always about becoming white . . . to master what [they] do.” He added, “We probably have more African-Americans who’ve been brainwashed than we have South Africans who’ve been brainwashed.”

Finally, Wright stood up for Nation of Islam head Louis Farrakhan, who has made serial anti-Semitic and anti-white comments, documented on the Anti-Defamation League’s website. Wright criticized black leaders for “cuttin’ and duckin’” at the mention of Farrakhan’s name.

During the 20 years Obama sat in his pews, hate speech was Wright’s specialty. In sermons, he claimed America created the AIDS virus to kill off blacks. His church’s website and newsletters were replete with screeds against Israel.

Yet Obama, in his speech disavowing Wright in Philadelphia, said of his self-described longtime friend and adviser, “Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect.”

That is as believable as a friend and mentor of Adolf Hitler saying he never heard him disparage Jews.

I first encountered Obama’s penchant for fabrication when I wrote a Newsmax story revealing that Wright had given an award to Farrakhan.

After the story was picked up, Obama claimed that the award was for Farrakhan’s work with ex-prisoners. But the award citation and Wright’s own description made no mention of ex-prisoners.

Instead, the award citation explicitly said it was given for Farrakhan’s “lifetime achievement.”

During the presidential campaign, if Mitt Romney had pulled a similar story out of thin air, the media would have been all over him. Infatuated with Obama, the media ignored his prevarication.

The media also accepted the mythology that Obama included in his Philadelphia speech to try to excuse Wright’s racism. Obama said that as a black man growing up in the 1960s, Wright had memories of “humiliation and doubt and fear [that] have not gone away.”

In fact, Wright attended Philadelphia’s elite Central High, which admits only highly qualified applicants who are privileged to attend from all over the city. When Wright attended Central High, the student body was 90 percent white. At least three-quarters of the students were Jewish. Former students say racial tension did not exist.

It was Hitler who came up with the propaganda technique referred to as the “Big Lie.” The idea was to concoct a lie so colossal that no one would believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously,” Hitler wrote in his book “Mein Kampf.”

That description perfectly fits Obama’s claim that Wright never disparaged any ethnic group to him. It has to be his biggest fabrication. In the meantime, Obama’s failure to come clean about his own involvement with a bigot gives us a revealing glimpse into his attitudes and character.

Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of View his previous reports and get his dispatches sent to you free via e-mail. Go here now.

Farrakhan Charges Jews With ‘Anti-Black’ Behavior

Source: Newsmax

Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan has written the leaders of more than a dozen major U.S. Jewish groups and denominations seeking “repair of my people from the damage” he claims Jews have caused blacks for centuries.

Farrakhan sent the letter along with two books from the Nation of Islam Historical Research Team that the 77-year-old minister said prove “an undeniable record of Jewish Anti-Black behavior,” starting with the slave trade and Jim Crow laws.

“We could charge you with being the most deceitful so-called friend, while your history with us shows you have been our worst enemy,” he wrote.

Farrakhan has long accused Jews of wrongdoing in speeches, but he has rarely addressed Jewish groups so directly in writing.

The Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish civil rights group which distributed copies of the letter, said in a statement Tuesday that Farrakhan’s “anti-Semitism is obsessive, diabolical and unrestrained. He has opened a new chapter in his ministry where scapegoating Jews is not just part of a message, but the message.”

In the letter, dated last Thursday, the Chicago-based Nation of Islam leader said he sought a dialogue with Jews. He sent the letter to groups including the Orthodox and Reform movements, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and the American Jewish Committee, a New York-based advocacy and humanitarian nonprofit that spearheads inter-religious dialogue.

“This is an offer asking you and the gentiles whom you influence to help me in the repair of my people from the damage that has been done by your ancestors to mine,” he writes. “Your present reality is sitting on top of the world in power, with riches and influences, while the masses of my people … are in the worst condition of any member of the human family.”

In the past, Farrakhan’s most inflammatory comments have included referring to Judaism as a “gutter religion” and calling Adolf Hitler “wickedly great.” Recently, he has railed against the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which he claims is conspiring to trap the U.S. in a war with Iran.

Farrakhan echoed similar comments last Saturday in an Atlanta speech titled, “Who Are the Real Children of Israel?”

He did not respond to several messages seeking comment Tuesday. Farrakhan has over the years denied claims of anti-Semitism, arguing his remarks are often taken out of context and that criticism of Jews in any light automatically earns the “anti-Semite” label.


Associated Press Religion Writer Rachel Zoll in New York contributed to this report.

Older Posts »