Democrats and Our Enemies
By JOSEPH LIEBERMAN
May 21, 2008; Page A19
How did the Democratic Party get here? How did the party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy drift so far from the foreign policy and national security principles and policies that were at the core of its identity and its purpose?
Beginning in the 1940s, the Democratic Party was forced to confront two of the most dangerous enemies our nation has ever faced: Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. In response, Democrats under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy forged and conducted a foreign policy that was principled, internationalist, strong and successful.
This was the Democratic Party that I grew up in – a party that was unhesitatingly and proudly pro-American, a party that was unafraid to make moral judgments about the world beyond our borders. It was a party that understood that either the American people stood united with free nations and freedom fighters against the forces of totalitarianism, or that we would fall divided.
This was the Democratic Party of Harry Truman, who pledged that "it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures."
And this was the Democratic Party of John F. Kennedy, who promised in his inaugural address that the United States would "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of freedom."
This worldview began to come apart in the late 1960s, around the war in Vietnam. In its place, a very different view of the world took root in the Democratic Party. Rather than seeing the Cold War as an ideological contest between the free nations of the West and the repressive regimes of the communist world, this rival political philosophy saw America as the aggressor – a morally bankrupt, imperialist power whose militarism and "inordinate fear of communism" represented the real threat to world peace.
It argued that the Soviets and their allies were our enemies not because they were inspired by a totalitarian ideology fundamentally hostile to our way of life, or because they nursed ambitions of global conquest. Rather, the Soviets were our enemy because we had provoked them, because we threatened them, and because we failed to sit down and accord them the respect they deserved. In other words, the Cold War was mostly America's fault.
Of course that leftward lurch by the Democrats did not go unchallenged. Democratic Cold Warriors like Scoop Jackson fought against the tide. But despite their principled efforts, the Democratic Party through the 1970s and 1980s became prisoner to a foreign policy philosophy that was, in most respects, the antithesis of what Democrats had stood for under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy.
Then, beginning in the 1980s, a new effort began on the part of some of us in the Democratic Party to reverse these developments, and reclaim our party's lost tradition of principle and strength in the world. Our band of so-called New Democrats was successful sooner than we imagined possible when, in 1992, Bill Clinton and Al Gore were elected. In the Balkans, for example, as President Clinton and his advisers slowly but surely came to recognize that American intervention, and only American intervention, could stop Slobodan Milosevic and his campaign of ethnic slaughter, Democratic attitudes about the use of military force in pursuit of our values and our security began to change.
This happy development continued into the 2000 campaign, when the Democratic candidate – Vice President Gore – championed a freedom-focused foreign policy, confident of America's moral responsibilities in the world, and unafraid to use our military power. He pledged to increase the defense budget by $50 billion more than his Republican opponent – and, to the dismay of the Democratic left, made sure that the party's platform endorsed a national missile defense.
By contrast, in 2000, Gov. George W. Bush promised a "humble foreign policy" and criticized our peacekeeping operations in the Balkans.
Today, less than a decade later, the parties have completely switched positions. The reversal began, like so much else in our time, on September 11, 2001. The attack on America by Islamist terrorists shook President Bush from the foreign policy course he was on. He saw September 11 for what it was: a direct ideological and military attack on us and our way of life. If the Democratic Party had stayed where it was in 2000, America could have confronted the terrorists with unity and strength in the years after 9/11.
Instead a debate soon began within the Democratic Party about how to respond to Mr. Bush. I felt strongly that Democrats should embrace the basic framework the president had advanced for the war on terror as our own, because it was our own. But that was not the choice most Democratic leaders made. When total victory did not come quickly in Iraq, the old voices of partisanship and peace at any price saw an opportunity to reassert themselves. By considering centrism to be collaboration with the enemy – not bin Laden, but Mr. Bush – activists have successfully pulled the Democratic Party further to the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years.
Far too many Democratic leaders have kowtowed to these opinions rather than challenging them. That unfortunately includes Barack Obama, who, contrary to his rhetorical invocations of bipartisan change, has not been willing to stand up to his party's left wing on a single significant national security or international economic issue in this campaign.
In this, Sen. Obama stands in stark contrast to John McCain, who has shown the political courage throughout his career to do what he thinks is right – regardless of its popularity in his party or outside it.
John also understands something else that too many Democrats seem to have become confused about lately – the difference between America's friends and America's enemies.
There are of course times when it makes sense to engage in tough diplomacy with hostile governments. Yet what Mr. Obama has proposed is not selective engagement, but a blanket policy of meeting personally as president, without preconditions, in his first year in office, with the leaders of the most vicious, anti-American regimes on the planet.
Mr. Obama has said that in proposing this, he is following in the footsteps of Reagan and JFK. But Kennedy never met with Castro, and Reagan never met with Khomeini. And can anyone imagine Presidents Kennedy or Reagan sitting down unconditionally with Ahmadinejad or Chavez? I certainly cannot.
If a president ever embraced our worst enemies in this way, he would strengthen them and undermine our most steadfast allies.
A great Democratic secretary of state, Dean Acheson, once warned "no people in history have ever survived, who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies." This is a lesson that today's Democratic Party leaders need to relearn.
Mr. Lieberman is an Independent Democratic senator from Connecticut. This article is adapted from a speech he gave May 18 at a dinner hosted by Commentary magazine.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
UN a Terrorist Organization ?
Defund UNRWA
by Asaf Romirowsky
Washington Times
May 19, 2008
http://www.meforum.org/article/1896
A few days ago an Israeli air strike killed a member of a Palestinian missile team that had been firing rockets from Gaza. Now the United Nations has come out with an unusual statement of bewilderment and utter shock as the truth has come out. The dead man, Awad al-Qiq, was a U.N. employee and headmaster of a top prep school in Gaza. He was also the chief rocket-maker for Islamic Jihad.
Mr. Al-Qiq — not surprisingly, a science teacher — worked for one of the schools run by the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). Now that he is out of the rocket business, the employment of such a "respectable" individual by the sole U.N. agency devoted to Palestinian refugees deserves an explanation.
In a new report by the Global Research in International Affairs Center by this author and Professor Barry Rubin, "UNRWA: Refuge of Rejectionism," the case is made that this group is a major cause of the continued Arab-Israeli conflict, the incitement of a whole generation of Palestinians to terrorist violence and even the suffering of the refugees themselves.
The report's recommendation is simple and workable: UNRWA should be dissolved and its functions divided between the far more effective and depoliticized U.N. High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and the Palestinian Authority (PA).
Since Hamas came to power in 2006, Palestinians in the new Islamic state of Gaza have been crying out for more and more UNRWA aid. Historically, UNRWA has been the main vehicle for the perpetuation of the Arab-Israeli conflict in the United Nations. Where once it was charged with resettling Palestinians, its explicit mandate in recent decades has been to maintain them in the camps where Arab states left them some 60 years ago. Education, health and limited vocational training are provided, just enough to keep Palestinians as "refugees." UNRWA is an apparatus that maintains the status quo — a huge bureaucracy with no incentive to move toward a resolution of the Palestinian refugee problem. This arrangement is ripe for abuse.
As one of the largest employers in the host countries with Palestinian refugee camps, UNRWA is staffed mainly by local Palestinians — more than 23,000 of them, with only about 100 international U.N. professionals. The pattern of hiring within the served population is unique in the U.N. system. By contrast, UNICEF (to cite one example) avoids employing locals who are also recipients of agency services, considering it a conflict of interest. UNRWA bureaucracy has created an infrastructure for Palestinian dependency. Refugees, now in their third generation, rely on the services UNRWA provides and have no incentives to plan or implement solutions that may endanger their livelihood by rendering UNRWA's services obsolete.
It was under the leadership of former UNRWA Commissioner Peter Hansen that the organization's complicity with terror was openly exposed. In a statement to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Mr. Hansen admitted: "I am sure that there are Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll " and I don't see that as a crime."
As Hamas' genocidal agenda has become impossible to cover up, UNRWA has now resorted to professions of shock and promises of "zero tolerance." For some UNRWA's affiliation with terrorism is not a detraction but an added value that shows "diversity." As Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said professor of Arab studies at Columbia University, notes, "humanitarian and charitable institutions throughout Palestine employ personnel regardless of sectarian or political affiliation and offer services on a similar basis. Thus, UNRWA, NGO-run institutions [and] public hospitals and clinics, for example, employ members of different political groups such as Fatah, the [Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine], Hamas and Islamic Jihad, without reference to their belonging to a specific group."
As we look for ways to crack down on terrorism and terrorist activity, looking at UNRWA is a good start. American taxpayer dollars fund approximately one-third of UNRWA's operating budget. UNRWA provides food, medicine, economic aid, jobs, radical education, political opportunities, and even logistical assistance to Hamas and other extremist groups. UNRWA's budget, which exceeds $365 million, is funded by many nations, but the United States and other Western nations are the largest contributors.
Cutting off UNRWA's budget would be detrimental to Hamas in Gaza, which would be forced to either provide services to Palestinians or admit it has no intention of doing so. It would also send an important message to the United Nations, which perpetuates the Palestinian refugee problem and lends legitimacy to groups like Hamas through UNRWA's continued existence.
Transferring UNRWA's services to other agencies, notably the High Commission for Refugees, which has a long and productive experience, would be another important move. And lastly, actually having the Palestinian Authority take responsibility for the social services if it is to truly govern the Palestinian people would send a signal to all parties that a future state of Palestine would be prepared to live in peace with its neighbors and itself.
Asaf Romirowsky, an associate fellow at the Middle East Forum, is manager of Israel & Middle East Affairs for the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia.
by Asaf Romirowsky
Washington Times
May 19, 2008
http://www.meforum.org/article/1896
A few days ago an Israeli air strike killed a member of a Palestinian missile team that had been firing rockets from Gaza. Now the United Nations has come out with an unusual statement of bewilderment and utter shock as the truth has come out. The dead man, Awad al-Qiq, was a U.N. employee and headmaster of a top prep school in Gaza. He was also the chief rocket-maker for Islamic Jihad.
Mr. Al-Qiq — not surprisingly, a science teacher — worked for one of the schools run by the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). Now that he is out of the rocket business, the employment of such a "respectable" individual by the sole U.N. agency devoted to Palestinian refugees deserves an explanation.
In a new report by the Global Research in International Affairs Center by this author and Professor Barry Rubin, "UNRWA: Refuge of Rejectionism," the case is made that this group is a major cause of the continued Arab-Israeli conflict, the incitement of a whole generation of Palestinians to terrorist violence and even the suffering of the refugees themselves.
The report's recommendation is simple and workable: UNRWA should be dissolved and its functions divided between the far more effective and depoliticized U.N. High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and the Palestinian Authority (PA).
Since Hamas came to power in 2006, Palestinians in the new Islamic state of Gaza have been crying out for more and more UNRWA aid. Historically, UNRWA has been the main vehicle for the perpetuation of the Arab-Israeli conflict in the United Nations. Where once it was charged with resettling Palestinians, its explicit mandate in recent decades has been to maintain them in the camps where Arab states left them some 60 years ago. Education, health and limited vocational training are provided, just enough to keep Palestinians as "refugees." UNRWA is an apparatus that maintains the status quo — a huge bureaucracy with no incentive to move toward a resolution of the Palestinian refugee problem. This arrangement is ripe for abuse.
As one of the largest employers in the host countries with Palestinian refugee camps, UNRWA is staffed mainly by local Palestinians — more than 23,000 of them, with only about 100 international U.N. professionals. The pattern of hiring within the served population is unique in the U.N. system. By contrast, UNICEF (to cite one example) avoids employing locals who are also recipients of agency services, considering it a conflict of interest. UNRWA bureaucracy has created an infrastructure for Palestinian dependency. Refugees, now in their third generation, rely on the services UNRWA provides and have no incentives to plan or implement solutions that may endanger their livelihood by rendering UNRWA's services obsolete.
It was under the leadership of former UNRWA Commissioner Peter Hansen that the organization's complicity with terror was openly exposed. In a statement to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Mr. Hansen admitted: "I am sure that there are Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll " and I don't see that as a crime."
As Hamas' genocidal agenda has become impossible to cover up, UNRWA has now resorted to professions of shock and promises of "zero tolerance." For some UNRWA's affiliation with terrorism is not a detraction but an added value that shows "diversity." As Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said professor of Arab studies at Columbia University, notes, "humanitarian and charitable institutions throughout Palestine employ personnel regardless of sectarian or political affiliation and offer services on a similar basis. Thus, UNRWA, NGO-run institutions [and] public hospitals and clinics, for example, employ members of different political groups such as Fatah, the [Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine], Hamas and Islamic Jihad, without reference to their belonging to a specific group."
As we look for ways to crack down on terrorism and terrorist activity, looking at UNRWA is a good start. American taxpayer dollars fund approximately one-third of UNRWA's operating budget. UNRWA provides food, medicine, economic aid, jobs, radical education, political opportunities, and even logistical assistance to Hamas and other extremist groups. UNRWA's budget, which exceeds $365 million, is funded by many nations, but the United States and other Western nations are the largest contributors.
Cutting off UNRWA's budget would be detrimental to Hamas in Gaza, which would be forced to either provide services to Palestinians or admit it has no intention of doing so. It would also send an important message to the United Nations, which perpetuates the Palestinian refugee problem and lends legitimacy to groups like Hamas through UNRWA's continued existence.
Transferring UNRWA's services to other agencies, notably the High Commission for Refugees, which has a long and productive experience, would be another important move. And lastly, actually having the Palestinian Authority take responsibility for the social services if it is to truly govern the Palestinian people would send a signal to all parties that a future state of Palestine would be prepared to live in peace with its neighbors and itself.
Asaf Romirowsky, an associate fellow at the Middle East Forum, is manager of Israel & Middle East Affairs for the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Obama's Dimestore "Mein Kampf"
OBAMA'S DIMESTORE 'MEIN KAMPF'
April 2, 2008
If characters from "The Hills" were to emote about race, I imagine it would sound like B. Hussein Obama's autobiography, "Dreams From My Father."
Has anybody read this book? Inasmuch as the book reveals Obama to be a flabbergasting lunatic, I gather the answer is no. Obama is about to be our next president: You might want to take a peek. If only people had read "Mein Kampf" ...
Nearly every page -- save the ones dedicated to cataloguing the mundane details of his life -- is bristling with anger at some imputed racist incident. The last time I heard this much race-baiting invective I was ... in my usual front-row pew, as I am every Sunday morning, at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.
Obama tells a story about taking two white friends from the high school basketball team to a "black party." Despite their deep-seated, unconscious hatred of blacks, the friends readily accepted. At the party, they managed not to scream the N-word, but instead "made some small talk, took a couple of the girls out on the dance floor."
But with his racial hair-trigger, Obama sensed the whites were not comfortable because "they kept smiling a lot." And then, in an incident reminiscent of the darkest days of the Jim Crow South ... they asked to leave after spending only about an hour at the party! It was practically an etiquette lynching!
So either they hated black people with the hot, hot hate of a thousand suns, or they were athletes who had come to a party late, after a Saturday night basketball game.
In the car on the way home, one of the friends empathizes with Obama, saying: "You know, man, that really taught me something. I mean, I can see how it must be tough for you and Ray sometimes, at school parties ... being the only black guys and all."
And thus Obama felt the cruel lash of racism! He actually writes that his response to his friend's perfectly lovely remark was: "A part of me wanted to punch him right there."
Listen, I don't want anybody telling Obama about Bill Clinton's "I feel your pain" line.
Wanting to punch his white friend in the stomach was the introductory anecdote to a full-page psychotic rant about living by "the white man's rules." (One rule he missed was: "Never punch out your empathetic white friend after dragging him to a crappy all-black party.")
Obama's gaseous disquisition on the "white man's rules" leads to this charming crescendo: "Should you refuse this defeat and lash out at your captors, they would have a name for that, too, a name that could cage you just as good. Paranoid. Militant. Violent. Nigger."
For those of you in the "When is Obama gonna play the 'N-word' card?" pool, the winner is ... Page 85! Congratulations!
When his mother expresses concern about Obama's high school friend being busted for drugs, Obama says he patted his mother's hand and told her not to worry.
This, too, prompted Obama to share with his readers a life lesson on how to handle white people: "It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied, they were relieved -- such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time."
First of all, I note that this technique seems to be the basis of Obama's entire presidential campaign. But moreover -- he was talking about his own mother! As Obama says: "Any distinction between good and bad whites held negligible meaning." Say, do you think a white person who said that about blacks would be a leading presidential candidate?
The man is stark bonkersville.
He says the reason black people keep to themselves is that it's "easier than spending all your time mad or trying to guess whatever it was that white folks were thinking about you."
Here's a little inside scoop about white people: We're not thinking about you. Especially WASPs. We think everybody is inferior, and we are perfectly charming about it.
In college, Obama explains to a girl why he was reading Joseph Conrad's 1902 classic, "Heart of Darkness": "I read the book to help me understand just what it is that makes white people so afraid. Their demons. The way ideas get twisted around. I helps me understand how people learn to hate."
By contrast, Malcolm X's autobiography "spoke" to Obama. One line in particular "stayed with me," he says. "He spoke of a wish he'd once had, the wish that the white blood that ran through him, there by an act of violence, might somehow be expunged."
Forget Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- Wright is Booker T. Washington compared to this guy.
COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111
April 2, 2008
If characters from "The Hills" were to emote about race, I imagine it would sound like B. Hussein Obama's autobiography, "Dreams From My Father."
Has anybody read this book? Inasmuch as the book reveals Obama to be a flabbergasting lunatic, I gather the answer is no. Obama is about to be our next president: You might want to take a peek. If only people had read "Mein Kampf" ...
Nearly every page -- save the ones dedicated to cataloguing the mundane details of his life -- is bristling with anger at some imputed racist incident. The last time I heard this much race-baiting invective I was ... in my usual front-row pew, as I am every Sunday morning, at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.
Obama tells a story about taking two white friends from the high school basketball team to a "black party." Despite their deep-seated, unconscious hatred of blacks, the friends readily accepted. At the party, they managed not to scream the N-word, but instead "made some small talk, took a couple of the girls out on the dance floor."
But with his racial hair-trigger, Obama sensed the whites were not comfortable because "they kept smiling a lot." And then, in an incident reminiscent of the darkest days of the Jim Crow South ... they asked to leave after spending only about an hour at the party! It was practically an etiquette lynching!
So either they hated black people with the hot, hot hate of a thousand suns, or they were athletes who had come to a party late, after a Saturday night basketball game.
In the car on the way home, one of the friends empathizes with Obama, saying: "You know, man, that really taught me something. I mean, I can see how it must be tough for you and Ray sometimes, at school parties ... being the only black guys and all."
And thus Obama felt the cruel lash of racism! He actually writes that his response to his friend's perfectly lovely remark was: "A part of me wanted to punch him right there."
Listen, I don't want anybody telling Obama about Bill Clinton's "I feel your pain" line.
Wanting to punch his white friend in the stomach was the introductory anecdote to a full-page psychotic rant about living by "the white man's rules." (One rule he missed was: "Never punch out your empathetic white friend after dragging him to a crappy all-black party.")
Obama's gaseous disquisition on the "white man's rules" leads to this charming crescendo: "Should you refuse this defeat and lash out at your captors, they would have a name for that, too, a name that could cage you just as good. Paranoid. Militant. Violent. Nigger."
For those of you in the "When is Obama gonna play the 'N-word' card?" pool, the winner is ... Page 85! Congratulations!
When his mother expresses concern about Obama's high school friend being busted for drugs, Obama says he patted his mother's hand and told her not to worry.
This, too, prompted Obama to share with his readers a life lesson on how to handle white people: "It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied, they were relieved -- such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time."
First of all, I note that this technique seems to be the basis of Obama's entire presidential campaign. But moreover -- he was talking about his own mother! As Obama says: "Any distinction between good and bad whites held negligible meaning." Say, do you think a white person who said that about blacks would be a leading presidential candidate?
The man is stark bonkersville.
He says the reason black people keep to themselves is that it's "easier than spending all your time mad or trying to guess whatever it was that white folks were thinking about you."
Here's a little inside scoop about white people: We're not thinking about you. Especially WASPs. We think everybody is inferior, and we are perfectly charming about it.
In college, Obama explains to a girl why he was reading Joseph Conrad's 1902 classic, "Heart of Darkness": "I read the book to help me understand just what it is that makes white people so afraid. Their demons. The way ideas get twisted around. I helps me understand how people learn to hate."
By contrast, Malcolm X's autobiography "spoke" to Obama. One line in particular "stayed with me," he says. "He spoke of a wish he'd once had, the wish that the white blood that ran through him, there by an act of violence, might somehow be expunged."
Forget Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- Wright is Booker T. Washington compared to this guy.
COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Arizona Backing Down
Ariz. governor ends sheriff's immigration contract
By CHRIS KAHN – 9 hours ago
PHOENIX (AP) — Gov. Janet Napolitano ordered the state to end an anti-illegal immigration contract with a high-profile sheriff Tuesday so she can pay for a larger effort to track down thousands of felons around Arizona.
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Tuesday criticized the governor's decision as a maneuver to thwart his efforts against illegal immigrants.
"Dirty politics are at work right now," Arpaio said at a news conference.
Arpaio, who describes himself as "America's Toughest Sheriff" and is best known for feeding jail inmates green bologna sandwiches, clothing them in pink underwear, and making them work on chain gangs, received praise for his anti-immigration efforts from many who believe the federal government isn't doing enough to remove people in the U.S. illegally.
But his raids and sweeps of illegal immigrants in Phoenix and nearby Guadalupe have drawn protests from community leaders and civil liberties advocates. Arpaio, a Republican, has also been criticized for letting thousands of felony warrants go unserved while he chased illegal immigrants.
According to the Arizona Department of Public Safety, there are about 59,000 outstanding, unserved felony warrants in the state. The majority are in Maricopa County, the state's most populated county.
Napolitano spokeswoman Jeanine L'Ecuyer denied that the Democratic governor was trying to cut into efforts to stop illegal immigration.
"It couldn't be further from the truth," L'Ecuyer said.
Pennie Gillette-Stroud, the DPS chief of the criminal investigations division, said Napolitano's multi-agency task force will focus on violent, repeat criminals as well as undocumented immigrants with felony warrants.
To help pay for the task force, the state Department of Public Safety won't renew a $1.6 million contract with the sheriff's office. That contract ends May 17th, DPS spokesman Bart Graves said.
By CHRIS KAHN – 9 hours ago
PHOENIX (AP) — Gov. Janet Napolitano ordered the state to end an anti-illegal immigration contract with a high-profile sheriff Tuesday so she can pay for a larger effort to track down thousands of felons around Arizona.
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Tuesday criticized the governor's decision as a maneuver to thwart his efforts against illegal immigrants.
"Dirty politics are at work right now," Arpaio said at a news conference.
Arpaio, who describes himself as "America's Toughest Sheriff" and is best known for feeding jail inmates green bologna sandwiches, clothing them in pink underwear, and making them work on chain gangs, received praise for his anti-immigration efforts from many who believe the federal government isn't doing enough to remove people in the U.S. illegally.
But his raids and sweeps of illegal immigrants in Phoenix and nearby Guadalupe have drawn protests from community leaders and civil liberties advocates. Arpaio, a Republican, has also been criticized for letting thousands of felony warrants go unserved while he chased illegal immigrants.
According to the Arizona Department of Public Safety, there are about 59,000 outstanding, unserved felony warrants in the state. The majority are in Maricopa County, the state's most populated county.
Napolitano spokeswoman Jeanine L'Ecuyer denied that the Democratic governor was trying to cut into efforts to stop illegal immigration.
"It couldn't be further from the truth," L'Ecuyer said.
Pennie Gillette-Stroud, the DPS chief of the criminal investigations division, said Napolitano's multi-agency task force will focus on violent, repeat criminals as well as undocumented immigrants with felony warrants.
To help pay for the task force, the state Department of Public Safety won't renew a $1.6 million contract with the sheriff's office. That contract ends May 17th, DPS spokesman Bart Graves said.
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Outlawing The Pig
Outlawing the Pig
By Janet Levy
FrontPageMagazine.com | 5/2/2008
The practice of political correctness may soon be tallying another casualty: the pig. Increasingly, as America and the rest of the Western world continue accommodating Muslim religious demands, pork food products are being singled out for removal from dining tables and pig-related trinkets banished from the desks of office workers.
If this continues, good ol' American food, such as barbeque replete with hot dogs and ribs and the typical American breakfast of eggs, bacon and sausage, might be seen as the equivalent of political poison. Could outright censorship of pig depictions in drawings, pig references in literary works and pig portrayals in movies be far behind? Could the well-known, cartoon figure Porky Pig become a cultural embarrassment of our unenlightened past as we fear to utter the "P" word?
Though the notion may seem more appropriate for a comedy routine, an increasing number of pig-related incidents, accommodations and Muslim demands in recent years points to an uncertain future for our porcine friend and its place in our economy, culture and our culinary traditions.
In October of 2005, the United Kingdom, clearly further along on the road to dhimmitude due to its proportionally large and more radical Muslim population, banned piggybanks as promotional gifts from its banks. At about the same time, government social welfare offices called for the removal of all pig paraphernalia, including pig calendars, toys and accessories from employee desks. These new regulations were ostensibly implemented so as not to offend Muslim patrons.
Meanwhile, in the United States in 2007, several school districts removed pork products from their cafeteria offerings. Dearborn, Mich., schools banned pork completely to avoid the possibility that Muslims students might unknowingly eat it. The district later added special halal foods to its menu to cater to the demands of its Muslim population. An elementary school in San Diego that offers Arabic, single-gender classes and Muslim-only organized prayer, no longer offers pork to any of its students. And in Oak Lawn, Ill., where the administration is debating elimination of Christmas holiday celebrations, pork has already been banished from the school lunchroom.
Orthodox Jews, who follow kosher laws that prohibit the consumption of pork, have never demanded such special considerations for their chosen dietary habits nor have Jews feared accidental pork ingestion. They privately moderate their consumption according to their religious observances and often consume food prepared at home according to prescribed regulations.
Contrast this to how Muslims and their dietary habits are treated. In April 2007, a 13-year-old middle school prankster was suspended and his behavior labeled a hate crime for placing a bag with a ham steak on the lunch table of a group of Muslim students. That same month, Muslims started a Facebook group, "Fight Against Pork in Frito-Lay Products." The more than 1,800 participants sought to pressure the company to remove pork enzymes from its cheese seasonings.
Last year, Somali Muslim employees at a St. Louis Park, Minn. Target store refused to handle pork products, citing religious reasons. Target made special allowances for Muslim employees, who now scrutinize customer purchases and can call for assistance when a pork product appears at their check stand. Presumably, the Muslim employees knew they would be encountering bacon and pepperoni pizza when they signed on for their jobs and have no problem collecting a salary paid out of profits from pork sales.
In 2007, the Year of the Pig, an imam in Taipei complained after receiving a greeting card from Taiwan's foreign minister depicting celebrating pigs. When "Year of the Pig" postal stamps were issued, the Taiwanese government cautioned citizens about using them on letters and parcels to Muslim friends or to Muslim countries. That year, China banned pig images and the mention of pigs in television advertisement to avoid offending the country's Muslims.
This year, the popular story, The Three Little Pigs, was banned in a primary school in the United Kingdom as the school's administration thought references to pigs might offend Muslim pupils. Another school removed all books containing stories about pigs, including the talking pig 'Babe' from classrooms following complaints from Muslim parents. In 2007, a UK church school production of The Three Little Pigs was renamed The Three Little Puppies to maintain multi-cultural sensitivities. Ironically, the pig is mentioned often in the Koran as a derogatory reference to Jews.
In further accommodation to Muslims, Fortis Bank in the Netherlands and Belgium dropped its pig mascot. Knorbert the pig was eliminated after seven years with a statement from a bank spokesperson that "Knorbert does not meet the requirements that the multicultural society imposes on us."
A recent BBC report described how pork butchers are gradually being put out of business as Turkey adopts a more fundamentalist Muslim character. Pork slaughterhouses are being closed in record numbers to accommodate shariah law countrywide.
In 2004, a Muslim-owned investment company, Arcapita (formerly Capital Crescent Investments) acquired the 1,200-unit Church's Chicken chain. In 2005, Arcapita, with a net income of $70.5 million and assets worth $1.2 billion (2004), enjoined a franchisee from selling pork products. In correspondence with the franchisee, the corporate owners cited violation of shariah law as the reason for prohibiting the sale of bacon, ham and sausages. The restaurant owners were thereby forced to surrender to corporate demands and operate under shariah law.
Where will this end? Will "Animal Farm" be banned at our high schools and university campuses? Will the words "pork barrel spending" and "porker" be eliminated from the vernacular? Will Piggly Wiggly supermarkets be forced to change its name and re-brand its products? This could all be quite amusing if the implications weren't so grave.
The pig is an icon of American culture, a culinary tradition and an important component of our economy. While high grain prices and competition from Chinese imports are recognized as the two greatest threats to the industry, hog producers could be overlooking a larger threat to their livelihood looming on the horizon.
Pork production is a vital part of the U.S. economy, producing more than 22 billion pounds of meat annually, contributing almost $40 billion to the GNP and employing more than 500,000 workers in pork-industry related jobs. In addition, important pork co-products include heart valves, skin grafts for burn victims, gelatin, plywood, glue, cosmetics and plastics. At 28% of total world production, the U.S. is the second largest pork producer after China, which produces close to 50% of the world total. Pork ranks third in U.S. meat production behind beef and chicken and average yearly per capita consumption is about 50 pounds.
If the momentum to alter America's dining habits and cultural traditions to suit Muslim religious habits continues, American liberty, freedom and culture could actually be threatened. Laughable though it may seem on the surface, Arab petrodollar profits have the heft to use an economic, backdoor approach to implement shariah law in the United States against the will of the public. As Arab Muslims continue to heavily invest in our economy, they will continue to force submission to shariah law and undermine our democracy, individual rights and religious freedom. We must be vigilant and aware of this threat and act against it vigorously and immediately.
By Janet Levy
FrontPageMagazine.com | 5/2/2008
The practice of political correctness may soon be tallying another casualty: the pig. Increasingly, as America and the rest of the Western world continue accommodating Muslim religious demands, pork food products are being singled out for removal from dining tables and pig-related trinkets banished from the desks of office workers.
If this continues, good ol' American food, such as barbeque replete with hot dogs and ribs and the typical American breakfast of eggs, bacon and sausage, might be seen as the equivalent of political poison. Could outright censorship of pig depictions in drawings, pig references in literary works and pig portrayals in movies be far behind? Could the well-known, cartoon figure Porky Pig become a cultural embarrassment of our unenlightened past as we fear to utter the "P" word?
Though the notion may seem more appropriate for a comedy routine, an increasing number of pig-related incidents, accommodations and Muslim demands in recent years points to an uncertain future for our porcine friend and its place in our economy, culture and our culinary traditions.
In October of 2005, the United Kingdom, clearly further along on the road to dhimmitude due to its proportionally large and more radical Muslim population, banned piggybanks as promotional gifts from its banks. At about the same time, government social welfare offices called for the removal of all pig paraphernalia, including pig calendars, toys and accessories from employee desks. These new regulations were ostensibly implemented so as not to offend Muslim patrons.
Meanwhile, in the United States in 2007, several school districts removed pork products from their cafeteria offerings. Dearborn, Mich., schools banned pork completely to avoid the possibility that Muslims students might unknowingly eat it. The district later added special halal foods to its menu to cater to the demands of its Muslim population. An elementary school in San Diego that offers Arabic, single-gender classes and Muslim-only organized prayer, no longer offers pork to any of its students. And in Oak Lawn, Ill., where the administration is debating elimination of Christmas holiday celebrations, pork has already been banished from the school lunchroom.
Orthodox Jews, who follow kosher laws that prohibit the consumption of pork, have never demanded such special considerations for their chosen dietary habits nor have Jews feared accidental pork ingestion. They privately moderate their consumption according to their religious observances and often consume food prepared at home according to prescribed regulations.
Contrast this to how Muslims and their dietary habits are treated. In April 2007, a 13-year-old middle school prankster was suspended and his behavior labeled a hate crime for placing a bag with a ham steak on the lunch table of a group of Muslim students. That same month, Muslims started a Facebook group, "Fight Against Pork in Frito-Lay Products." The more than 1,800 participants sought to pressure the company to remove pork enzymes from its cheese seasonings.
Last year, Somali Muslim employees at a St. Louis Park, Minn. Target store refused to handle pork products, citing religious reasons. Target made special allowances for Muslim employees, who now scrutinize customer purchases and can call for assistance when a pork product appears at their check stand. Presumably, the Muslim employees knew they would be encountering bacon and pepperoni pizza when they signed on for their jobs and have no problem collecting a salary paid out of profits from pork sales.
In 2007, the Year of the Pig, an imam in Taipei complained after receiving a greeting card from Taiwan's foreign minister depicting celebrating pigs. When "Year of the Pig" postal stamps were issued, the Taiwanese government cautioned citizens about using them on letters and parcels to Muslim friends or to Muslim countries. That year, China banned pig images and the mention of pigs in television advertisement to avoid offending the country's Muslims.
This year, the popular story, The Three Little Pigs, was banned in a primary school in the United Kingdom as the school's administration thought references to pigs might offend Muslim pupils. Another school removed all books containing stories about pigs, including the talking pig 'Babe' from classrooms following complaints from Muslim parents. In 2007, a UK church school production of The Three Little Pigs was renamed The Three Little Puppies to maintain multi-cultural sensitivities. Ironically, the pig is mentioned often in the Koran as a derogatory reference to Jews.
In further accommodation to Muslims, Fortis Bank in the Netherlands and Belgium dropped its pig mascot. Knorbert the pig was eliminated after seven years with a statement from a bank spokesperson that "Knorbert does not meet the requirements that the multicultural society imposes on us."
A recent BBC report described how pork butchers are gradually being put out of business as Turkey adopts a more fundamentalist Muslim character. Pork slaughterhouses are being closed in record numbers to accommodate shariah law countrywide.
In 2004, a Muslim-owned investment company, Arcapita (formerly Capital Crescent Investments) acquired the 1,200-unit Church's Chicken chain. In 2005, Arcapita, with a net income of $70.5 million and assets worth $1.2 billion (2004), enjoined a franchisee from selling pork products. In correspondence with the franchisee, the corporate owners cited violation of shariah law as the reason for prohibiting the sale of bacon, ham and sausages. The restaurant owners were thereby forced to surrender to corporate demands and operate under shariah law.
Where will this end? Will "Animal Farm" be banned at our high schools and university campuses? Will the words "pork barrel spending" and "porker" be eliminated from the vernacular? Will Piggly Wiggly supermarkets be forced to change its name and re-brand its products? This could all be quite amusing if the implications weren't so grave.
The pig is an icon of American culture, a culinary tradition and an important component of our economy. While high grain prices and competition from Chinese imports are recognized as the two greatest threats to the industry, hog producers could be overlooking a larger threat to their livelihood looming on the horizon.
Pork production is a vital part of the U.S. economy, producing more than 22 billion pounds of meat annually, contributing almost $40 billion to the GNP and employing more than 500,000 workers in pork-industry related jobs. In addition, important pork co-products include heart valves, skin grafts for burn victims, gelatin, plywood, glue, cosmetics and plastics. At 28% of total world production, the U.S. is the second largest pork producer after China, which produces close to 50% of the world total. Pork ranks third in U.S. meat production behind beef and chicken and average yearly per capita consumption is about 50 pounds.
If the momentum to alter America's dining habits and cultural traditions to suit Muslim religious habits continues, American liberty, freedom and culture could actually be threatened. Laughable though it may seem on the surface, Arab petrodollar profits have the heft to use an economic, backdoor approach to implement shariah law in the United States against the will of the public. As Arab Muslims continue to heavily invest in our economy, they will continue to force submission to shariah law and undermine our democracy, individual rights and religious freedom. We must be vigilant and aware of this threat and act against it vigorously and immediately.
Monday, May 05, 2008
From Lee Iacocca
Lee Iacocca Says:
'Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's
happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming
bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship
of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing
us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less
build a hybrid car.
But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their
heads when the politicians say, 'Stay the course' Stay the course?
You've got to be kidding. This is America not the damned 'Titanic'.
I'll give you a sound bite: 'Throw all the bums out!'
You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker,
and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize
this country anymore.
The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys
in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is
burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving
'pom-poms' instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise
of the 'America' my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for.
I've had enough. How about you?
I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're
not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have. The
Biggest 'C' is Crisis!
Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of crisis.
It's easy to sit there with your feet up on the desk and talk
theory. Or send someone else's kids off to war when you've never
seen a battlefield yourself. It's another thing to lead when your
world comes tumbling down. On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong
leader more than any other time in our history. We needed a steady
hand to guide us out of the ashes. A Hell of a Mess.
So here's where we stand. We're immersed in a bloody war with no
plan for winning and no plan for leaving. We're running the biggest
deficit in the history of the country. We're losing the
manufacturing edge to Asia, while our once-great companies are
getting slaughtered by health care costs. Gas prices are
skyrocketing, and nobody in power has a coherent energy policy. Our
schools are in trouble. Our borders are like sieves. The middle
class is being squeezed every which way These are times that cry out
for leadership.
But when you look around, you've got to ask: 'Where have all the
leaders gone?' Where are the curious, creative communicators? Where
are the people of character, courage, conviction, omnipotence, and common sense?
I may be a sucker for alliteration, but I think you get the point.
Name me a leader who has a better idea for homeland security than
making us take off our shoes in airports and throw away our shampoo?
We've spent billions of dollars building a huge new bureaucracy, and
all we know how to do is react to things that have already happened.
Name me one leader who emerged from the crisis of Hurricane
Katrina. Congress has yet to spend a single day evaluating the response to
the hurricane, or demanding accountability for the decisions that
were made in the crucial hours after ..
Everyone's hunkering down, fingers crossed, hoping it doesn't
happen again. Now, that's just crazy. Storms happen. Deal with it. Make a
plan. Figure out what you 're going to do the next time.
Name me an industry leader who is thinking creatively about how we
can restore our competitive edge in manufacturing. Who would have
believed that there could ever be a time when 'The Big Three'
referred to Japanese car companies? How did this happen, and more
important, what are we going to do about it?
Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for paying
down the debit, or solving the energy crisis, or managing the health
care problem. The silence is deafening. But these are the crises
that are eating away at our country and milking the middle class dry
I have news for the gang in Congress. We didn't elect you to sit on
your asses and do nothing and remain silent while our democracy is
being hijacked and our greatness is being replaced with mediocrity.
What is everybody so afraid of? That some bonehead on Fox News will
call them a name? Give me a break. Why don't you guys show some
spine for a change?
Had enough? Hey, I'm not trying to be the voice of gloom and doom
here. I'm trying to light a fire. I'm speaking out because I have
hope I believe in America. In my lifetime I've had the privilege of
living through some of Americ a's greatest moments. I've also
experienced some of our worst crises: the 'Great Depression', 'World
War II', the 'Korean War', the 'Kennedy Assassination', the 'Vietnam War',
the1970s oil crisis,and the struggles of recent years culminating with 9/11.
If I've learned one thing, it's this: 'You don't get anywhere by standing on
the sidelines waiting for somebody else to take action. Whether it's
building a better car or building a better future for our children,
we all have a role to play. That's the challenge I'm raising in this
book. It's a call to 'Action' for people who, like me, believe in
America. It's not too late, but it's getting pretty close. So let's
shake off the crap and go to work. Let's tell 'em all we've had
'enough.'
'Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's
happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming
bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship
of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing
us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less
build a hybrid car.
But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their
heads when the politicians say, 'Stay the course' Stay the course?
You've got to be kidding. This is America not the damned 'Titanic'.
I'll give you a sound bite: 'Throw all the bums out!'
You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker,
and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize
this country anymore.
The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys
in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is
burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving
'pom-poms' instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise
of the 'America' my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for.
I've had enough. How about you?
I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're
not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have. The
Biggest 'C' is Crisis!
Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of crisis.
It's easy to sit there with your feet up on the desk and talk
theory. Or send someone else's kids off to war when you've never
seen a battlefield yourself. It's another thing to lead when your
world comes tumbling down. On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong
leader more than any other time in our history. We needed a steady
hand to guide us out of the ashes. A Hell of a Mess.
So here's where we stand. We're immersed in a bloody war with no
plan for winning and no plan for leaving. We're running the biggest
deficit in the history of the country. We're losing the
manufacturing edge to Asia, while our once-great companies are
getting slaughtered by health care costs. Gas prices are
skyrocketing, and nobody in power has a coherent energy policy. Our
schools are in trouble. Our borders are like sieves. The middle
class is being squeezed every which way These are times that cry out
for leadership.
But when you look around, you've got to ask: 'Where have all the
leaders gone?' Where are the curious, creative communicators? Where
are the people of character, courage, conviction, omnipotence, and common sense?
I may be a sucker for alliteration, but I think you get the point.
Name me a leader who has a better idea for homeland security than
making us take off our shoes in airports and throw away our shampoo?
We've spent billions of dollars building a huge new bureaucracy, and
all we know how to do is react to things that have already happened.
Name me one leader who emerged from the crisis of Hurricane
Katrina. Congress has yet to spend a single day evaluating the response to
the hurricane, or demanding accountability for the decisions that
were made in the crucial hours after ..
Everyone's hunkering down, fingers crossed, hoping it doesn't
happen again. Now, that's just crazy. Storms happen. Deal with it. Make a
plan. Figure out what you 're going to do the next time.
Name me an industry leader who is thinking creatively about how we
can restore our competitive edge in manufacturing. Who would have
believed that there could ever be a time when 'The Big Three'
referred to Japanese car companies? How did this happen, and more
important, what are we going to do about it?
Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for paying
down the debit, or solving the energy crisis, or managing the health
care problem. The silence is deafening. But these are the crises
that are eating away at our country and milking the middle class dry
I have news for the gang in Congress. We didn't elect you to sit on
your asses and do nothing and remain silent while our democracy is
being hijacked and our greatness is being replaced with mediocrity.
What is everybody so afraid of? That some bonehead on Fox News will
call them a name? Give me a break. Why don't you guys show some
spine for a change?
Had enough? Hey, I'm not trying to be the voice of gloom and doom
here. I'm trying to light a fire. I'm speaking out because I have
hope I believe in America. In my lifetime I've had the privilege of
living through some of Americ a's greatest moments. I've also
experienced some of our worst crises: the 'Great Depression', 'World
War II', the 'Korean War', the 'Kennedy Assassination', the 'Vietnam War',
the1970s oil crisis,and the struggles of recent years culminating with 9/11.
If I've learned one thing, it's this: 'You don't get anywhere by standing on
the sidelines waiting for somebody else to take action. Whether it's
building a better car or building a better future for our children,
we all have a role to play. That's the challenge I'm raising in this
book. It's a call to 'Action' for people who, like me, believe in
America. It's not too late, but it's getting pretty close. So let's
shake off the crap and go to work. Let's tell 'em all we've had
'enough.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)