When Obama’s policies are recognized as driven by appeasement, the seeming inconsistency of his war against Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi on the one hand, and his passivity in the face of the anti-regime uprising in Iran in 2009 and the Syrian uprising against the Assad regime today makes sense. Gaddafi was not a threat to the US, so he was unworthy of protection. The mullahs in Iran and Assad are foes of the US. So they deserve protection. Obama has assiduously courted the Muslim Brotherhood from the outset of his presidency.
The official and unofficial Egyptian exploitation of the Internet film as a means to intimidate and attack the US into disavowing its core principles is proof that Obama’s theory of the source of Muslim rage is wrong. They do not hate America because of what the US government does. They hate America because of what America is. And it is because of this that since September 11, the rationale for Obama’s foreign policy has disintegrated.
Rather than accept this basic truth and defend the American way of life, Obama has doubled down in the only way now available to him. He, his administration, his campaign and his supporters in the media have responded to the collapse of the foundations of his foreign policy by resorting to the sort of actions they accused George W. Bush, his administration and supporters of taking. They have responded with a campaign of political oppression and nativist bigotry directed against their political opponents.
Late last Friday night, law enforcement officers descended on the California home of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the man who made the film that the Muslims of the newly free Arab lands find so offensive. Nakoula was questioned by federal authorities and later released. His arrest was photographed. The image of a dozen officers arresting an unarmed man for making a movie was broadcast worldwide within moments.
Beyond persecuting an independent filmmaker, the White House requested that YouTube block access to it. YouTube – owned by Google – has so far rejected the White House’s request.
The Obama administration’s abetment of bigoted nativism to silence criticism of its substantively indefensible foreign policy was on prominent display last Sunday. Obama’s campaign endorsed an anti-Semitic screed published by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd.
In her column, titled, “Neocons slither back,” Dowd wrote that Republican Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are mere puppets controlled by “neocon puppet master, Dan Senor.”
Neocon is a popular code for Jewish. It was so identified by Dowd’s Times’ colleague David Brooks several years ago.
Dowd said that “the neocons captured” Bush after the September 11 attacks and “Now, amid contagious Arab rage sparked on the 11th anniversary of 9/11, they have captured another would-be Republican president and vice president, both jejeune about the world.”
One telling aspect of Dowd’s assault on Senor as a neoconservative is that he and his boss in the Bush administration, Paul Bremer, were the nemeses of the neoconservatives at the Pentagon. The only thing Senor has in common with the likes of Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith is that all three men are Jews.
Moreover, Dowd drew a distinction between supposed “neocons” like Senor, and non-Jewish US leaders Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney who merely “abetted” the neocons.
So Senor doesn’t share the same ideological worldview as Feith and Wolfowitz but he’s a neocon. And Cheney and Rumseld do share the same worldview as Feith and Wolfowitz. And they are not neocons.
The Times’ public editor Andrew Rosenthal dismissed claims that Dowd’s column was anti- Semitic, arguing it couldn’t be since she never said a word about Jews.
The Obama campaign linked to Dowd’s column on its Twitter account with the message, “Why Romney and Ryan’s foreign policy sounds ‘ominously familiar.’” Obama’s campaign’s willingness to direct the public to anti-Semitic screeds against his political opponents is consistent with the administration’s general strategy for defending policies. That strategy involves responding to criticism not with substantive defense of his policies, but with ad hominem attacks against his critics.
His failed economic policies’ critics are attacked as “Wall Street fat cats.” His failed foreign policies’ critics are demonized as ominous neocon puppet masters.
There is a difference between appeasing parties that have been harmed by your actions and appeasing parties that wish your destruction. In the 1970s the US appeased the Philippines by transferring sovereignty over the Clark Air Force Base to the Philippine government. America was still America and the US and the Philippines became friends.
To appease a party that hates your way of life, you must change your way of life. The only way America can appease the Muslim world is for America to cease to be America.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
Pages: 1 2
And he wants us to go "FORWARD"….. forward into what??? No…..
Forward? No, back and to the left. Back and to the left.
Forward into the new Dark Ages where blasphemy laws are reborn in the guise of hate speech legislation.
Obama will get another chance to blame neocons for his failed ME foreign policy, in a few weeks, or hopefully sooner–when Israel strikes Iran; and all h–l breaks loose. I hope he gets word of the Israeli strike when he's on the links, or when he's at some cake-walk fundraiser, getting slobbered over by his adoring symbiotic followers.
Nuke 'em.
Ms. Glick is all over the map here. First she attacks the Neocons for endorsing the inevitable collapse of Mubarak. Then she flips out at anybody who dares to mention the fact that the Neocons are primarily an all-Jewish pro-Israel outfit with nothing but outright disdain for the laws of the United States.
She ends rhetorically with the statement: "To appease a party that hates your way of life, you must change your way of life." The Neocons, as they constantly remind us hate our way of life. It's too free-wheeling, the people are too self-secure. They need to be told they are under constant threat, and that anything but war war war and preparation for war is foolishness. Ms. Glick is a Neocon, and some of the primary characteristics of a Neocon are to act misunderstood, ignored, oppressed, and endangered while saying that every domestic and foreign policy except those endorsed by your own affiliated (and mandatorily Jewish-run) intelligence agency. It also helps to hop from country to country, changing your nationality like a jacket.
These guys all cleave to the Beginite Fascist Party. I don't think we should appease them either.
Do you realize that makes no sense? And it's not an accurate evaluation of the story either.
….yawn….yawn….and laugh!
No sense. This diatribe is nothing but a meandering discourse on the leftist mindset.
Try again, mental midget.
I thought it was Beaver who was the Cleaver.
Begin the fascist? If only all fascists would be as willing to relinquish huge pieces of territory in exchange for peace.
By the way, I know you like to provoke people and run away, but I'm still awaiting your response here:
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/bruce-bawer/battling…
How do you reconcile these two statements of yours:
"I know I'm not guilty of slander and hypocrisy"
"I am engaged in defaming knaves so the charge of defamation is hollow"
Slander is a form of defamation, and defamation is a crime. You denied being guilty of slander while confessing to the crime of defamation!
I just had to share that hilariously embarrassing moment with everyone else.
Begin the Fascist. You don't need to be Einstein to see it, but you can:
http://archive.org/details/AlbertEinsteinLetterTo…
I am glad you reposted your question here where it is nice and wide.
You omitted the part where I said that you cannot defame darkness by calling it black. What good reputation were these authors trading upon that was not conferred to themselves by themselves or which they bartered for by heaping accolades on fellows from their own media companies? The answer to that question is, of course, that one, maybe two of them have actually published a few reputable books. You could cop to that, but it would un-Spengler you.
I would be glad to answer for any of the "crimes" this organization might see fit to accuse me of. It would probably be the first time they were ever met on fair footing.
You posed a lot of challenges in the post that you link to. Most of them are silly. One was that you were insisting that I consider the whole world in order to validate your argument, and you were trying to deny me the prerogative of considering mainly the United States, a fine place where many of the authors here use and abuse the Bill of Rights on Aubrey Chernick's dime, and frequently from some place in Toronto. That's kind of silly, don't you think?
Your other point was that Israel is some kind of safe-haven for World Jewry, because the rest of the world is so gosh-darned unsafe. You furthered the characterization by making Israel the bulwark against World Islam, and portrayed it as a place that is not dependent. That is false. Israel is one of our client states. Also, they certainly don't protect us. They beg us to protect them, usually while they threaten war.
You pinned Israeli security upon Hasbara. Putin could make the same argument. Goebbels could. Hasbara is simply the use of propaganda and advertising to squash opinion and discussion, especially criticism. If any group of people requires that, I'd rather be rid of the people than the open discussion. Fortunately, you are wrong. Jews' existence does not depend upon being viewed favorably. No one's does.
You made a point about reciprocating my comments by trying to mirror them, asserting that it is effective. I doubt that it is. I think when people read comments that are meant to be reciprocal, they are supposed to use the irony and contradictions to help bog down opponents in the future for the benefit of the collective will. I see this same urge in someone like Mr. Bawers' favorite radical Imam who prefers his holy argumatics to real freedom. They might "mmmm hmmmm" and "harumph" in unison to your pro-Israel furqan but they really wish they could do it themselves. It's a slippery slope to wishing they could think for themselves.
Then you tried to elevate by saying I am far removed from a war zone, as if we all have to be in a war zone, or turn the world into a war zone to be on the same moral footing and have the same steely realpolitikal view as yourself. Pshaw! You reminded me that I don't live in the Middle East, neglecting the fact that all the vitriol we are discussing emanates mainly from Los Angeles, Bedford, Philadelphia, New York, Boca Raton, Toronto, and Montreal. Does Mr. Spencer live in a War Zone? No. Does Ms. Geller? No. Does Mr. Horowitz? No. Does Mr. Klein? No. Do you? No.
You were just making apodictic divides.
The more ten dollar words you use the less you have to say.
Advocatus only pays 5 cents for them. You're being had over a barrel.
"Neocons are primarily an all-Jewish pro-Israel outfit", any proof islamofascist? Or is this merely a corollary to the "truths" found in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?
The implicit argument that Schlomind is making here is that islamofascism isn't a threat and that to even suggest it is somehow hysterical.
Well, I could prove that the sky is blue or I could tell you to go fly a kite. Which do you think I would choose?
Either one is entirely irrelevant to the point Mr. Kufar is making, as you know. But you can't prove the sky is blue.
Neoconservatives are advancing the Muslim Brotherhood at the expense of Israel. They were never "all Jewish" and their Zionism is secondary to their liberalism.
Another day,another anti-Jewish rant from Schlomotion. It's as predictable as the tides.
Maureen Dowd in my opinion is just sick.
Caroline, Although maybe we should have helped the Secularists overthrow the Iranian ayatollahs and mullahcracy, why do you want to help the Sunni Al Quaida types in their anti Bashar Assad quest. They are driving out and killing Christians. They are aided by the islamist Tayip Erdogan who just threw the partially Christian Turkish military pro Israel secularists in jail. So what if Assad is an ally of Iran, the Sunni Islamists who will surely take over if Assad is overthrown are just as bad if not worse. Bomb Iran, but if he keeps the Iranians out, leave Assad alone although Israel will be surrounded by hostiles in either case. The devil you know, etc. etc. Israel should save her ammo for the Egyptian attack on her southern doorstep and the Hizbollah attack out of Lebanon that looks like they are coming soon in alliance with Iran.__Check the fuses etc. on the tactical emp nukes. Tough complex situations demand reasessment of priorities. Work on getting Florida Jews to vote against Obama first, second and third. Maureen Dowd is a liberal Obama hacktwit, what do you expect from her.
Horace,
The secularists who supported the Shah's overthrow were targeted afterward They are all dead or in exile
"The Times’ public editor Andrew Rosenthal dismissed claims that Dowd’s column was anti- Semitic, arguing it couldn’t be since she never said a word about Jews." LOL, sounds a lot like Schlomind's meme.
It's sick to think that people buy into this kind of euphemistic BS. The muslimes publicly rant and rave at UCI about their hatred of zionists, and it's clear to any but the most stupid that zionist is nothing more than a euphemism for Jew.
That's probably why people like Atlas_Collins and Schlomotion use it,as a means to attack Jews.
Choosing between a businessman and a great communicator is the choice America`s youth will make in the November elections. College gals and bikini wearers prefer the candidate with the Jive talk and captivating bedroom manner. Youngsters out to make a buck, want their leader to be a businessman with a record of success. Retirees with a pension or Social Security check do not care about the economy; most are lonely and all they want is a blast of Obama`s warm and sugary words. Serious minded voters are in the minority that is why Romney is behind in the polls.
But is Romney really behind in the polls? The MSM and the truth don't have much to do with one another anymore. I find the present regime's lies about the unemployment rate particularly laughable.
They better not expect help from the muslim in the white house.
Question: Who said this?
"If the winds blow against Islam I will side with Islam" —-"Audacity of Hate" /sic
It is outrageous to know that this Obama chose rather to please the enemies than its own American people. He isn't patriotic at all. One must also understand that America was the reason the Muslims hate. America must stop being so naive or gullible to believe this. There are a whole lot of reasons why Muslims hate the world and cannot get along with. It is truly their own fault and not others. If there's any blame, it is themselves to be blame. Can't you see why others can get along fine, except them. They know the answer, while we've a hard time figuring out and blaming ourselves for every single wrong they hurled at us. It is they who try to hurt us, not we who try to hurt them. I hope the world can see this before it's too late. We need to take care of ourselves or where do we flee to if anything were to went wrong? They create, they invent…and they turn around and blame it all on the West. They are good in scheming, nobody can compare with them in this.
Anyone who believes the Muslims will be able to manhandle any of their present tyrants and establish a true democracy is doing some very soft headed believing. No democracy exists in the United Sates or anywhere else. If one does in the US, give us the Democratic Party's standard official definition of democracy that is given to its leaders and supporters.
That Obama joined George Bush in supporting a Middle East democracy is no wonder. That the Muslims rejected a nonexistent democracy is less of a wonder. What would help the people of the Middle East is a constitutional rule of law including the rights of our American Bill of Rights. That is republicanism! Every citizens of whatever belief is equal under that republican law. The Muslim tyrants who feel free to sentence foreign critics to death have not and will not accept a rule of equality before the law for all of their citizens. If they do, it will be the end of their tyranny.
Marvin E. Fox
What is there in Obama's upbringing that would lead people to believe he would defend Jews?
Marvin E. Fox
Coal makes for hot and toasty ovens. bho
Of course. Both Schlock and Collins are pseudo intellectuals with zero valid sources, and never use academic terms correctly.