Archive for February, 2009


The Mind of Jihad

February 27, 2009

An important passage from the book:

The Mind of Jihad – Laurent Murawiec.    Don

Pg. 256

A further reason for my hatred of national socialism and other ideologies is quite a primitive one.  I have an aversion to killing people for the fun of it.  What the fun is, I did not quite understand at the time, but in the intervening years the ample exploration of revolutionary consciousness has cast some light on the matter.  The fun consists in gaining a pseudo-identity through asserting one’s power, optimally by killing somebody – a pseudo-identity that serves as a substitute for the human self that has been lost.   Eric Voeglien (auto-biographically reflections, Columbia University of Missouri Press 2006)


New U.S. Intel Chief: Support of Israel Not a U.S. Interest

February 27, 2009

With the appointment of Charles Freeman to head the National Intelligence Council, Obama has openly come out with another anti-Israel selection, along with George Mitchell, Samantha Powers and Susan Rice. Will those who support Israel yet voted for Obama admit their massive mistake? What further proof do they need that his close relationships with Rev. Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Father Pfleger, Khalid Rashidi, William Ayers and his comment in Iowa, earlier this year that, “The Palestinians  are the most oppressed people in the world,” indicate that he truly is out to save the “oppressed” Palestinians. And before I forget, Durban II ends all doubt. I’m waiting to hear the apologies from those who were flim-flammed.

New U.S. Intel Chief: Support of Israel Not a U.S. Interest

by David Lev

A flurry of reports over the weekend said that the former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, considered a sharp critic of Israel, is to be named to a top intelligence post in the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama.
Chas W. Freeman Jr., who was U.S. ambassador in Riyadh from 1989-1992, is set to be named chairman of the National Intelligence Council, which has a strong influence on the content of the intelligence briefings presented to the President (and puts together the National Intelligence Estimate, or NIE, which in 2007 dissuaded the Bush regime from attacking Iran). The Council chairman is also often called on to give direct briefings to the President.
Typical of Freeman’s viewpoints is a statement he made in a speech before the Washington Institute of Foreign Affairs in 2007, in which he more or less blames international terrorist acts on Israel:

“American identification with Israeli policy has also become total. Those in the region and beyond it who detest Israeli behavior, which is to say almost everyone, now naturally extend their loathing to Americans. This has had the effect of universalizing anti-Americanism, legitimizing radical Islamism, and gaining Iran a foothold among Sunni as well as Shiite Arabs. For its part, Israel no longer even pretends to seek peace with the Palestinians; it strives instead to pacify them. Palestinian retaliation against this policy is as likely to be directed against Israel’s American backers as against Israel itself. Under the circumstances, such retaliation – whatever form it takes – will have the support or at least the sympathy of most people in the region and many outside it. This makes the long-term escalation of terrorism against the United States a certainty, not a matter of conjecture.”

Freeman also is a strong advocate of talking to Hamas, which he says “is the only democratically-elected government in the Arab world.” In his speech, Freeman said that “Hamas is showing that if we offer it nothing but unreasoning hostility and condemnation, it will only stiffen its position and seek allies among our enemies. In both cases, we forfeit our influence for no gain.”
Freeman says that Israel must be pressured to accept the American point of view, which does not coincide with its own. “We must talk with all parties, whatever we think of them or their means of struggle. Refusal to reason with those whose actions threaten injury to oneself, one’s friends, and one’s interests is foolish, feckless, and self-defeating. That is why it is past time for an active and honest discussion with both Israel and the government Palestinians have elected, which – in an irony that escapes few abroad – is the only democratically-elected government in the Arab world.”
In another speech Freeman said:

“We destroyed the Iraqi state and catalyzed anarchy, sectarian violence, terrorism, and civil war in that country… Meanwhile, we embraced Israel’s enemies as our own; the y responded by equating Americans with Israelis as their enemies. We abandoned the role of Middle East peacemaker to back Israel’s efforts to pacify its captive and increasingly ghettoized Arab populations. We wring our hands while sitting on them as the Jewish state continues to seize ever more Arab land for its colonists. This has convinced most Palestinians that Israel cannot be appeased and is persuading increasing numbers of them that a two-state solution is infeasible. It threatens Israelis with an unwelcome choice between a democratic society and a Jewish identity for their state. Now the United States has brought the Palestinian experience – of humiliation, dislocation, and death – to millions more in Afghanistan and Iraq. Israel and the United States each have our reasons for what we are doing, but no amount of public diplomacy can persuade the victims of our policies that their suffering is justified, or spin away their anger, or assuage their desire for reprisal and revenge.”


Obama’s Narcissism

February 27, 2009

Any body believe for one minute that this guy is any different than the good Dr.Naknin describes

Dr. Sam Vaknin is an Israeli psychologist.  Interesting view on our new president.

Dr. Vaknin has written extensively about narcissism.

Dr. Vaknin States “I must confess I was impressed by Sen.Barack Obama from the first time I saw him.  At first I was excited to see a black candidate.  He looked youthful, spoke well, appeared to be confident – a wholesome presidential package.  I was put off soon, not just because of his shallowness but also because there was an air of haughtiness in his demeanor that was unsettling.  His posture and his body language were louder than his empty words. Obama’s speeches are unlike any political speech we have heard in American history.  Never a politician in this land had such quasi “religious” impact on so many people.  The fact that Obama is a total incognito with zero accomplishment, makes this inexplicable infatuation alarming. Obama is not an ordinary man.  He is not a genius.  In fact he is quite ignorant on most important subjects.”

Barack Obama is a narcissist.

Dr. Sam Vaknin, the author of the Malignant Self Love believes  “Barack Obama appears to be a narcissist.”  Vaknin is a world authority on narcissism.  He understands narcissism and describes the inner mind of a narcissist like no other person.  When he talks about narcissism everyone listens.  Vaknin says that Obama’s language, posture and demeanor, and the testimonies of his closest, dearest and nearest suggest that the Senator is either a narcissist or he may have narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).  Narcissists project a grandiose but false image of themselves.  Jim Jones, the charismatic leader of People’s Temple, the man who led over 900 of his followers to cheerfully commit mass suicide and even murder their own children was also a narcissist.  David Koresh, Charles Manson, Joseph Koni, Shoko Asahara, Stalin, Saddam, Mao,Kim Jong Ill and Adolph Hitler are a few examples of narcissists of our time.  All these men had a tremendous influence over their fanciers.  They created a personality cult around themselves and with their blazing speeches elevated their admirers, filled their hearts with enthusiasm and instilled in their minds a new zest for life.  They gave them hope!  They promised them the moon, but alas, invariably they brought them to their doom.  When you are a victim of a cult of personality, you don’t know it until it is too late.  One determining factor in the development of NPD is childhood abuse.

“Obama’s early life was decidedly chaotic and replete with traumatic and mentally bruising dislocations,” says Vaknin.  “Mixed-race marriages were even less common then.  His parents went through a divorce when he was an infant (two years old).   Obama saw his father only once again, before he died in a car accident.   Then his mother re-married and Obama had to relocate to Indonesia , a foreign land with a radically foreign culture, to be raised by a step-father.  At the age of ten, he was whisked off to live with his maternal (white)grandparents.   He saw his mother only intermittently in the following few years and then she vanished from his life in 1979.  She died of cancer in 1995”.

One must never underestimate the manipulative genius of pathological narcissists.  They project such an imposing  personality that it overwhelms those around them.  Charmed by the charisma of the narcissist, people become like clay in his hands.   They cheerfully do his bidding and delight to be at his service.   The narcissist shapes the world around himself and reduces others in his own inverted image.  He creates a cult of personality.  His admirers become his co-dependents.  Narcissists have no interest in things that do not help them to reach their personal objective.   They are focused on one thing alone and that is power.   All other issues are meaningless to them and they do not want to waste their precious time on trivialities.  Anything that does not help them is beneath them and do not deserve their attention.

If an issue raised in the Senate does not help Obama in one way or another, he has no interest in it.   The “present” vote is a safe vote.  No one can criticize him if things go wrong.  Those issues are unworthy by their very nature because they are not about him.  Obama’s election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led to  a contract and advance to write a book about race relations.

The University of Chicago Law School provided him a lot longer than expected and at the end it evolved into, guess what?   His own autobiography!   Instead of writing a scholarly paper focusing on race relations, for which he had been paid, Obama could not resist writing about his most sublime self.  He entitled the book Dreams from My Father.

Not surprisingly, Adolph Hitler also wrote his own autobiography when he was still nobody.  So did Stalin.   For a narcissist no subject is as important as his own self.   Why would he waste his precious time and genius writing about insignificant things when he can write about such an august being as himself?  Narcissists are often callous and even ruthless.   As the norm, they lack conscience.  This is evident from Obama’s lack of interest in his own brother who lives on only one dollar per month.

A man who lives in luxury, who takes a private jet to vacation in Hawaii, and who has raised nearly half a billion dollars for his campaign (something unprecedented in history) has no interest in the plight of his own brother.  Why?  Because, his brother cannot be used for his ascent to power.

A narcissist cares for no one but himself.  This election is like no other in the history of America . The issues are insignificant compared to what is at stake.  What can be more dangerous than having a man bereft of conscience, a serial liar, and one who cannot distinguish his fantasies from reality as the leader of the free world?  I hate to sound alarmist, but one is a fool if one is not alarmed. Many politicians are narcissists.  They pose no threat to others…They are simply self serving and selfish.

Obama evidences symptoms of pathological narcissism, which is different from the run-of-the-mill narcissism of a Richard Nixon or a Bill Clinton for example.  To him reality and fantasy are intertwined.  This is a mental health issue, not just a character flaw.  Pathological narcissists are dangerous because they look normal and even intelligent.  It is this disguise that makes them treacherous.

Today the Democrats have placed all their hopes in Obama.   But this man could put an end to their party.   The great majority of blacks have also decided to vote for Obama.   Only a fool does not know that their support for him is racially driven.   This is racism, pure and simple.   The downside of this is that if Obama turns out to be the disaster I predict, he will cause widespread resentment among the whites.

The blacks are unlikely to give up their support   of their man.  Cultic mentality is pernicious and unrelenting.  They will dig their heads deeper in the sand and blame Obama’s detractors of racism. This will cause a backlash among the whites.

The white supremacists will take advantage of

the discontent and they will receive widespread support.   I predict that in less than four years, racial tensions will increase to levels never seen since the turbulent 1960’s.

Obama will set the clock back decades… America is the bastion of freedom.  The peace of the world depends on the strength of America , and its weakness translates into the triumph of terrorism and victory of rogue nations.

It is no wonder that Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, the Castrists, the Hezbollah, the Hamas, the lawyers of the Guantanamo terrorists and virtually all sworn enemies of America are so thrilled by the prospect of their man in the White House. America is on the verge of destruction.  There is no insanity greater than electing a pathological narcissist as president.


Bought & Paid For

February 27, 2009

Bought & Paid For

Geithner as an Example of Obama’s Brand of “Change”
Dear A-Letter Reader,
Some of us actually bought it.
“Hope,” “Change,” and “Yes we can.” The spirited mottos of newly-elected President Obama.
These days it’s sounding much more like “Yes, we can change hope,” as Barack’s zealous inexperience collides with one of the steepest learning curves ever faced by an American President.
But despite a handful of alarming early mistakes – like appointing several tax-dodgers to what will no doubt be the “spendiest” administration in U.S. history – surely Obama can bring some kind of change to the White House. It won’t be politics as usual, right? And it especially won’t be some deplorable Chicago brand of pay-for-play politics, right?
Despite the “truthiness” of Barack’s promises…the cold, hard facts would suggest otherwise.
Ladies & Gentlemen of the Jury, I Give You Tim Geithner
You know, George W. Bush left a vacuum in the White House when he left. There wasn’t anyone left who could kill the markets with a single speech. Well…we’re happy to report that Tim Geithner stepped up to that challenge and met it head-on, tanking the Dow by about 400 points in his first speech.
Tim Geithner. You may recall that he was one of the few Federal Reserve representatives who could explain the Bear Stearns deal in layman’s terms. He’s a young and uneasy looking go-getter with a silver spoon lodged down his throat. He’s not a big bank alumnus like Paulson. And he was picked by the demagogue of “change,”…so we all agreed to overlook his shady, tax-dodging ways.
But he’s got other talents as well.
And no, we don’t mean making funny faces and embarrassing poses for the camera (which we’re convinced to be his true purpose).
No, he’s a master of seeming like he’s in two pockets at the same time. Incredible really. All at once, this “rich kid” has for his whole career seemed to be a champion of the people and a friend of the banks. Nevermind the fact that this perception is now falling apart on a daily basis.
But in the words of history’s bestselling book, “No man can serve two masters.” So we’ve got to ask ourselves…who’s little Timmy really working for?
The Proof…
A quick scan of the Internet will give you the table listed (at the right). These are the top contributors to Barack Obama’s Presidential campaign. This isn’t a “secret” or a “conspiracy,” it’s a matter of public record.
Goldman Sachs   —-$955,344
Citigroup $633,418
UBS AG $505,017
On a tangent, it’s remarkable to see that all these banks could still muster campaign money…despite needing taxpayer relief to the tune of tens – and even hundreds – of billions of dollars. Then again, it’s probably good business…campaign contributions will keep the gravy train from getting derailed.
But we circled these three names in particular for a reason.
You see, something strange happened on the way to the Treasury. After months of Obama railing against the wicked ways of corporate lobbyists, Geithner appointed the former chief lobbyist of Goldman Sachs to serve as his head of staff.
Just wait…it gets better.
Geithner’s new deputy secretary is a former CEO of Citigroup. Another CFO from Citigroup is now assistant to the President…and one of his assistants also came from Citigroup. To finish out the roster, a member of Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board…yeah, he used to work at UBS.
But wait; there’s more.
Geithner’s “Brain Trust” of unofficial advisors includes John Thain – who formerly worked with both Goldman and Merrill Lynch – Gerald Corrigan (another former Goldman exec) and Hank Paulson (yet another former Goldman Exec). The icing on the cake here is Alan Greenspan, who exploited his own disastrous mismanagement of the Federal Reserve in a brief stint with Pimco last year, who’s also got Geithner’s ear.
Which leads us to ask…
Is there Any Question as to WHO is Steering Our Ship of State?
To which the prompt answer is; no.
And to be honest; it would be hard to argue that this is anything other than a perfect example of “Blagojevich-style” pay-for-play Chicago politics. This isn’t a conspiracy theory…it’s perfectly spelled out in plain sight. “You help me get elected, I’ll help you fleece my taxpayers,” “Deal!”
But let’s pull back and take our anger out of the situation.
Yes, banks are good for the economy. That much is obvious. And when the banks get their “just deserts” (as in the 1930s or the Panic of 1873) the people suffer for decades. Sounds pretty simple.
But this isn’t the 1930s, my friend.
And we’ve got to remember that Paulson, Geithner, Thain and Greenspan…it was their leadership that got us here in the first place. Their institutions…their organizations that killed the golden goose and the financial system, bringing the economy down with it.
It’s almost like getting into a cab with Evel Knievel behind the wheel. Thanks…but no thanks.
Editor’s Note: Sovereign Society Chairman John Pugsley’s special “lies” report will prepare you for the “pay-for-play” half-truths that infest every aspect of Washington and Wall Street. Don’t risk being broadsided by a Ponzi Scheme that makes Madoff’s scam look like chump change,



Denver Archbishop Warns against “Spirit of Adulation” Surrounding Obama

February 27, 2009

Denver Archbishop Warns against “Spirit of Adulation” Surrounding Obama

Toronto, Canada, Feb 23, 2009 (CNA).- Canadians packed St. Basil’s Church in Toronto on Monday evening to hear Archbishop Charles Chaput speak about how Catholics should live out their faith in the public square. He warned that in the U.S., Catholics need to act on their faith and be on guard against “a spirit of adulation bordering on servility” that exists towards the Obama administration.

The public lecture by Archbishop Chaput took place on the campus of the University of Toronto at St. Basil’s Church and was attended by an overflow crowd of more than 700 people.

After giving a sketch of the basic principles in his New York Times Bestseller “Render Unto Caesar,” the archbishop offered his insights on the need for an honest assessment of the situation of the Church in the public square.

“I like clarity, and there’s a reason why,” began the archbishop. “I think modern life, including life in the Church, suffers from a phony unwillingness to offend that poses as prudence and good manners, but too often turns out to be cowardice. Human beings owe each other respect and appropriate courtesy. But we also owe each other the truth — which means candor.”

The Denver prelate then provided his critique of President Obama.

“President Obama is a man of intelligence and some remarkable gifts. He has a great ability to inspire, as we saw from his very popular visit to Canada just this past week. But whatever his strengths, there’s no way to reinvent his record on abortion and related issues with rosy marketing about unity, hope and change. Of course, that can change. Some things really do change when a person reaches the White House. Power ennobles some men. It diminishes others. Bad policy ideas can be improved. Good policy ideas can find a way to flourish. But as Catholics, we at least need to be honest with ourselves and each other about the political facts we start with.”

Yet this will be “very hard for Catholics in the United States,” Chaput warned.

According to the archbishop, the political situation for Catholics is difficult to discern because a “spirit of adulation bordering on servility already exists among some of the same Democratic-friendly Catholic writers, scholars, editors and activists who once accused pro-lifers of being too cozy with Republicans. It turns out that Caesar is an equal opportunity employer.”

Looking ahead to the coming months and years, Chaput offered four “simple things” to remember.

“First,” he said, “all political leaders draw their authority from God. We owe no leader any submission or cooperation in the pursuit of grave evil.”

“In fact, we have the duty to change bad laws and resist grave evil in our public life, both by our words and our non-violent actions. The truest respect we can show to civil authority is the witness of our Catholic faith and our moral convictions, without excuses or apologies.”

In a reference to the messianic treatment the Barack Obama received from some Americans during the presidential primaries, Archbishop Chaput delivered his second point: “in democracies, we elect public servants, not messiahs.”

Noting that Obama actually trailed in the weeks just before the election, the Denver archbishop said that this places some of today’s talk about a “new American mandate” in perspective.

“Americans, including many Catholics, elected a gifted man to fix an economic crisis. That’s the mandate. They gave nobody a mandate to retool American culture on the issues of marriage and the family, sexuality, bioethics, religion in public life and abortion. That retooling could easily happen, and it clearly will happen — but only if Catholics and other religious believers allow it.”

The third point to focus on when the beliefs of Catholics are challenged is that “it doesn’t matter what we claim to believe if we’re unwilling to act on our beliefs,” Chaput counseled.

“The fourth and final thing to remember, and there’s no easy way to say it,” remarked Archbishop Chaput, is that the “Church in the United States has done a poor job of forming the faith and conscience of Catholics for more than 40 years.”

“And now we’re harvesting the results — in the public square, in our families and in the confusion of our personal lives. I could name many good people and programs that seem to disprove what I just said. But I could name many more that do prove it, and some of them work in Washington.”

American Catholics need to realize that many in the current generation haven’t just been “assimilated” into the American culture, but have in fact been “absorbed and bleached and digested by it,” Archbishop Chaput asserted.

If this realization doesn’t happen, the coming generations will continue on the same path and “a real Catholic presence in American life will continue to weaken and disappear,” said Chaput.

Citing the example of “unhappy, self-described Catholics who complain that abortion is too much of a litmus test,” he stated, “We can’t claim to be ‘Catholic’ and ‘pro-choice’ at the same time without owning the responsibility for where the choice leads – to a dead unborn child.”

The archbishop also addressed the “abortion reduction” argument being made by some in politics.

“We can’t talk piously about programs to reduce the abortion body count without also working vigorously to change the laws that make the killing possible. If we’re Catholic, then we believe in the sanctity of developing human life. And if we don’t really believe in the humanity of the unborn child from the moment life begins, then we should stop lying to ourselves and others, and even to God, by claiming we’re something we’re not.”

Winding his talk down, the Archbishop of Denver remarked on the misunderstanding of the word “hope.”

“For Christians,” he explained, “hope is a virtue, not an emotional crutch or a political slogan. Virtus, the Latin root of virtue, means strength or courage. Real hope is unsentimental. It has nothing to do with the cheesy optimism of election campaigns. Hope assumes and demands a spine in believers. And that’s why – at least for a Christian — hope sustains us when the real answer to the problems or hard choices in life is ‘no, we can’t,’ instead of ‘yes, we can.’”


The Normalization Of Murder, Genocide And Terrorism

February 27, 2009

Note from Steve Emerson: Mr. Herb Denenberg,   is now, among other things, a regular columnist for the Philadelphia Bulletin. He is one of the very few mainstream media columnists in the entire United States, alongside writers like Diana West and Katherine Kersten, that have consistently and courageously written about the evils of Jihad and radical Islam, calling the shots as they are. His column this morning was another example of his eloquence and intellectual courage in saying what the vast majority of  mainstream columnists refuse to say because of their intellectual and moral cowardice. I strongly urge you to read it.

Steve Emerson

The Normalization Of Murder, Genocide And Terrorism

The Advocate
By Herb Denenberg, The Bulletin
Friday, February 20, 2009

Perhaps the most serious and most dangerous problem we face is the normalization of evil. That’s the title of an essay published on Feb. 3, 2009 in the Wall Street Journal by Judea Pearl, father of Daniel Pearl, the 38-year-old Wall Street Journal reporter who was beheaded by Islamofascist terrorists in Pakistan.

The title of the article, “The Normalization of Terror,” and its theme carry a devastating message, showing how the mainstream media, many of our leading universities, and people like Jimmy Carter and Bill Moyers have succeeded in transforming the most despicable, immoral, genocidal degenerates into a respectable category — freedom fighters, part of a resistance movement — even though they are using the most illegitimate, immoral, and illegal ends to achieve their political goals.

These are the real moral degenerates of our time, with the likes of Jimmy Carter and Bill Moyers leading the parade of evil, followed by many in our elite universities and the mainstream media. They speak in Orwellian language, turning evil into good, murder and genocide into resistance, and blowing the brains out of young children into acts of heroism. What is most disturbing about this terrible trend is that barbarism seems to be going mainstream even in America.

This is the story that Judea Pearl tells so well and so powerfully that it is a classic of the English language and a message that should be engraved on the mind and soul of every civilized person.

At the end of his powerful message to establish moral clarity in a world gone mad, Mr. Pearl writes, “Danny’s picture is hanging just in front of me, his warm smile as reassuring as ever. But I find it hard to look him straight in the eyes and say: You did not die in vain.”

Mr. Pearl says it is now seven years after the murder of his son, and then asks, “Would Danny have believed that today’s world emerged after his tragedy?

“The answer does not come easily. Danny was an optimist, a true believer in the goodness of mankind. Yet he was also a realist, and would not let idealism bend the harshness of facts.

“Neither he, nor the millions who were shocked by his murder, could have possibly predicted that seven years later his abductor, Omar Saeed Sheikh, according to several South American reports, would be planning terror acts from the safety of a Pakistani jail. Or that his murderer, Khalid Sheiky Mohammed, now in Guantanamo, would proudly boast of his murder in a military tribunal in March 2007 to the cheers of the sympathetic jihadi supporters. Or that this ideology of barbarism would be celebrated in European and American universities, fueling rally after rally for Hamas, Hezbollah and other heroes of ‘the resistance.’ Or that another kidnapped young man, Israeli Gilad Shalit, would spend his 950th day of captivity with no Red Cross visitation while world leaders seriously debate whether his kidnapers deserve international recognition.”

Judea Pearl would have thought that the murder of his son, Danny, would actually be a turning point in man’s inhumanity to man, and that the slaughter of innocents to communicate political messages would once and for all be universally condemned by civilized people and sent to the ashcan of history, where such gross barbarism is no longer tolerated, the place reserved for such atrocities as slavery, human sacrifice, and other shocking and totally discredited practices of an era long gone.

But the moral degenerates mentioned above have given these icons of evil, these most degenerate of moral degenerates, moral standing in our society and acceptance in elite circles of universities, of the media, and of political leadership. Mr. Pearl says we have reached the point where we are no longer disgusted by evil: “Civilized society, so it seems, is so numbed by violence that it has lost its gift to be disgusted by evil.”

I am not so sure we have been numbed by violence into acceptance of evil. I don’t think people like those moral degenerates Jimmy Carter and Bill Moyers are numbed by anything. That would be an excuse. They are not numbed but have placed themselves in the hands of the devil by dark prejudices of various sorts that are lodged deep in their psyches. The people I associate with have not been numbed and they can still recognize evil, be disgusted by it, and reject it. Mr. Carter and Mr. Moyers can no longer do that, but that is due to dark prejudice, not numbness.

This is the way Mr. Pearl explains the described descent into evil. He reasons that well-meaning analysts in their zeal to find creative solutions to terror decided that terror is not a real enemy but only a tactic. Thus the mechanism that drives terrorism was made to disappear and in its place we now have the more “manageable ‘tactical’ considerations.”

Armed with that kind of reasoning, the former mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, in July 2005 could tell Sky News that suicide bombing is almost man’s second nature: “In an unfair balance, that’s what people use.” So the slaughter of innocents, the blowing the brains out of babies, was suddenly transformed into human nature, an almost reflex-like inevitability with moral neutrality. It’s not a choice or a moral decision, but more like breathing out and breathing in. Terrorism is magically transformed into the morally acceptable.

But our former president, Jimmy Carter, the most degenerate of the moral degenerates of our time, makes the clearest argument for terrorism and the slaughter of innocents. In his book, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, this is the way Mr. Carter slyly justifies terrorism with what is an appeal to suicide bombers: “It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Road-map for Peace are accepted by Israel.” Translation: Acts of terror are no longer taboo, but are just a legitimate means to a political end. Until you get what you want, terrorism is perfectly acceptable. Jimmy Carter, in effect says, “Keep killing women and children, and blowing up babies; as a former president of the U.S. I find your terrorism and even genocide perfectly acceptable.” And a subtext of that translation: The Palestinians should continue the slaughter of innocents until Israel yields to their demands, however reasonable or unreasonable, and without regard to whether the acceptance of those demands would spell the eventual destruction of Israel. Whenever I hear of Mr. Carter’s foreign policies misadventures, I wonder if there is a way to impeach an ex-president. If the answer is yes, I recommend starting with Mr. Carter.

Mr. Carter, whose ability to do evil knows no bounds, has put forth the dominant paradigm now widely used to justify, humanize and legitimize terrorism. When Syrian first lady, Asma Al-Assad, was asked what Israel should do to end rocket attacks aimed at innocent civilians, she replied, “They should end the occupation.” In other words, terrorists must have their demands met before they agree to stop murdering innocents and blowing the brains out of babies.

Mr. Pearl also notes that the media, in the U.S. and abroad, have played a major role in making terrorism acceptable. Qatari-based al-Jazeera television keeps providing Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi hours of free television time to spew the murderous interpretation of the Quran, authorize suicide bombings, and call for jihad against Americans and Jews.

Don’t think it can’t get worse, as it always does thanks to the international media and our own mainstream media. In August 2008 came the birthday of Samir Kuntar, an unrepentant killer, who is 1979 smashed the head of a 4-year-old Israeli with his rifle after first killing her father before her eyes. (But remember, Jimmy Carter, in effect, gave him the OK to do that.) al-Jazeera elevated Mr. Kuntar to heroic heights, writes Mr. Pearl, “with orchestras, fireworks and sword dancers, presenting him to 50 million viewers as Arab society’s role model. No mainstream Western media outlet dared to expose al-Jazeera efforts to warp its young viewers into the likes of Kuntar. Al Jazeera’s management continues to receive royal treatment in all major press clubs.”

American pundits like Bill Moyers see the world just like al-Jazeera, so they should not be surprised to find the blood of innocents dripping from their hands. Mr. Moyers, after the war in Gaza, was quick to lend Hamas legitimacy as a “resistance movement.” And he resorted to the old cycle of violence, to make moral equivalence between Hamas’ deliberate slaughter of innocents and the Israeli attempts at self-defense.

He said, each side greases the “cycle of violence” and one man’s terrorism becomes another’s resistance to oppression. Thus, whether blowing up innocents or acting in self defense, it’s all the same. There is moral equivalence and neutrality; anything goes in this immoral world of Mr. Moyers, Mr. Carter and much of our mainstream media. Mr. Moyers uses this moral equivalence to indict the victims of terrorism as if they are merely actors in the endless cycle of violence.

Then Mr. Pearl turns to the universities, which he says are being manipulated into the support of terrorist and genocidal organizations like Hamas. He uses his own university, UCLA, where he is a professor of computer science, to illustrate the point. At UCLA there was a symposium on human rights, which was turned into a recruiting tool for Hamas. The director of the UCLA Center for Near East Studies selected only Israel bashers for the panel, and every member of the panel concluded Israel is the greatest criminal in human history.

Here is the way this human rights symposium turned out: ” The primary purpose of the event was evident the morning after, when unsuspecting uninvolved students read an article in the campus newspaper titled, ‘Scholars says: Israel is in violation of human rights in Gaza,’ to which the good name of the University of California was attached. This is where Hamas scored its main triumph — another inch of academic respectability, another inroad into Western mind.” For more on the sorry state of our colleges and universities read David Horowitz’s classic, The Professors, and his second book on the subject, Indoctrination U.

So, as Mr. Pearl’s article so artfully documents, we are losing our ability to distinguish between good and evil. We are being brainwashed into thinking that evil is good. Our media, our academics, and some of our political leaders are transforming terrorists and genocidal murdering maniacs into freedom fighters. If we lose our moral clarity, losing everything else we hold dear may not be far behind.

I have often written about the mainstream media, our academic institutions, and some of our political leaders seem to have become pro-terror and even anti-American. The Pearl essay is another classic statement of this theme. If I were editing one of those “Patriot’s Handbooks,” I would put Pearl’s piece in it. I would recommend it for inclusion in the second edition of William Bennett’s fine book, The American Patriot’s Almanac.

I was struck by something else about the article. I missed it when it originally appeared in the Wall Street Journal on Feb. 3, 2009, the seventh anniversary of the death of Daniel Pearl. In retrospect, I thought it significant that it appeared in the Wall Street Journal, one of the few major American papers that has retained its moral clarity and that is able to distinguish between good and enable. You would not find this article in the New York Times or Philadelphia Inquirer, as they are part of the problem, the part that gives legitimacy to terror, murder and genocide.

And where did I come across the Pearl piece after missing it in the Journal? It is reprinted on Steven Emerson’s Investigative Project on Terrorism Web site (www.investigativeproject

.com). It is significant, that one of the most powerful forces in identifying and fighting terrorists and terrorism has the moral clarity to see the importance of Mr. Pearl’s message, and consequently pay for the republication of the piece on its Web site. People like Steven Emerson have more moral clarity and common sense than the mainstream media put together. It is also significant that the mainstream media, which did not and probably would not publish the Pearl piece or one like it, are also that segment of America that has lost moral clarity and that has virtually become friends and advocates of terrorists and other enemies of America.

Can we fight and win the war on terror when such powerful opinion makers as the mainstream media and our elite academic institutions often seem to be on the side of terror? Can we fight and win the war on terror when political leaders such as the moral degenerate Jimmy Carter are dedicated to legitimizing terrorism, terrorists and their organizations?

Let me clarify one point, as in the course of this column I may have paid the likes of the Jimmy Carters and Bill Moyers of this land, the mainstream media, and our elite academic institutions an undue compliment. I’ve done that by implying they are on the same moral level as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the world’s other terrorist and genocidal organizations. The compliment is undue because I said they were on the same level as the terrorist and genocidal organizations. I should make it clear they are on a lower level. They have had the advantages of living in the greatest country in the history of the world, reaping all of its limitless advantages, and enjoying its right of citizenship. Yet they turn on their own country in favor of terrorists and the other enemies of America. This puts them on an even lower plain than the terrorist organizations. They, like Jimmy Carter, are indeed among the most morally degenerate of the morally degenerate.

Perhaps this all raises an even more fundamental question: Has America lost its moral bearings? We’ve seen Europe lose its moral bearings, where even religion is virtually disappearing from the scene. We’ve seen powerful observers of the scene, such as Mark Steyn in America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It, and Bat Ye’or in Eurabia, show us how Europe has pretty much surrendered to Islam and Shariah. Is that one more sign it has lost its moral bearings and doesn’t even defend its values? Like Europe, are we too becoming victims of multiculturalism (all cultures are of equal value) and political correctness? When you observe the pathetic moral and verbal gyrations of the mainstream media, our academic elite, and leaders such as the moral degenerate Jimmy Carter, you tend to answer America may be far along on the road traveled by Europe.

Perhaps this suggests we better get back to fundamentals, and have less tolerance for who clearly can’t distinguish between good and evil. We better start treating the likes of the mainstream media, those academic elites, and the political leader exemplified by Jimmy Carter for what they are — worse than the terrorists and genocidal maniacs we are at war with. That means no support for such political leaders, media outlets, and academic institutions where these types hold forth (such as Columbia and UCLA). If Americans don’t make a stand on this issue, no one else will. If Americans don’t make a stand now, America itself may be lost.

Herb Denenberg is a former Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissioner, and professor at the Wharton School. He is a longtime Philadelphia journalist and  consumer advocate. He is also a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of the Sciences. His column appears daily in The Bulletin. You can reach him at


And Off We Go To Democracy European-Style

February 27, 2009

And Off We Go To Democracy European-Style

By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER | Posted Thursday, February 26, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Not a great speech, but extremely consequential. If Barack Obama succeeds, his joint address to Congress will be seen as historic — indeed as the foundational document of Obamaism.

As it stands, it constitutes the boldest social democratic manifesto ever issued by a U.S. president.

The first part of the speech, justifying his economic stabilization efforts, was mere housekeeping. The economic crisis is to Obama a technocratic puzzle that needs to be solved because otherwise he loses all popular support.

Unlike most presidents, however, he doesn’t covet popular support for its own sake. Some men become president to be someone, others to do something. This is what separates, say, a Ronald Reagan from a Bill Clinton. Obama, who once noted that Reagan altered the trajectory of America as Clinton had not, sees himself a Reagan.

Reagan came to office to do something: shrink government, lower taxes, rebuild American defenses. Obama made clear Tuesday night that he intends to be equally transformative. His three goals: universal health care, universal education and a new green energy economy highly funded and regulated by government.

(1) Obama wants to be to universal health care what Lyndon Johnson was to Medicare. Obama has publicly abandoned his once-stated preference for a single-payer system as in Canada and Britain. But that is for practical reasons. In America, you can’t get there from here directly.

Instead, Obama will create the middle step that will lead ultimately and inevitably to single-payer. The way to do it is to establish a reformed system that retains a private health-insurance sector but offers a new government-run plan (based on benefits open to members of Congress) so relatively attractive that people voluntarily move out of the private sector, thereby starving it.

The ultimate result is a system of fully socialized medicine. This will likely not happen until long after Obama leaves office. But he will be rightly recognized as its father.

(2) Beyond cradle-to-grave health care, Obama wants cradle-to-cubicle education. He wants far more government grants, tax credits and other financial guarantees for college education — another way station to another universal federal entitlement.

He lauded the country for establishing free high school education during the Industrial Revolution; he wants to put us on the road to doing the same for college during the Information Age.

(3) Obama wants to be to green energy what John Kennedy was to the moon shot — its visionary and creator. It starts with the establishment of a government-guided, government-funded green energy sector into which the administration will pour billions of dollars from the stimulus package and billions more from budgets to come.

But just picking winners and losers is hardly sufficient for a president who sees himself as world-historical. Hence the carbon cap-and-trade system he proposed Tuesday night that will massively restructure American industry and create a highly regulated energy sector.

These revolutions in health care, education and energy are not just abstract hopes. They have already taken life in Obama’s massive $787 billion stimulus package, a huge expansion of social spending constituting a down payment on Obama’s plan for remaking the American social contract.

Obama sees the current economic crisis as an opportunity. He has said so openly. And now we know what opportunity he wants to seize.

Just as the Depression created the political and psychological conditions for Franklin Roosevelt’s transformation of America from laissez-faireism to the beginnings of the welfare state, the current crisis gives Obama the political space to move the still (relatively) modest American welfare state toward European-style social democracy.

In the European Union, government spending has declined slightly, from 48% to 47% of GDP during the last 10 years. In the U.S., it has shot up from 34% to 40%.

Part of this explosive growth in U.S. government spending reflects the emergency private-sector interventions of a Republican administration. But the clear intent was to make the massive intrusion into the private sector temporary and to retreat as quickly as possible. Obama has radically different ambitions.

The spread between Europe and America in government-controlled GDP has already shrunk from 14% to 7%. Two terms of Obamaism and the difference will be zero.

Conservatives take a dim view of the regulation-bound, economically sclerotic, socially stagnant nanny state that is the European Union. Nonetheless, Obama is ascendant and has the personal mandate to take the country where he wishes. He has laid out boldly the Brussels-bound path he wants to take.

Let the debate begin.