Posts Tagged ‘America’


Israelis Baffled by News of Defenseless US Soldiers

January 13, 2010

Israelis Baffled by News of Defenseless US Soldiers

Many Israelis want to know: why didn’t the soldiers attacked by a U.S. Army major-turned-terrorist return fire?

When a Muslim goes, well, Muslim in Israel he is typically shot to death by someone, like a reserve soldier, within seconds of screaming “Allah Akbar.”

In contrast with the Israeli experience, it took 10 minutes before a civilian police officer at  Fort Hood was able to shoot and stop Muslim fanatic Nidal Malik Hasan.

How could that happen?  How could so many people trained in the strategies and tactics of modern warfare be so defenseless?

The answer – and this may astonish many Americans – is that the victims were unarmed. U.S. soldiers are not allowed to carry guns for personal protection, even on a 340-acre base quartering more than 50,000 troops.

So it goes in brain-dead, liberal America .

Fort Hood is a “gun free” zone, thanks to regulations adopted in one of the very first acts signed into law by anti-gun President Bill Clinton in March, 1993. Click here for the file.

Contrary to President Obama’s crocodile tears, his administration is bent on further disarming the U.S. military, and all Americans. Obama and his people will not rest until every American is a sitting duck…

postscript: Israeli teachers, from kindergarten on up, are also armed; so, a Virginia Tech-type slaughter is highly unlikely at an Israeli university.

Israelis, who have had to combat terrorism all their lives, are not afraid of guns.  They are an armed people, ready, willing, and able to defend themselves and their country.

Unlike Liberally indoctrinated Americans, paralyzed by fear and political correctness, Israelis understand that people, not guns, kill people.


VIDEO: One Nation Under God

January 6, 2010


November 18, 2009

source: Christian Law Association

Thanksgiving is the oldest American holiday.  Although we generally attribute the First Thanksgiving to the Pilgrims in 1621, several other special times of thanksgiving preceded it on land that would eventually become part of America.

In 1541 at Palo Duro Canyon, Texas, Coronado and 1,500 of his men celebrated a time of thanksgiving to God for His blessings.

In 1564 at St. Augustine, Florida, French colonists also engaged in a special time of thanksgiving to God.

In 1598 in El Paso, Texas, Juan de Oriate and his expedition held a similar celebration to God.

In 1619 in Virginia, the Jamestown settlers held an official Thanksgiving celebration.

The Pilgrims

The first Pilgrim Thanksgiving in 1621 with Samoset, Squanto, and their other Indian friends and benefactors, was not the most dramatic Pilgrim Thanksgiving.  The most dramatic Thanksgiving occured two years later.

During that summer, the Pilgrims suffered a severe and extended time of drought.  They knew that without a change in the weather, there would be no fall harvest.  The winter would surely bring severe starvation and death to their community.  Therefore, Gov. William Bradford gathered the Pilgrims together for a time of prayer and fasting.

Shortly thereafter, a gentle rain began to fall.  Governor Bradford explained in his History of Plymouth Plantation:

[The rain] came without either wind or thunder or any violence, and by degrees in abundance, as that ye earth was thoroughly wet and soaked therewith, which did so apparently revive and quicken ye decayed corn and other fruits as was wonderful to see, and made ye Indians astonished to behold; and afterwards the Lord sent them such seasonable showers, with interchange of fair warm weather as, through His blessing, caused a fruitful and liberal harvest, to their no small comfort and rejoicing.

The rain saved the corn.  One of the Indians who observed this miracle remarked:

Now I see that the Englishman’s God is a good God; for he hath heard you, and sent you rain, and that without such tempest and thunder as we used to have with our rain; which after our Powawing for it, breaks down the corn; whereas your corn stands whole and good still; surely, your God is a good God.

The drought had been broken; there was an abundant harvest—-cause for yet another Thanksgiving. The Pilgrim practice of designating an official time of Thanksgiving quickly spread throughout the other New England colonies as annual traditions were established of prayer and fasting in the spring, followed by prayer and thanksgiving in the fall.

The First National Thanksgiving

America’s first national Day of Thanksgiving occurred on September 25, 1789.  It was the nation’s first official act set by Congress after that body completed the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  According to the early equivalent of the Congressional Record:

Mr. [Elias] Boudinot said he could not think of letting the session pass without offering an opportunity to all the citizens of the United States of joining with one voice in returning to Almighty God their sincere thanks for the many blessings He had poured down upon them. With this view, therefore, he would move the following resolution:

Resolved, That a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States to request that he would recommend to the people of the United States a Day of Public Thanksgiving and Prayer. . .

Mr. Roger Sherman justified the practice of thanksgiving on any single event not only as a laudable one in itself but also as warranted by a number of precedents in Holy Writ. . . . This example he thought worthy of a Christian imitation on the present occasion.

President George Washington heartily concurred with this request to thank Almighty God at the birth of the new Constitution.  He issued the first federal Thanksgiving proclamation, declaring in part:

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor. . . . Now, therefore, I do appoint Thursday, the 26th day of November 1789 . . . that we may all unite to render unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection.

So much for any hint of the desire for a “separation of church and state” to be found in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights!  While our Founders wanted to prohibit the establishment of an official national church, they quite obviously had absolutely no intention of separating God from the American government.

Following President Washington’s initial proclamation, days of Thanksgiving were sporadically proclaimed.

Another by President Washington in 1795;

One by John Adams in 1799;

Others by James Madison in 1814 and 1815.

But most official Thanksgivings in early America were observed at the state level.  By 1815, the various state governments had issued at least 1,400 official calls for prayer and thanksgiving or for prayer and fasting.

President Lincoln’s Proclamation

While our Founders wanted to thank God for the new nation they had just established, Thanksgiving did not become an annual event in America until the time of President Abraham Lincoln.  After being importuned by Sarah Josepha Hale, a popular women’s magazine editor, President Lincoln proclaimed the last Thursday in November, 1863, as a day “of Thanksgiving and Praise to our benevolent Father.”  He proclaimed this national Day of Thanksgiving in the midst of the darkest days of the Civil War, noting:

The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God.

The President continued,

No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People.

The 1863 Day of Thanksgiving was remarkable because it was held during a time in which the Union Army had been losing battle after battle for three extremely brutal and bloody war years.

That time was also a pivotal point in Lincoln’s own personal spiritual life. Just several months earlier, the Battle of Gettysburg had resulted in the loss of more than 60,000 American lives—-in a single battle.  President Lincoln would later explain to an Illinois clergyman that it was while walking among the thousands of graves at Gettysburg that he first committed his life to Christ. He confessed:

When I left Springfield [Illinois, to assume the Presidency], I asked the people to pray for me. I was not a Christian. When I buried my son, the severest trial of my life, I was not a Christian. But when I went to Gettysburg and saw the graves of thousands of our soldiers, I then and there consecrated myself to Christ.

That tragedy of 60,000 dead affected Abraham Lincoln’s eternal destiny as well as the rest of his brief remaining earthly life.  His dedication to Christ was visible in his public pronouncements for the remainder of his presidency.

A Continuing Tradition

Since President Lincoln’s 1863 proclamation, each President has issued an annual proclamation declaring a National Day of Thanksgiving to God, although the actual dates varied widely.  It was in 1933 that President Franklin D. Roosevelt, another president destined to witness the brutality of war, as well as the chaos of economic collapse, called for an annual national Day of Thanksgiving every fourth Thursday of November.  Finally, in 1941, ironically just a few weeks before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, Congress permanently established the fourth Thursday of November as an official national Thanksgiving holiday.

Thanksgiving 2009

As we thank God for His blessings this year, we should particularly remember the words of Boston’s Lady Magazine editor, Sarah Josepha Hale, when she urged President Lincoln to proclaim a national Day of Thanksgiving during the midst of the Civil War.  She wrote:

Let us consecrate the day to benevolence of action, by sending good gifts to the poor, and doing those deeds of charity that will, for one day, make every American home the place of plenty and of rejoicing. Let the people of all the States and Territories sit down together to the “feast of fat things,” and drink, in the sweet draught of joy and gratitude to the Divine giver of all our blessings, the pledge of renewed love to the Union, and to each other; and of peace and good-will to all men.

This year, as America faces dark days and severe challenges, Mrs. Hale’s words seem particularly appropriate.  Wars, rumors of war, and economic distress have overtaken us yet again.  Nevertheless, Almighty God has continued to bless America.  It is appropriate that we continue to express our national gratitude and thankfulness to Him for His blessings.

Thankfulness, no matter what the external circumstances, has for nearly 500 years expressed the true spirit of America.  It is no accident that Thanksgiving is the oldest of all American holidays.



Cartoon: Red Flags

November 16, 2009


Bill Clinton: U.S. no longer dominated by Christians and Jews

June 16, 2009

Bill Clinton: U.S. no longer dominated by Christians and Jews – 14 June 2009

WASHINGTON – Former President Bill Clinton has told an Arab-American audience of 1,000 people that the U.S. is no longer just a black-white country, nor a country that is dominated by Christians and a powerful Jewish minority

In a speech to the group on Saturday, Clinton said that given the growing numbers of Muslims, Hindus and other religious groups here,  Americans should be mindful of the nation’s changing demographics, which led to the election of Barack Obama as president.

Clinton said by 2050 the U.S. will no longer have a majority of people with European heritage and that in an interdependent world “this is a very positive thing.”

Speaking in a hotel ballroom to the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee during its annual convention, Clinton also praised Obama’s speech in Cairo, Egypt, that was focused on the Arab world.

Clinton told the audience that it’s important that they push government leaders for a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He cited an experience in 1993 when he failed to persuade many Jewish-American and Arab-American business people to invest in the Palestinian areas because violence and bombings had deterred them.

“It just took one more bus bomb or one more rocket or one more incident and then people got scared of losing their money,” he said.

As the U.S. continues to push for peace in the area, “I think it’s really important to give the Palestinian people something to look forward to,” Clinton said to loud applause.

[How about giving something for Israeli people to look forward to ?]

Clinton, who wasn’t paid for his speech, spoke in a wide-ranging 35-minute address that focused on people’s identity in an interdependent world. He said the U.S. can’t rely on its military might in global relations. “It has to begin by people accepting the fact that they can be proud of who they are without despising who someone else is,” he said.

[Clinton said “the U.S. can’t rely on it’s military  might in global relations.”  Whatever he said beyond that was meaningless – “in global relations” – What does that mean?

“Clinton wasn’t paid for his speech.”  No comment


Canadian Healthcare

June 10, 2009
Canada’s ObamaCare Precedent
Governments always ration care by making you wait. That can be deadly.
Congressional Democrats will soon put forward their legislative proposals for reforming health care. Should they succeed, tens of millions of Americans will potentially be joining a new public insurance program and the federal government will increasingly be involved in treatment decisions.
Not long ago, I would have applauded this type of government expansion. Born and raised in Canada, I once believed that government health care is compassionate and equitable. It is neither.
My views changed in medical school. Yes, everyone in Canada is covered by a “single payer” — the government. But Canadians wait for practically any procedure or diagnostic test or specialist consultation in the public system.
The problems were brought home when a relative had difficulty walking. He was in chronic pain. His doctor suggested a referral to a neurologist; an MRI would need to be done, then possibly a referral to another specialist. The wait would have stretched to roughly a year. If surgery was needed, the wait would be months more. Not wanting to stay confined to his house, he had the surgery done in the U.S., at the Mayo Clinic, and paid for it himself.
Such stories are common. For example, Sylvia de Vries, an Ontario woman, had a 40-pound fluid-filled tumor removed from her abdomen by an American surgeon in 2006. Her Michigan doctor estimated that she was within weeks of dying, but she was still on a wait list for a Canadian specialist.
Indeed, Canada’s provincial governments themselves rely on American medicine. Between 2006 and 2008, Ontario sent more than 160 patients to New York and Michigan for emergency neurosurgery — described by the Globe and Mail newspaper as “broken necks, burst aneurysms and other types of bleeding in or around the brain.”
Only half of ER patients are treated in a timely manner by national and international standards, according to a government study. The physician shortage is so severe that some towns hold lotteries, with the winners gaining access to the local doc.
Overall, according to a study published in Lancet Oncology last year, five-year cancer survival rates are higher in the U.S. than those in Canada. Based on data from the Joint Canada/U.S. Survey of Health (done by Statistics Canada and the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics), Americans have greater access to preventive screening tests and have higher treatment rates for chronic illnesses. No wonder: To limit the growth in health spending, governments restrict the supply of health care by rationing it through waiting. The same survey data show, as June and Paul O’Neill note in a paper published in 2007 in the Forum for Health Economics & Policy, that the poor under socialized medicine seem to be less healthy relative to the nonpoor than their American counterparts.
Ironically, as the U.S. is on the verge of rushing toward government health care, Canada is reforming its system in the opposite direction. In 2005, Canada’s supreme court struck down key laws in Quebec that established a government monopoly of health services. Claude Castonguay, who headed the Quebec government commission that recommended the creation of its public health-care system in the 1960s, also has second thoughts. Last year, after completing another review, he declared the system in “crisis” and suggested a massive expansion of private services — even advocating that public hospitals rent facilities to physicians in off-hours.
And the medical establishment? Dr. Brian Day, an orthopedic surgeon, grew increasingly frustrated by government cutbacks that reduced his access to an operating room and increased the number of patients on his hospital waiting list. He built a private hospital in Vancouver in the 1990s. Last year, he completed a term as the president of the Canadian Medical Association and was succeeded by a Quebec radiologist who owns several private clinics.
In Canada, private-sector health care is growing. Dr. Day estimates that 50,000 people are seen at private clinics every year in British Columbia. According to the New York Times, a private clinic opens at a rate of about one a week across the country. Public-private partnerships, once a taboo topic, are embraced by provincial governments.
In the United Kingdom, where socialized medicine was established after World War II through the National Health Service, the present Labour government has introduced a choice in surgeries by allowing patients to choose among facilities, often including private ones. Even in Sweden, the government has turned over services to the private sector.

Americans need to ask a basic question: Why are they rushing into a system of government-dominated health care when the very countries that have experienced it for so long are backing away?

Dr. Gratzer, a physician, is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.



Cairo Candy

June 5, 2009

Cairo Candy


Middle East: While declaring that “America and Islam . . . need not be in competition,” President Obama called on Islamic countries to embrace Western ways. But Islamic hard-liners see no “new beginning.”

Read More: Middle East & North Africa

In his much-hyped speech at Cairo University on Thursday to promote “a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world,” the president came armed with apologies and compliments.

The West is guilty of anti-Muslim “colonialism,” not to mention “a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations.”

The left often accused Ronald Reagan of naivete for believing the Soviet Union could be relegated to “the ash heap of history”; here we are 20 years later apologizing for defeating the Evil Empire.  [baloney]

According to President Obama, Islam can be thanked for everything from “Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment” to “algebra,” “our magnetic compass,” “pens and printing” and “our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed.”

And as if speaking on the set of Dr. Phil, he claimed “we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors.”

In fact, the Muslims that America has a problem with — i.e., Islamofascists — seldom have trouble expressing what they hold in their hearts. Often it’s sheer hatred for the West.

Iran’s supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, for instance, immediately called the Obama speech “sweet and beautiful talks to the Muslim nation . . . that will not create a change,”  adding that Israel is still a “cancerous tumor in the heart” of the Muslim world.

After the flattery and the mea culpas, however, came an internally inconsistent message.

After saying “no system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other,” the president added — rather dictatorially — that “you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise . . . .”

Sounds like the U.S. system to us.

The real diktats, however, were saved for the Israelis. “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements,” the president said.


My Comments:

NOW WE ARE dictating to Israel?

Can’t we mind our own business?  We have no right to dictate to Israel.

  • Palestinian Muslims build land owned by Israel’s citizens illegally. We send guards to check on that every day.

  • but… Israeli settlements – being built on Israeli land must stop and be demolished.



And instead of rallying the Islamic world against a would-be nuclear Iran, he made the pronouncement that “no single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons.”

Does that mean we’ve given up on stopping Iran from having a nuclear bomb? If so, that’s a very dangerous signal to send.

Compare that with another Democratic president, Harry Truman, after the bombing of Hiroshima: “Having found the bomb, we have used it. . . . It is an awful responsibility which has come to us. We thank God that it has come to us, instead of to our enemies.”

This president said he seeks the day “when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together, as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus and Mohammed, peace be upon them, joined in prayer.”

He intends to establish that paradise-on-earth by having U.S. taxpayers finance initiatives such as “new science envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, grow new crops.”

Sweet talk and the Almighty Dollar can buy a lot, it’s true.

But only a fairy-tale mind-set could think it possible to bribe and cajole the Middle East into becoming a land of peace, love and understanding.


America’s Productivity Boom

May 20, 2009



Published in the IBD: 20 May 2009


Geert Wilders: Why I Am In America…

April 30, 2009

Why I Am In America Fighting for Free Speech

By Geert Wilders | 04/29/09 | 06:41 PM

Freedom of expression is under attack. This is a theme I am addressing here in America this week as part of the Free Speech Summit being held in Florida under the sponsorship of the Florida Security Council. And it is clear that a serious discussion of the threats to our freedoms in the West cannot come too soon.

For example, my friend Rep. Adam Hasner, the majority leader of the Florida House of Representatives was attacked in a press release issued by the national office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) on Monday for daring to appear at a private event with me this past weekend. Because of that appearance, CAIR is demanding that Rep. Hasner step down or be removed from his position.

This attack on a friend and fellow legislator is of grave concern to me. CAIR’s assault on Rep. Hasner strikes at the very heart of our most basic freedoms. In fact, it is but the latest episode in that organization’s long-running and determined effort to silence its critics. Indeed, CAIR seeks to suppress all those who dare to challenge the theo-political-legal program that authoritative Islam calls “Shariah.” In so doing, they are seeking to impose what amount to Shariah blasphemy codes.

It is especially important to note that Adam Hasner is not only being attacked for comments he made that are deemed offensive by those who seek to impose Shariah in America. His career is now being threatened for comments made by others in his presence – in this case, by me. Thus the Islamists are infringing not only on this country’s constitutionally protected freedom of expression but also freedom of association.

If a high-ranking public official – elected by the people and appointed to his leadership position by his peers – cannot speak honestly and openly about his concerns, and do so in places and the company of his choosing, without fear of suppression or other retribution, who among us is safe?

I know these threats firsthand. Even before the international release last year of my short documentary film, Fitna, I have faced constant death threats and protests. My name has appeared on assassination lists. I have been subject of an Al-Qaeda death fatwa. I will be charged with blasphemy and contempt of Muslims by Jordanian prosecutors. I face prosecutions in my own country and elsewhere. I was recently banned from the United Kingdom because the Home Secretary believed my mere presence in the country constituted a national security threat.

In this trying time let us recall that in the darkest hours of World War II, when the world faced a global threat from German Nazism, Italian Fascism and Japanese Imperialism, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill challenged his people to rise to the occasion and fight. He told them, “Never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”

This is why I am in America this week talking about the fight we now must wage in the West to defend our liberties. Freedom of association is one of the basic liberties guaranteed not only by the US Constitution but by the European Convention of Human Rights. And yet CAIR wants to silence and punish Rep. Hasner for associating with me. If America needs a poster child for the threat to our freedoms from Islamic extremism, no better example than CAIR could be found.

This episode underscores that the threat to freedom posed by creeping Shariah imposed by CAIR’s type of stealthy jihad is not just a problem in the Middle East, or Europe. It is also a problem in America.

I will not be bullied by Islamic thugs who want to use our freedoms to destroy those very same freedoms. And I will not stand by as they seek to do it to others.

Founded and directed by members of the international network of the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR has an explicit agenda to subvert our freedoms and impose Islamic Shariah law on non-Muslims. This is not speculation on my part. This is the testimony of one of CAIR’s founders and chairman emeritus, Omar Ahmed, who told a California audience in 1998 that this was their agenda. “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant,” he said. “The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.” When CAIR officials say that this is their ultimate objective, we should believe them.

In just the past few weeks, the Council on American Islamic Relations has sought to silence another courageous lawmaker, Rep. Peter King, the ranking member on the Homeland Security Committee in the US House of Representatives. His “offense”? Rep. King correctly observed that CAIR and other Muslims were not providing enough assistance to the law enforcement authorities in combating terrorism-related activities in American mosques.

CAIR has attempted to silence other critics, as well. They have sued bloggers; they have defamed journalists who have asked too many questions about their terrorist ties; and they have tried to intimidate publications that have published articles challenging their putative “civil rights mission.” If they get away with it, CAIR will seek to threaten the careers of more politicians with the courage to say things and associate with those of challenge Shariah and the effort to impose it in this country.

It is utterly hypocritical that, on the one hand, CAIR claims to be defending freedom of religion in attacking Rep. Hasner when, on the other, they actively seek support from Islamic regimes that are among the worst of the worst human rights abusers on the planet – and notorious for suppressing religious freedoms.

I have been told that in an Arabic News article that CAIR officials have solicited and received financial support from Saudi Prince Al-Walid Bin Talal, whose country outlaws any religious expression except its own Wahhabi strain of Islam. You can’t even own a Bible or wear a cross in the country run by their patrons, and yet CAIR wants to lecture us about religious freedom?

The land for CAIR’s Capitol Hill office in Washington D.C. was purchased with a $250,000 donation from the Saudi-backed Islamic Development Bank and the deed to their headquarters is held by the foundation of United Arab Emirates Defense Minister Gen. Sheik Mohammed Bin Rashid Al-Maktoum. Sheik al-Maktoum’s country prohibits any non-Islamic religious proselytizing and threatens anyone caught with distribution of non-Muslim religious literature with imprisonment.

In September 2006, CAIR hosted an exclusive dinner with former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami. Under Khatami’s regime religious minorities were severely persecuted, non-Muslims were regularly harassed, and hundreds of student protestors murdered. The fact that CAIR chose to honor this dictator who is still a senior member of the Islamic theocracy in Iran tells us much.

Whether it is in America or back home in my own country, we are under attack by groups like CAIR who aim to silence their critics. This is why I am here in America. I aim to continue to fight regardless of the threats and intimidation and I am asking Americans to join with us. And when they attack good men like Rep. Adam Hasner, we must realize that they are attacking each and every one of us and the freedoms that we hold dear.

Geert Wilders is a member of the Dutch Parliament and Chairman of the People’s Freedom Party.


American Socialism

March 27, 2009

How Americans Are (Or Are Not) Coming To Grips With ‘S’ Word

By RAGHAVAN MAYUR | 26 March 2009 | IBD

Socialism in the U.S. appears to be in a formative stage. For most Americans, the idea is fairly new, and many have yet to take a firm stand on policies such as income redistribution and government control of industries.

Yet, we’ve come a long way in just seven months. Last August, only 25% of Americans surveyed in our IBD/TIPP Poll agreed with the statement, “The U.S. is evolving into a socialist state.” But when asked again this month, the number jumped to 39%.

This included leaps to 63% from 35% for Republicans and to 47% from 23% for Independents. Only 13% of Democrats, on the other hand, agreed with the statement vs. 20% in August.

The numbers mark a rather significant shift and merit further analysis. But rather than welcome a healthy discussion, many in the media bridle when the “S” word is brought up.

Recall the scorn heaped on Joe the Plumber during last fall’s campaign, when he said Barack Obama’s tax plan to spread the wealth “scares me because it’s just one more step towards socialism.” Or the attacks on the professionalism of Florida TV newswoman Barbara West when she asked Joe Biden if Obama might lead the U.S. “into a socialist country much like Sweden.”

View larger image

We even experienced it ourselves. A writer for, for instance, accused us of bias in our August presidential tracking poll simply because we dared to run a few questions about socialism.

Still, it’s important to understand the American mindset. And to get at hidden segments that underlie our survey data, March’s IBD/TIPP Poll asked Americans a few relevant questions tapping into their level of agreement to the statements below:

• I believe the government should control or own key industries such as health care and energy.

• Generally, I support the idea of a government-run universal health care system.

• I believe it is the government’s role to redistribute wealth and income.

• The U.S. is evolving into a socialist state.

Based on responses to these questions, we developed a statistical model that reveals three latent segments of the American populace: Undeclared Socialists, Passionate Capitalists and Hybrid Deniers.

Undeclared Socialists are the smallest segment, with 29%, while Passionate Capitalists encompass 37% of Americans. Hybrid Deniers fall in between at 35%. The segments cross traditional party lines and political ideologies. Here are the differences:

Undeclared Socialists see the government in a very positive light. They believe it’s the government’s role to redistribute wealth and income, and they support government-run health care. They are the most willing to pay higher taxes to fund social programs.

While they lean toward socialistic tenets, we call them “undeclared” because the majority don’t believe the U.S. is evolving into a socialist state. Demographic groups most represented are blacks and Hispanics (55%), liberals (43%) and moderates (41%).

Passionate Capitalists strongly oppose the redistribution of wealth and income and believe the government should stay out of key industries. They’re also against universal health care, oppose higher taxes for more social programs and are sure the U.S. is evolving into a socialist state.

Two-thirds of Republicans (65%), most conservatives (57%) and a quarter of moderates (23%) fall into this segment.

Hybrid Deniers base their views on capitalistic tenets, but may be skeptical. Their thinking is “hybrid” in that they oppose the redistribution of income but are on the fence about government-run health care (with 38% giving a neutral rating).

They are “deniers” because they refute the notion the U.S. may be evolving into a socialist state. They are generally not willing to pay higher taxes to support more social programs. Most liberals (52%), nearly half (49%) of Democrats, a third whites (35%) and a similar share of blacks and Hispanics (33%) belong to this segment.

In the future, we’ll look closer at whether socialism is taking root so we’ll have a better handle on the nation’s direction.

• Mayur is president of TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence, which directs the IBD/TIPP Poll that was the most accurate in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections.


Nothing to be Apologizing For

February 3, 2009


Fighting For And Freeing Muslims Is Nothing To Be Apologizing For

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER | 2 February 2009 | I.B.D

Every new president flatters himself that he, kinder and gentler, is beginning the world anew. Yet, when Barack Obama in his inaugural address reached out to Muslims with “to the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect,” his formulation was needlessly defensive and apologetic.

* Americans are quickly learning that Obama has a different loyalty.

Is it “new” to acknowledge Muslim interests and show respect to the Muslim world? Obama doesn’t just think so, he said so again to millions in his al-Arabiya interview, (His first interview – His FIRST PRIORITY?!) insisting on the need to “restore” the “same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago.”

Astonishing!! In these most recent 20 years — the alleged winter of our disrespect of the Islamic world — America did not just respect Muslims, it bled for them. It engaged in five military campaigns, every one of which involved — and resulted in — the liberation of a Muslim people: Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.

* Has any American ever heard one thank you or compliment for our effort?

The two Balkan interventions — as well as the failed 1992-93 Somali intervention to feed starving African Muslims (43 Americans were killed) — were humanitarian exercises of the highest order, there being no significant U.S. strategic interest at stake.

In these 20 years, this nation has done more for suffering and oppressed Muslims than any nation, Muslim or non-Muslim, anywhere on earth. Why are we apologizing?  [???] * Has any Muslim shown any appreciation?  I don’t think so.

And what of that happy U.S.-Muslim relationship that Obama imagines existed “as recently as 20 or 30 years ago” that he has now come to restore? Thirty years ago, 1979, saw the greatest U.S.-Muslim rupture in our 233-year history: Iran’s radical Islamic revolution, the seizure of the U.S. embassy, the 14 months of America held hostage.

* Don’t forget that America’s FIRST THIRTY YEARS of our existence required our founders and leaders to fight radical Islam, to learn about the Qur’an and it’s plan for world conquest.  That’s why President Jefferson had to read the Qur’an.  Those Barbary Pirates were the radical Muslims – that’s where our “leathernecks” come from – to fight sword wielding Muslims of that day.

Which came just a few years after the Arab oil embargo that sent the United States into a long and punishing recession. Which, in turn, was preceded by the kidnapping and cold-blooded execution by Arab terrorists of the U.S. ambassador in Sudan and his charge d’affaires.

This is to say nothing of the Marine barracks massacre of 1983, and the innumerable attacks on U.S. embassies and installations around the world during what Obama now characterizes as the halcyon days of U.S.-Islamic relations. [!!]

Look. If Barack Obama wants to say, as he said to al-Arabiya, “I have Muslim roots, Muslim family members, have lived in a Muslim country” — implying a special affinity that uniquely positions him to establish good relations — that’s fine. * He’s telling this to his supporters – who are (many of them) hearing it for the first time.

But it is both false and deeply injurious to this country to draw a historical line dividing America under Obama from a benighted past when Islam was supposedly disrespected and demonized.

As in Obama’s grand admonition: “We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith’s name.” Have “we” been doing that, smearing Islam due to a small minority? * Has any of us heard a Muslim criticizing Islamic attacks on American interests?  You will never hear that.

George Bush went to the Islamic Center in Washington six days after 9/11, when the fires of Ground Zero were still smoldering, to declare “Islam is peace,” * (that was naïve and the Hadiths clearly tell us that for Islam – the only peace that we can expect is when they control the whole world) to extend fellowship and friendship to Muslims, to insist that Americans treat them with respect and generosity of spirit.

And America listened. In these seven years since 9/11 — seven years during which thousands of Muslims rioted all over the world (resulting in the death of more than 100) to avenge a bunch of cartoons — there’s not been a single anti-Muslim riot in the United States to avenge the greatest massacre in U.S. history.

On the contrary. In its aftermath, we elected our first Muslim member of Congress and our first president of Muslim parentage.

“My job,” says Obama, “is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives.”

* Has anyone read or heard any such statements(?) that the Muslim world is filled with – “extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives”-  The only Muslim I know who says that is Dr. Zuhdi Jasser – a Muslim American and former physician to the U.S. Congress.    He is the only person I know who is not afraid to tell you the truth about Islam – Interested? Write for ‘THE THIRD JIHAD’ – Radical Islam’s Vision For America DVD.   Rudy Giuliani: called the DVD “A wake-up call for America” – Jim Woolsey, CIA Director; Senator Joe Lieberman, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge – all appear in the production.

That’s his job? [?]

* His job is to do all that he can to protect America from an attack by an enemy.  Let’s pray that he will get his act together and do this.

Do Americans think otherwise? Does he think he is bravely breaking new ground? George Bush, Condoleezza Rice and countless other leaders offered myriad expressions of that same universalist sentiment.

Every president has the right to portray himself as ushering in a new era of this or that. Obama wants to pursue new ties with Muslim nations, drawing on his own identity and associations. Good.

But when his self-inflation as redeemer of U.S.-Muslim relations leads him to suggest that pre-Obama America was disrespectful or insensitive or uncaring of Muslims, he is engaging not just in fiction but in gratuitous disparagement of the country he is now privileged to lead.

* We know Obama is no Messiah – far from that – He does deal in fiction – just read his book (that he didn’t write.)


American Jewish Indifference

December 8, 2008


Please note that Israel is our only real friend in the world and we are Israel’s only real friend.


American Jewish Indifference
Apparently Israel is no longer a voting issue for most American Jews.

American Jewish Indifference  , Caroline B. Glick

Seventy-eight percent of American Jewish voters cast their ballots for Senator Barack Obama on November 4. Obama, who boasted the most liberal voting record in the Senate, has never distinguished himself as a firm supporter of Israel and opposed the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment that called on the State Department to place Iran’s Revolutionary Guards on its list of international terrorist organizations.

Obama counts no deeply committed Zionists among his close associates. Men and women like Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Samantha Power, Zbigniew Brzezinski, William Ayers, Robert Malley and Rashid Khalidi were all people Obama turned to for advice, guidance and support in his early years in politics and as a U.S. senator considering a run for the White House.
His “pro-Israel” advisers — mainly late pick-ups as the presidential race progressed — included no ardent Zionists to oppose the voices of his anti-Israel advisors. Instead, Obama turned to Dennis Ross and Daniel Kurtzer to advise him on the Middle East. These men, like his designated White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, have views of Israel that are indistinguishable from the positions of Israel’s post-Zionist Meretz party.
During the course of the campaign, Obama gained notoriety for his hard left promises to appease U.S. foes like Iran, largely at the expense of U.S. allies like Israel. It could have been presumed that his expressed willingness to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would have raised red flags throughout the American Jewish community.
After all, given the failure of the now five-year-old European-U.S. attempt to appease Iran into ending its nuclear weapons program, it is apparent that a direct U.S. presidential dialogue with Ahmadinejad will be perceived by Iran as a green light to complete its nuclear weapons program.
But American Jewish voters were only too happy to believe Obama’s unconvincing attenuations of his pledge to hold talks with Ahmadinejad without preconditions. American Jews were also eager to accept his unconvincing disavowals of his association with the likes of Wright, Power, Khalidi, Malley and Brzezinski.
Obama is now signaling his support for the so-called Saudi Peace Plan, first released in 2002, which calls for Israel to essentially destroy itself in exchange for its Arab neighbors establishing “normal” relations with it.
The Saudi plan calls for Israel to remove itself completely to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines and accept millions of foreign-born, hostile Arabs as full citizens as part of the so-called right of return of the descendants of Arabs who left Israel in 1948.
The fact that the Saudi initiative — even if Israel were to commit national suicide by taking such steps — limits the relations the Arabs would have with the rump bi-national state to “normal” rather than “peaceful” shows clearly that far from being a peace plan, it is a blueprint for Israel’s destruction.
In light of all of this, it is apparent that by voting for Obama, four-fifths of American Jews voted for a candidate more openly hostile to the U.S.-Israel alliance than any other major-party presidential candidate in the past generation.
One might argue that American Jews were simply unaware of Obama’s actual views on Israel. It is true, after all, that the U.S. media worked overtime throughout the campaign defending and hiding Obama’s longstanding connections to haters of the U.S.
But despite the media effort to conceal or explain away difficult truths about Obama’s character, concerned American Jewish voters had access to the facts. Any number of alternative media outlets provided a steady stream of information about Obama’s associations with Israel bashers.
More than anything else, the willingness of American Jews to believe Obama is pro-Israel shows they simply didn’t care that much. If they had cared, they would have scrutinized Obama’s alarming connections at least as carefully as they attacked Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for her anti-abortion views. They would have wondered what it means that Obama spent twenty years of his life in the pews of a deeply anti-Semitic church at least as much as they wondered about a Jews for Jesus preacher who once spoke at Palin’s church.
There are several possible and complementary explanations for American Jewry’s apparent indifference to Israel’s fate.
High assimilation rates cause many American Jews to feel more attachment to non-Jewish causes than to Jewish causes. At the same time, the watering-down of Jewish teachings in various Jewish communities and the replacement of Jewish law and traditions with amorphous and trendy concepts of “social justice and multiculturalism have engendered a basic ignorance of the exceptional significance and beauty of Judaism among a large portion of American Jews.
Then there is the leadership crisis affecting world Jewry. Weak and uninspiring Israeli leaders and weak and uninspiring American Jewish leaders have failed to assert and explain the connection between Israel’s security and the wellbeing of the American Jewish community.
Whereas until the 1980s it went without saying for most American Jews that their fortunes were directly tied to Israel’s security, today the unity of Jewish fate has been lost on ever widening circles of American Jews.
To all of this must be added the unique self-perception of American Jewry. The American Jewish community is the only community in Jewish history that refused to view itself as an exile community. Even before the American Revolution, Jewish settlers in the New World viewed America as a permanent home.
As a consequence, on a philosophical level American Jews have always held Israel and Zionism at arm’s length. They could support Israel as a refuge for persecuted Jews from other countries, but they couldn’t support Israel as the permanent and irreplaceable homeland for all Jews without revoking the foundational belief of their American Jewish identity.
Today Israel is threatened with annihilation and the U.S. Jewish community is suffering from more blatant and organized anti-Semitic attacks than it has seen in the past fifty years. But during this year’s presidential campaign, the basic truth that the security of all Jews is dependent on the security of Israel was no match for the full consequences of failed leadership, assimilation and the basic American Jewish desire to reject the singularity of Jewish destiny.
Israel’s next government will be called on to defend Israel against Iran and its Palestinian, Syrian and Lebanese proxies, And it will be called to act at a time when the U.S. is led by an Obama administration pledged to appease these forces. Israel will have to rally all of its supporters in the U.S. to its side in order to stand up for its survival.
In light of the American Jewish vote, it is an open question whether Israel will receive the help of its American Jewish brethren in its hour of need.
Caroline Glick is deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. Her Jewish Press-exclusive column appears the last week of each month. Her new book, “The Shackled Warrior: Israel and the Global Jihad,” is available at Am


The Real Messiah: Prophecies Fulfilled

The Real Messiah_


or Call: 1-800-988-7884


Please contact: