It’s more than interesting that while there have been over 470,000 views of the exchange between David Horowitz and the Muslim Students Association officer at UC San Diego which revealed an appalling support for a genocide of the Jews, and it has been featured on many, many websites as chilling evidence of the jihadists among us, not a single “liberal” website has posted it, including Huffington Post and Talking Points Memo. And while Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity have both played the video, not a single “liberal” cable news show has mentioned it. Not Keith Olbermann, not Rachel Maddow, and not Chris Matthews who are too busy skewering inept Republican candidates who want to argue the fine points of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964-5. Not Anderson Cooper nor Larry King. Nor is this just a passive denial of the jihadist threat at home.

Joshua Micah Marshall, the editor of Talking Points Memo went out of his way three years ago to attack Horowitz when he spoke at Columbia about the oppression of women in Islam as part of the first Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week. Islamo-Fascism was evidently a problem less pressing than the threat posed by Horowitz’s attempt to raise campus awareness of the widespread campus support for Islamo-Fascism. Although Islamo-Fascism Awareness week was supported by conservative students on 100 campuses — a fact noteworthy in itself – not a single article appeared on liberal/left websites to engage the issues that it raised. Instead, the event was greeted with ridicule and smears in a concerted attempt by the Left to discredit and dismiss it, and not incidentally lend support to the jihadist forces at home and abroad.

Recently Horowitz emailed Marshall expressing curiosity about his intentions, and specifically an interest should he be planning another effort around the San Diego incident to ridicule the idea that it might indicate a serious problem with which all Americans should be concerned. Marshall responded in high dudgeon at the thought that anyone might suspect the center-left of not taking the jihadist threat seriously. So Horowitz asked him for evidence of his own website’s concern. Marshall retorted the very idea that there was not such concern was preposterous, then ended the exchange.

This is the headline at the lead story from May 28 at Talking Points Memo, Marshall’s journal and one of the leading online publications of the center-left:

Planned Muslim Cultural Center Near Ground Zero Prompts Massive Right-Wing Freakout

The  article then goes on to defend the construction of a mosque in the shadow of Ground Zero and infer that its opponents (like Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer) are racist Islamophobes. Cover is given to the project’s leader Feisal Abdul Rauf who is cast as a moderate antidote to Al Qaeda:

The effort is being spearheaded by a longtime local imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, who has said the center would “bridge and heal a divide” and has said it’s his mission to fight radicalism.

But this is a fantasy. At Pajamas Media Walid Shoebat revealed that the reality is that Rauf actually does not believe in inter-faith dialogue, supports Shariah law, and argues that America brought 9/11 on itself.

But perhaps this is an anomaly among Talking Points Memo’s coverage of the war with genocidal, Islamic fascists. With the events of last week – the attempt by Hamas’ “humanitarian wing” to break the legal blockade which keeps rockets from killing Israeli children – the ultimate test of TPM’s allegiances was presented.

At TPM Café on June 1:

Here is a better analogy from the civil rights era, offered by a young friend and colleague.

“Israel’s defenders,” he says, “are arguing that Israel had the right to attack the people on the ships because the flotillas’ goal was not really to supply the Gazans but to break the blockade. Supplying the Gazans was only a pretense for their larger political goal.

He continues:

“So does that mean it was okay to beat and brutalize kids who were sitting-in at Woolworth counters throughout the south in the 1950’s and 1960’s because their real goal was not being served lunch but ending segregation.”

Perfect.

In other words: the flotilla Nazis seeking to break a naval blockade for a terrorist army whose official goal is the “obliteration” of the Jewish state are akin to Civil Rights activists fighting against racist policies.

TPM Café on June 2:

The bottom line is that the men and women of the flotilla had every right to attempt to destroy an illegal blockade that Israel had no legal standing to impose and which was designed to inflict collective punishment on the people of Gaza. (There is no truth to the story that Israel would have delivered the goods on the ships to Gaza if asked; the Israelis never made that offer and, judging by years of precedent, would have blocked any delivery).

As for the Israeli argument that its soldiers were attacked, that is ridiculous. Israeli commandos were ordered to board a civilian ship in international waters and the government that sent them claims that the resisting passengers attacked them without provocation. This is like a carjacker complaining to the police that the driver bashed him with a crowbar that was under the seat. Neither carjackers nor hijackers should expect their victims to acquiesce peacefully.

In other words: Israel is a criminal state. The IDF was attacked because of the “illegal action” it engaged in.

Continue reading on page 2 here.

"AP: Taliban say buildup under way," by Kathy Gannon for the Associated Press, April 18:

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan - The Taliban are moving fighters into Kandahar, planting bombs and plotting attacks as NATO and Afghan forces prepare for a summer showdown with insurgents, according to a Taliban commander with close ties to senior insurgent leaders.

And they will strive for the utmost propaganda mileage out of the civilian casualties they cause as a result.

NATO and Afghan forces are stepping up operations to push Taliban fighters out of the city, which was the Islamist movement's headquarters during the years it ruled most of Afghanistan. The goal is to bolster the capability of the local government so that it can keep the Taliban from coming back.

The Taliban commander, who uses the pseudonym Mubeen, told The Associated Press that if military pressure on the insurgents becomes too great "we will just leave and come back after" the foreign forces leave.

Despite nightly raids by NATO and Afghan troops, Mubeen said his movements have not been restricted. He was interviewed last week in the center of Kandahar, seated with his legs crossed on a cushion in a room. His only concession to security was to lock the door.

He made no attempt to hide his face and said he felt comfortable because of widespread support among Kandahar's 500,000 residents, who like the Taliban are mostly Pashtuns, Afghanistan's biggest ethnic community. [...]

"We are always getting instructions from our commanders, what suicide attacks to carry out, who to behead if he is a spy," Mubeen said, gesturing with a maimed hand suffered during fighting in 1996 when the Taliban were trying to gain control of the capital of Kabul. [...]

"Our brothers are already here and ready," he said. "Our people are skilled now. They know a lot of things, how to make things more difficult and to be more sophisticated in our attacks."

Mubeen said Taliban fighters had received better training, although he would not say where and by whom.

"But we were interested to get the training and we understood that we needed the training," he said.

Mubeen said the Taliban's main goal in the war is the establishment of sharia, or Islamic law, in Afghanistan. When they ruled the religious militia enforced an antiquated and regressive interpretation of Islamic law that appalled the West, including publicly amputating hands and feet for theft and carrying out public executions...

I’m really getting tired of shows where guests discuss their grand goals that are just impractical and impossible to achieve. I’m more of a “details” type of dude. One such goal is eliminating nuclear weapons. Sorry, until some magic weapon or defense mechanism makes them obsolete, in which case we’ll be worrying about a new class of war-making mechanisms, this ain’t gonna happen.

 Last night on The Daily Show, Ambassador Richard Burt of Global Zero was on. He seems like a great guy, and I’m all for reductions in unnecessarily large nuclear weapons stockpiles, but some of the things he said should be challenged.

Watch the interview below:

Burt talks about creating a “new political environment” around the globe against nuclear weapons, which will be facilitated by the disarmament of the U.S., Russia and the other large powers. The truth is that the world has recognized that for some countries’ agendas, nuclear weapons are too critical to give up. Israel’s existence depends upon it. Rogue states see it as their ultimate security guarantee, and so unless we decide to stop opposing their moves, they will continue to seek nuclear capabilities.

Burt seems to think that rogue states like Iran will somehow be affected by America’s own reductions, and Jon Stewart is right to be skeptical. These regimes are not motivated by America’s own stockpiles. They are not acting in reaction to our nukes, they are acting in reaction to the fact that we are exceedingly powerful and our interests are diametrically opposed to theirs.

Back in December, NewsReal’s own Ryan Mauro took the Conservative Political Action Conference to task for accepting the crackpot John Birch Society as a sponsor of CPAC 2010, calling it a “monumentally stupid decision” that would give the Left plenty of ammo for their current “conservatives are extreme!” narrative.

With CPAC set to begin tomorrow, The Daily Beast’s John Avlon has finally taken notice:

For decades, the John Birch Society found itself exiled from polite conservative society. No less a figure than William F. Buckley Jr. leveled a 5,000-word condemnation in the pages of National Review, concluding, “How can the John Birch Society be an effective political instrument while it is led by a man whose views on current affairs are, at so many critical points, removed from common sense?” In 1965, a coordinating committee of the RNC sought to formally disavow the Birchers as being a radical extremist group.

[…]

What’s significant now is that as the fringe blurs with the base, the Birchers are closer to the conservative movement mainstream than they have been in half a century. They were railing against the Federal Reserve long before Ron Paul’s “End the Fed” effort. The neo-isolationist movement has given new encouragement to U.S.-out-of-U.N. efforts. The 9/11 Truthers parrot longstanding Bircher claims about the sinister New World Order. With the fiscal crisis, more people are willing to listen to tales about colluding bankers trying to undermine capitalism.

Avlon goes too far in attempting to associate more mainstream conservatives with the crackpots—Glenn Beck’s prediction that America is heading towards socialism isn’t all that shocking, the latest example of Rep. Tom Tancredo’s “extremism” is bull, and as Donald Douglas also pointed out in December, “the only time people hear of the John Birch Society is when folks are dissing the right.”

However, that’s not to say there’s no fire under this hint of smoke.  As Ryan explained, JBS is still mired in conspiratorial nonsense (“the U.S. had begun Operation Iraqi Freedom to enforce UN law as part of the conspiracy” to bring about a New World Order?  Really?), and CPAC’s embrace of JBS shows, at best, a disturbing level of carelessness.  Some Tea Partiers have circled the wagons around Texas gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina, rather than recoil at the stupidity of her proclaimed sympathy to 9/11 Trutherism.  Skirmishes over Barack Obama’s birth certificate still flare up among prominent right-wingers.  Even Sarah Palin endorsed Ron Paul’s son, despite the incompatibility of his foreign policy views with her own.

The truth is that conservatism has never been some monolithic, well-organized conspiracy, and the Tea Party movement even less so.  Robert Stacy McCain was on to something when he said we should “get used to the idea that the conservative coalition of the future will be a loud, rowdy and unruly bunch, composed of diverse people with disparate beliefs.”

We’re never going to enforce full ideological purity movement-wide, or get everybody on their best behavior, and we shouldn’t obsess over the nuts, especially since we’re never going to get credit from the Left for doing so anyway.  But sometimes the nuts threaten to seep into the mainstream, as it has in CPAC and the other examples above.  In short, our primary goal should remain as standing up to the primary domestic danger to America—the Left—and our secondary goal should be keeping the fringe on the, well, fringe.

_____

Hailing from Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, Calvin Freiburger is a political science major at Hillsdale College.  He also blogs at the Hillsdale Forum and his personal website, Calvin Freiburger Online.

Click here for Part 1

In politics, as in football, everyone looks to the leader. In football, of course, the quarterback is the leader, whereas in politics, it’s the candidate. But in both politics and football, the quarterback and the candidate are less important than how well all of the team’s players work in tandem.

Yet, everyone’s been quick to fault quarterback Peyton Manning for the Indianapolis Colts’ Super Bowl loss. The American Spectator’s Joseph Lawler, for instance, has denounced the

“perennially overrated Peyton Manning [for] throwing a deliciously inexcusable pick six.”

The Spectator’s W. James Antle III, is less partisan and more charitable toward Manning, but still faults the Colts’ QB for committing “the single most costly error, with an interception that was the dagger” for his team.

In fact, what the interception shows is that, in the game of football, errors and mistakes are seldom made by only one player. To the contrary: teams often lose because they aren’t working in tandem, and because multiple players aren’t carrying their load.

In Part I of this series, I explained how Manning’s interception really wasn’t his fault. Wide receiver Reggie Wayne made two fatal errors that caused the interception.

But don’t obsess about that one play, because Wayne also dropped a late fourth-quarter touchdown pass, which would have given the Colts a chance at an onside kick, and thus also a chance at a subsequent game-tying touchdown drive.

Sure, Wayne would have had to make a quick and somewhat challenging catch; and you can fault Manning for throwing a less-than-perfect pass. Still, the ball was eminently catchable.

My point is not to pick on Wayne, because there is plenty of blame to go around the Colts’ locker room. Why just consider that, in the second quarter, another Colts’ receiver, Pierre Garcon, dropped a perfect third-down pass on which he, too, might have scored — or at least put the Colts in a scoring position.

Then, too, there was a missed 51-yard field goal by Colts’ kicker Matt Stover. Blame Stover, sure. But also realize that had the Colts not been greedy, they might have picked up at least some crucial third down yardage, which could have made Stover’s kick successful.

Instead, the Colts threw a more risky — and ultimately incomplete — third-down pass. However, if they had run a more conservative, high-percentage play, they likely would have picked up, say, six to eight yards and thus scored with the kick. (Stover’s field goal conversion rate is 86% for kicks inside 49 yards versus just 40% for kicks beyond 50 yards.)

In short, Manning’s teammates really let him down: by dropping multiple well-thrown passes; missing tackles on defense; and, in general, failing to come up with the type of big and inspired plays that Super Bowl championship games require.

The point is that football is a team sport; and so, too, is politics: You win and lose as a team. Conservatives can have the perfect presidential candidate in 2012; but if that candidate lacks a strong supporting cast, then that candidate may well fail in his quest for the presidency. Take it from Peyton Manning, who knows something about being great and yet falling short.

In Part III of this series, we’ll examine the disparate but equally important parts of the Center-Right political coalition — who and what they are and why, even if they don’t always like each other, they nonetheless need other, and now more than ever.

—-

John R. Guardiano is a writer and analyst in Arlington, Virginia. Follow him on Twitter.

That is a goal President Obama embraced when he visited House Republicans at their policy retreat in Baltimore last week, and he singled out Ryan as someone he would like to work with — even mentioning budget legislation the Wisconsin Republican co-wrote.

Released two days before the unusual back-and-forth session between Obama and the GOP, the bill sponsored by Ryan and five other House members would seek to reduce the deficit and spur economic growth by cutting the tax rate on corporations, shifting future Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries to private insurance plans, and both raising the retirement age gradually to 70 and reducing the growth of benefits to make Social Security solvent. Even Democrats have acknowledged that it is one of the few plans offered by a member of either party that would lower the long-term budget deficit.

via Republican lawmaker’s budget plan gets Obama’s attention – washingtonpost.com.

Somali Islamist rebel group al-Shabab has confirmed for the first time that its fighters are aligned with al-Qaeda's global militant campaign.

The group said in a statement that the "jihad of Horn of Africa must be combined with the international jihad led by the al-Qaeda network".

Meanwhile, several people have died in fighting in Mogadishu after government troops shelled militant positions.

Islamist insurgents control much of southern and central Somalia.

The government, which is backed by the UN and African Union, holds sway only in a small part of Mogadishu.

Despite repeated accusations by the US that al-Shabab is linked to al-Qaeda, the group denied the connection in a recent interview with the BBC.

The BBC Somali service's Mohamed Mohamed says it is the first time the group has officially confirmed its fight is linked to al-Qaeda.

More mergers and acquisitions:

'Financer of terrorism'

The group's statement also announced that its militants had joined forces with a smaller insurgent group called Kamboni.

The group, based in the southern town of Ras Kamboni, was previously allied to Hizbul-Islam - another militant group fighting the government.

Kamboni is led by Hassan Turki, a militant the US accuses of being a "financer of terrorism".

Al-Shabab said it was trying to unite all Islamist forces to create a Muslim state under its hard-line interpretation of Sharia law. [...]

AFP quoted an unnamed police official accusing the rebels of hiding in civilian areas and using "human shields"....

President Obama understandably focused the vast majority of the State of the Union on domestic issues. As a national security specialist, though, I listened and waited to hear about the threats facing us as they are what I am best educated in. To my disappointment, President Obama again referred to the “Islamic Republic of Iran,” an unofficial recognition of the unelected government and a way of disavowing regime change as a goal. A few minutes later, he briefly said the U.S. stood alongside the female demonstrators in Iran, mentioning them alongside others fighting for freedom and prosperity in the world.

Related posts:

1. State of the Union: “Woe to the People Whose Leader Has No Teacher”
2. FULL TEXT: President Obama’s State of the Union Address
3. The State Of The Union Address Obama Should Give

With the president’s State of the Union address coming up on Wednesday, the White House appears to be struggling to find its feet. Republican Scott Brown’s surprise victory in liberal Massachusetts has dominated the national conversation in the last week and made Obama’s goal of signing health care reform impossible before the big speech. Now, even Obama’s apparent attempt to soothe voters’ budget-deficit concerns by proposing a three-year freeze on some federal spending is being met with ridicule from both the right and the left.

The plan Obama will propose breaks down as follows:

- Freeze discretionary spending on non-security-related programs and government agencies whose budgets are set annually by Congress. Affected programs could include subsidies for farmers, child nutrition, and national parks.

- Exempt from the freeze would be budgets for federal entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, as well as the budgets for the Pentagon, the Veterans Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, and foreign aid.

The administration claims this will save the country $250 billion over the next decade, or about 3% of the $9 trillion deficits the U.S. is expected to accumulate over that period.

Conservatives have mocked the freeze as not doing nearly enough to get to the root of the country’s economic problems. The right-leaning blog RedState.com chided the effort, saying that it would have “virtually no impact on the financial standing of the United States of America.” On her Twitter page, right-wing commentator Michelle Malkin compared the freeze to “promising to slow down from 250 mph to 249.9.” House Minority Leader John Boehner likened the plan to “announcing you’re going on a diet after winning a pie-eating contest.”

via After Brown victory, Obama struggles to control message – Yahoo! News.

Visit Pajamas

It’s official. Britain’s premier medical journal Lancet has been completely Palestinianized. It no longer bears any relationship to the first-rate scientific journal it once was. Perhaps Lancet is no longer a standard-bearer but has become a follower in the global movement in which standards have plunged, biases have soared, and Big Lies now pass for top-of-the-line academic, scientific work.

The post-colonial academy is itself thoroughly colonized by the false and dangerous ideas of Edward Said (please read my dear friend Ibn Warraq’s most excellent book Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said’s Orientalism). However, I once believed that Said’s paranoid perspective had primarily infected and indoctrinated only the social sciences, humanities, and Middle East Studies. We now see his malign influence at work in a new article, just out today, by professors who work at the Department of Medicine at Harvard University; the Division of Epidemiology and Community Health at Minnesota University’s School of Public Health; The Boston University School of Medicine; the School of Nursing at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey; and at the School of Social Work and Social Welfare at Jerusalem’s Hebrew University.

Their study is titled: “Association between exposure to political violence and intimate-partner violence in the occupied Palestinian territory: a cross-sectional study.” And yes, they have found that Palestinian husbands are more violent towards Palestinian wives as a function of the Israeli “occupation”—and that the violence increases significantly when the husbands are “directly” as opposed to “indirectly” exposed to political violence.

I believe that Arab and Muslim men, including Palestinian men, are indeed violent towards Arab and Muslim women. I also believe that war-related stress, including poverty, usually increases “intimate partner violence,” aka male domestic violence. But beyond that, how does one evaluate this study?

First, let’s follow the money. This study was funded by the Palestinian National Authority as well as by the Core Funding Group at the University of Minnesota. The Palestinian Authority is not a disinterested party. But even worse: The data was collected by the Palestinian Central Bureau. These are the people who told the world that Israeli soldiers shot young Mohammed al-Dura, committed a massacre in Jenin, and purposely attacked Palestinian civilians (who just happened to be jihadists dressed in civilian clothing or hostage-civilians behind whom the jihadists hid).

Second, let’s note that the study has a political goal which trumps any objective academic or feminist goal. (These researchers claim to have a “feminist” perspective). In my view, this study wishes to present Palestinian men as victims, even when those men are battering their wives. And, it wishes to present Palestinian cultural barbarism, which includes severe child abuse, as also related to the alleged Israeli occupation.

To continue reading this article, click here.

Alec Baldwin, the hot-headed Hollywood leftist actor, has no problem sticking to the Alinsky script. In his latest Huffington Post blog, Baldwin suggests that the administration forget health care and focus on energy.

“The goal of this country’s energy policy, long-term, should be to trigger a series of events that would lead to one clear measurement of our progress. That is the collapse of a major oil company. If a major oil company went out of business, we would be on the right track.”

Still clinging to the tired “war over oil” line Baldwin continues:

“Energy policy is the lynch pin of nearly all of our other economic problems. And our dependence on oil is the tragic path that we are still on, two wars in the Middle East in twenty years later, in order to deliver oil. Oil that costs so much more than what you read at the pump. You factor in both of those wars, the deaths of our brave soldiers, and the looming bill that our society will have to pay for our lack of maturity, foresight and courage on this front, the costs are incalculable.”

While it’s tempting to stop and snicker at the thought of a Baldwin lecturing about foresight and lack of maturity, I’ll resist and move on to the bottom line of the post.

Baldwin declares:

“Putting a major oil company out of business. That’s a war worth fighting.”

Baldwin writes that his father told him when he was a little boy, that the oil companies won’t come up with a new alternative form of energy until the last drop of oil is gone.

So, the new plan is to stop focusing on taking over health care, and use the government’s fist to smash at least one major oil company. That will put us on the right track, solve our war issues, environmental problems and save the economy.

Then, I suppose, if we are to believe his father’s  storyline, this will all come about because the oil companies will then, and only then, pull out a brand new energy supply (they obviously have been hiding all along)  and the world will be green.

And we will all live happily ever after.

It looks like Baldwin can’t tell the difference between real life and one of his movies.

Related posts:

1. Obama Prepares to Destroy the World's Best Health-Care System
2. What Freepers and Alex Baldwin Have in Common
3. The Left Pushes Linguistic Lunacies in Health Care

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Pamela Geller, founder, editor and publisher of the popular and award-winning weblog AtlasShrugs.com. She has won acclaim for her interviews with internationally renowned figures, including John Bolton, Geert Wilders, Bat Ye’or, Natan Sharansky, and many others, and has broken numerous important stories — notably the questionable sources of some of the financing of the Obama campaign.. Her op-eds have been published in The Washington Times, The American Thinker, Israel National News, Frontpage Magazine, World Net Daily, and New Media Journal, among other publications. She is the co-author (with Robert Spencer) of the soon to be released, The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America (forward by Ambassador John Bolton).

FP: Pamela Geller, welcome back to Frontpage Interview.

I would like to talk to you today about a mass Muslim immigration plan that is going into the works in Europe and not too many people know about it. Can you enlighten us please?

Geller: Thanks, Jamie.

The disastrous and suicidal pact called the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership is in the process of going into effect, with little fanfare or examination. It boggles the mind that such a consequential and seismic cultural shift could be mandated and put into play without so much as a murmur from the mainstream media.

The European human rights group called Stop the Islamisation of Europe (SIOE) has been working tirelessly to expose the mass Muslim immigration plan of the Euro-Med Partnership. A statement on the SIOE website criticizes the secrecy of the process:

“It was shocking to hear about the plans and at the same time knowing that Danish politicians and a [cowardly] Danish press — who is otherwise proud to be critical — has told nothing to the Danish people about this project which begins already in January next year [2010]. This also showed clearly at the conference. Only very few politicians showed up and no media. Those politicians who showed up had obviously never heard about the Euro-Mediterranean project.”

The goal of the Euro-Mediterranean cooperation is to create a new Greater European Union encompassing both Europe and North Africa, with the Mediterranean Sea becoming a domestic Eurabian sea. The goal is to establish a “comprehensive political partnership,” including a “free trade area and economic integration”; “considerably more money for the partners” (that is, more European money flowing into North Africa); and “cultural partnership” — that is, importation of Islamic culture into post-Christian Europe.

According to the SIOE, in the Euro-Med plan, “Europe is to be Islamized. Democracy, Christianity, European culture and Europeans are to be driven out of Europe. 50 million North Africans from Muslim countries are to be imported into the EU.”

FP: Who exactly is behind this agenda? Why is it being done so secretly and how come it is allowed to happen this way?

Geller: Jamie, this agenda is being pushed at the highest levels of the European Union. The official EuroMed Partnership website says it’s an initiative of “the EU and its southern neighbors.” And it’s huge in scope. Recently in Brussels there was a summit meeting of trade ministers from 43 countries in Europe and the Mediterranean. And it’s being done secretly because the European governing elites know the people of Europe wouldn’t go along if they knew what was happening.

FP: How does this effect America and Americans?

Geller: Americans have to care about this for a number of reasons. Short term the most obvious reason presented itself on Christmas day, when a jihadi from Amsterdam attempted to blow up a passenger jet carrying 278 people as it was landing in Detroit. A flood of Muslims into Europe, many of them “devout,” would increase the security risks to America.

And the destruction of national identity also bodes ill for us. This internationalism is already destroying what has made Europe free and great. And now Barack Obama seems to want to do the same thing to America.

Longer term, a Euro-Arab partnership would put control of the oil in the hands of the new Eurabians, leaving America at a distinct disadvantage. Oil is power, and we would be at their mercy.

More troubling is that we seem to be following the same European model of Muslim immigration. We have opened up Islamic immigration via diversity visas and religious visas to countries that are hotbeds of jihadist activity.

The European model is in play.

FP: So is all of this taking effect now?

Geller: Indeed it is. EuroMed agreements have already begun to take effect. The British newspaper the Daily Express reported back in October 2008 about “a controversial taxpayer-funded ‘job centre’ “that opened in Mali at that time as “just the first step towards promoting ‘free movement of people in Africa and the EU.’ Brussels economists claim Britain and other EU states will ‘need’ 56 million immigrant workers between them by 2050 to make up for the ‘demographic decline’ due to falling birthrates and rising death rates across Europe.”

To offset this decline, a “blue card” system is to be created that will allow card holders to travel freely within the European Union and have full rights to work – as well as the full right to collect welfare benefits.

FP: What can be done to block this project?

Geller: Europeans and Americans must become aware of what is going on and fight it. The EuroMed Partnership will destroy what is left of European civilization, and ultimately shake the foundations of this country. Free people must not allow that to happen. We must stand up and demand that our leaders protect our civilization and take our countries back.

FP: Pamela Geller, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

An update on this story. "PC eats his 'jihad' comment," from Express News Service, January 10 (thanks to James):

CHENNAI: Faced with increasing criticism from both Muslim and secular organisations, Home Minister P Chidambaram said he had no intention to hurt the sentiments of Muslims.

He clarified that he had used the word 'jihad' in the same sense the term was used in common parlance and in the media, and that he stood corrected.

He has been receiving flak after his comment: "Jihad employs terror as an instrument to achieve its objectives. Such terror is directed against all and sundry, its victims are usually innocent people, and its goal is to overawe and overthrow the established authority." In a letter to Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam president M H Jawaharullah, he explained the context in which he had used the word 'jihad' to describe militant activities.

The object of war is to break an enemy’s will and destroy his capacity to fight. Therefore, a nation divided in wartime is a nation that invites its own defeat. Yet that is precisely how Americans are facing the global war that radical Islamists have declared on them.

The enemies who confront us are religious barbarians, armed
with the technologies of modern warfare but guided by morals that
are medieval and grotesque. Their stated goal is the obliteration of
America and the conquest of the West. They have assembled a coali-
tion that includes sovereign states such as Iran and Syria, Muslim
armies such as al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas, and terrorist cells
that are globally dispersed and beyond counting.

This jihad has access to biological, chemical, and possibly nuclear
weapons. It actively threatens the regimes in Lebanon, Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Somalia, Turkey, and Egypt. Among its allies are non-Mus-
lim states such as the Communist regimes in North Korea, Venezuela,
and China. Its enablers include Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the vast
political networks of the international Left. Its pool of sympathizters ers and supporters can be counted in the hundreds of millions, and
its political fronts are embedded in almost every nation and every
continent, including Europe and the United States.

The warriors of the jihad are promised salvation for slaughter-
ing innocents; their highest honor is to sacrifice themselves for Al-
lah by murdering infidels; their goal is to restore an Islamic empire
that once stretched into the heart of Europe, until it was defeated
in the battle of Vienna on September 11, 1683. Three hundred years
later, Osama bin Laden turned this date of humiliation into a day of
vengeance—and revival. Striking America’s homeland on September
11, 2001 jihadists murdered thousands of unsuspecting civilians, and
came within a terrorist attack or two of destabilizing the American
economy and unleashing chaos. As the victim of these unprovoked and savage attacks, and as the defender of democratic values in three world wars, America would seem a worthy cause. Instead, America is on the defensive, harshly criticized by its traditional allies and under political attack by significant elements of its own population.

In this epic conflict Americans appear more divided among themselves than they have been at any time in the century–and–a
half since the Civil War. Never in those years was an American
commander-in-chief the target of such extreme attacks by his own
countrymen with his troops in harm’s way. Never in its history has
America faced an external enemy with its own leaders so at odds
with each other.

– Party of Defeat co-written with Ben Johnson

–

If you have a favorite Horowitz quote you want to highlight for others then click here to submit. Please include:

1. “Horowitz Quote of the Day” in subject line.
2. A link to where the quote is from. (No need to include this if it’s from a book.)
3. Any remarks you’d like published explaining what value you take from it.
4. Your preferred name and a link to your blog or homepage (if you have one.)

Related posts:

1. From the Pen of David Horowitz: January 3, 2010
2. From the Pen of David Horowitz: January 2, 2010
3. From the Pen of David Horowitz: January 1, 2010

Come Jan. 1, 2010, a disastrous and suicidal pact called the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (Europe/Mediterranean) goes into effect with little fanfare or examination. It boggles the mind that such a consequential and seismic cultural shift could be mandated and put into play without so much as a murmur from the mainstream media.

Why should Americans care about this? Americans have to care because this global gobbledygook is coming to our shores, thanks to our globalist president.

The European human rights group called Stop the Islamization of Europe (SIOE) has been working tirelessly to expose the mass Muslim immigration plan of the Euro-Med Partnership....

The goal of the Euro-Mediterranean cooperation is to create a new Greater European Union encompassing both Europe and North Africa, with the Mediterranean Sea becoming a domestic Eurabian sea. The goal is to establish a "comprehensive political partnership," including a "free trade area and economic integration"; "considerably more money for the partners" (that is, more European money flowing into North Africa); and "cultural partnership" - that is, importation of Islamic culture into post-Christian Europe.

According to the SIOE, in the Euro-Med plan "Europe is to be islamized. Democracy, Christianity, European culture and Europeans are to be driven out of Europe. Fifty million North Africans from Muslim countries are to be imported into the EU."

Skeptical? It's already happening. The British newspaper the Daily Express reported in October 2008 on "a controversial taxpayer-funded 'job centre' " that opened in Mali at that time as "just the first step towards promoting 'free movement of people in Africa and the EU.' Brussels economists claim Britain and other EU states will 'need' 56 million immigrant workers between them by 2050 to make up for the 'demographic decline' due to falling birthrates and rising death rates across Europe."

To offset this decline, a "blue card" system is to be created that will allow card holders to travel freely within the European Union and have full rights to work - as well as the full right to collect welfare benefits.

A Muslim population from Africa moving freely into Europe threatens America. On Christmas Day, a Nigerian Muslim flew from Amsterdam to Detroit and tried to explode a bomb on the plane - after he was allowed to board the plane without a passport. The Euro-Mediterranean Partnership will make jihad attacks like this one all the easier....

Like so many European Union initiatives, much of the EuroMed Partnership is shrouded in secrecy. For example, it's not clear what will happen, if anything, on January 1, 2010 that isn't happening already. The official website shows a thriving concern. And contrary to reports I've received that this initiative has stalled or has met widespread opposition from Arab states, the EuroMed initiative seems to be galloping along now: this ANSAmed index shows -- just in the last year -- EuroMed activities involving numerous European entities in Gaza, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, and elsewhere. The official EuroMed website lists these as the "countries concerned" -- showing a rather idiosyncratic idea of what constitutes the Mediterranean area: Albania, Algeria, Bosnia & Herzegovinia, Croatia, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, "Occupied Palestinian Territories," Syria, Tunisia, and Turkey.

The EuroMed effort is proceeding quickly. ANSAmed reported on December 4 that "the Euro-Mediterranean Regional and Local Assembly (ARLEM) has been created. Representatives of regional and local bodies in the Euro-Mediterranean area have in fact decided to meet for the first time in Barcelona, on January 21." Nor do they plan just to get acquainted: one undated but recent ANSAmed piece announces a summit meeting in Brussels of trade ministers from 43 countries in the Mediterranean area, and states: "The final objective is to adopt a road map of concrete actions that will intensify the region's economic integration and launch trade and investments, to achieve a common area of free trade with a long-term horizon beyond 2010."

That common area of free trade will, as Pamela discusses, allow for easy passage from Muslim North Africa and the Middle East into Europe -- with nary an effort made to prevent jihadists from coming into Europe. And once safely in Europe, it will not be hard for them to come to America. As Pamela points out, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, arriving in Detroit from Amsterdam on Christmas Day, could be just the first of many. And the ones who come after him may have been enabled to do so by the Euro-Med Partnership.

Established in 1920 by Roger Baldwin (who candidly stated that “Communism [was] the goal” toward which his efforts were directed), the American Civil Liberties Union characterizes itself as America’s “guardian of liberty,” working to “defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

The reality, however, is very different. To learn all about this organization which has worked to undermine nearly every anti-terrorism measure pursued by the U.S. government since 9/11, click here.

The breakthrough came after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and his lieutenants engineered a delicately crafted compromise to prevent federal funding of abortions, the same issue that nearly stopped the House from passing its healthcare bill six weeks ago.

With the deal, Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, a strong opponent of abortion, became the 60th and crucial last member of the Democratic caucus to line up behind the healthcare legislation.

That paved the way for Reid to introduce a final package of changes to his 2,074-page bill and file the necessary procedural motions that should allow Democrats to quash an expected series of Republican filibuster attempts over the next several days. The Senate now remains on track to pass its version of the bill by Christmas.

via Senate healthcare bill set to pass by Christmas — latimes.com.

Thousands are now gathered in Copenhagen to embark on an aggressive plan to reach a framework for reducing carbon emissions, with the goal of instituting a more formalized, binding agreement within six months.

Now, many others have rightly criticized and written on the faulty research used to support the panic of “global warming” and supposedly retreating icebergs. In the past two weeks, this justified skepticism has gained significant traction in light of the recently released “ClimateGate” e-mails, wherein researchers and peers of the notable Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University appear to concede that climate change is due to natural, not human, activity.

However, in this week’s column I want to pivot around that important debate for a minute to talk about the politics and economics of this week’s climate gathering.

Predictably, the United States is the main target of the thousands of protesters, media and conference participants — all more than willing to wave the finger of blame on our nation for all the world’s perceived climate ills. You see, folks in Beijing, Bandung and Bangalore all want the United States to accept stringent restrictions on her own industries without accepting even less stringent restrictions on their own countries.

In one of many possible examples, just Wednesday India reiterated its refusal to accept any sort of binding restrictions limiting carbon emissions for their country — while at the same time demanding an increase in proposed cutbacks for our country!

It seems as though negotiators are utterly ignoring the official projections from the Indian government which indicate that Indian emissions will triple or quadruple in the next 20 years, even as American emissions are projected to drop. Yet we’re not even asking for cuts in Indian emissions, just a slower rate of growth. In a similar position, Chinese leaders have been equally antagonistic to the United States.

Beyond even projections, this idea of the United States as the Great Polluter is increasingly less justified. In recent years, China has risen to become the greatest emitter of greenhouse gases. According to the World Bank, Indonesia clocks in at third, with India, Russia, and Japan also sitting at the top. The U.S. still ranks second, but is the only top-ranked country which has been curbing, rather than increasing, emissions of greenhouse gases.

At the same time, these nations expect astronomical levels of financial assistance from the same countries they claim are not doing enough. Developed, Western nations have proffered a significant $10 billion annually to aid new technologies and industrial developments in developing nations to help them implement emissions changes without severely damaging their economies. But these poorer nations insist that price tag is absurdly low — never mind the global economic recession which has hit Western nations the hardest.

I wonder if any of the 10 percent of Americans looking for jobs today or the millions of others simply trying to make ends meet really want their tax dollars to be directed to ensure that China, Indonesia or India’s economies remain stable while they implement tougher carbon restrictions based on faulty science.

Even if we were to accept the dubious scientific and environmental arguments which have sparked these Copenhagen negotiations, the idea that America should sign a binding legal treaty when other nations are given a free pass is absurd. Not only it is a blatant disregard of our sovereignty, but it would also only lead to the exporting of dirty jobs and industries to China and other privileged-status nations, boosting their economy at the expense of ours and doing nothing to accomplish the treaty’s environmental goals.

The United States must never allow other nations to dictate our interests and objectives. We can, and should, partner with the world in friendship, but all friendships have limits. If the developing nations of the world expect our help, they will have to do their part.

Founded in January 2006, the “new” Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) derives its name, inspiration, and mission from the original SDS of the 1960s. The new SDS consists of more than 150 chapters based in high schools, colleges, universities, and cities across the United States.

Describing itself as “a radical, multi-issue student and youth organization,” SDS’s goal is to initiate “a broad-based, deep-rooted, and revolutionary transformation” of an American society that currently “depends upon multiple and reciprocal systems of oppression and domination for its survival.” Among those systems, according to SDS, are: “racism and white supremacy, capitalism, patriarchy, heterosexism and transphobia, authoritarianism and imperialism.”

Click here to view the full SDS profile.

Related posts:

1. It's No Accident That So Many Radicals Like Van Jones Surround President Obama
2. A Marxist Contract With America
3. Free Speech TV: Black Radicals Cite Racism and Capitalism as Causes of Black Troubles

Founded in January 2006, the “new” Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) derives its name, inspiration, and mission from the original SDS of the 1960s. The new SDS consists of more than 150 chapters based in high schools, colleges, universities, and cities across the United States.

Describing itself as “a radical, multi-issue student and youth organization,” SDS’s goal is to initiate “a broad-based, deep-rooted, and revolutionary transformation” of an American society that currently “depends upon multiple and reciprocal systems of oppression and domination for its survival.” Among those systems, according to SDS, are: “racism and white supremacy, capitalism, patriarchy, heterosexism and transphobia, authoritarianism and imperialism.” …

To view the full SDS profile, click here.