The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

Archive for February 4th, 2011

Dershowitz: Far left’s hate of Israel aided Arab dictators.

Posted by iusbvision on February 4, 2011


Alan M. Dershowitz:

Now the hard left is finally talking about torture and other undemocratic abuses in Egypt and Jordan, as well as the despotism of virtually all Arab regimes. Do you recall any campus protests against Egypt or Mubarak? Do you recall any calls for divestment and boycotts against Arab dictators? No, because there weren’t any. The hard left was too busy condemning the Middle East’s only democracy, Israel. Radical leftists and campus demonstrators, by giving a pass to the worst forms of tyranny, encouraged their perpetuation. Now, finally, they are jumping on the bandwagon of condemnation, though still not with the fury that they reserve for the one nation in the Middle East that has complete free speech, gender equality, gay rights, an open and critical press, an independent judiciary and fair and open elections.

The double standard is alive and well on the hard left, and its victims include the citizens of Arab regimes who suffer under the heal of authoritarian dictators. Even more important they include victims of genocides, such as those perpetrated in Rwanda, Darfur and Cambodia—victims who did not prick the consciences of the hard left because the perpetrators were Arabs or Communists, rather than Americans or Israelis.

The same must be said for the United Nations, which rewarded Arab despots by according them places of honor on human rights bodies that devoted all of their energies to demonizing Israel. In a recent op ed, Amnon Rubenstein, the conscious of Israel, has pointed out that the UN Human Rights Commission, to which both Egypt and Tunisia were elected, has gone out of its way to compliment both regimes. Egypt was praised for steps it has “taken in recent years as regard to human rights….” Tunisia was lauded for constructing “a legal and constitutional framework for the promotion and protection of human rights.” Israel, on the other hand, was repeatedly condemned for violating the human rights not only of Palestinians, but of its own citizens as well.

Nor do I recall Bishop Tutu urging the Cape Town Opera to boycott Egypt, Tunisia or Jordan as he urged them to boycott Israel. I do recall Jimmy Carter, who has falsely accused Israel of Apartheid, embracing some of the Arab’s worlds worst tyrants and murderers. Many who claim the mantle of human rights ignore or even embrace the worst human rights violators and direct their wrath only against the Jewish nation.

The anti-American and anti-Israel hard left is a topsy-turvy world where the worst are declared the best and the best are condemned as the worst. This topsy-turvy view has become a staple of higher education, particularly among Middle East study programs in many colleges and universities. Among many on the hard left, where the only human rights issue of concern seems to be Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, the views of convicted terrorists Marwan Barghouti are preached as gospel. This is what Barghouti, who is serving a life sentence for planning terror attacks against civilians, but who remains among the most popular Palestinian leaders, recently said about Israel: “The worst and most abominable enemy known to humanity and modern history.” It is this skewed view of modern history that runs rampant through the hard left and that gives exculpatory immunity to Arab and Muslim tyrants.

There is only one acceptable standard of international human rights: the worst must come first. Under that universal standard, any person or organization claiming the mantle of human rights must prioritize its resources. It must list human rights violators in order of the severity of the abuses and the ability of its citizens to complain about those abuses. It must then go after the worst offenders first and foremost, leaving right-left politics out of the mix. This standard must be applied by individuals, such as Bishop Tutu, by organizations, such as the United Nations, by the media and by everyone who loves human rights. Until that standard is universally applied, despotism will continue, interrupted only occasionally by revolutions such as those taking place in Tunisia and Egypt.

The irony, of course, is that in the most repressive regimes, such as Iran, revolution is well nigh impossible. Revolution is far more likely to occur is moderately despotic regimes, such as Tunisia and Egypt, where at least some basic liberties were preserved. It is the citizens of the most despotic regimes that need the most help from human rights activists. But don’t count on it because too many so-called “human rights” leaders and organizations misuse the concept of “human rights” to serve narrow political, diplomatic or ideological agendas. Unless we restore human rights to its proper role as a neutral and universal standard of human conduct, the kind of tyranny and despotism that stimulated the current protests will continue.

Posted in 2012, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Egypt, Israel | 1 Comment »

Fort Hood Shooting Final Report: Fear of Political Correctness Allowed Hasan’s Shooting Spree

Posted by iusbvision on February 4, 2011

The report is damning. This is the cost of political correctness:

The next two years were the final year of Hasan’s Walter Reed residency and the first year of his USUHS fellowship (2006-2008), and it was then that his radicalization to violent Islamist extremism came in to plain view. In the last month of his residency, he chose to fulfill an academic requirement to make a scholarly presentation of psychiatric issues by giving an off topic lecture on Violent Islamist extremism. – The presentation was a requirement for graduation from the residency, commonly referred to at Walter Reed as “Grand Rounds”. Hasan’s draft presentation consisted almost entirely of references to the Koran, without a single mention of a medical or psychiatric term. Hasan’s draft also presented extremist interpretations of the Koran as supporting grave physical harm and killing of non-Muslims. He even suggested that revenge might be a defense for the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Hasan’s superiors warned him that he needed to revise the presentation if he wanted to graduate and concluded that it was “not scientific,” “not scholarly,” and a mere “recitation of the Koran” that “might be perceived as proselytizing.

At about the same time, the Psychiatric Residency Program Director, who was one of the superiors who reviewed the draft Grand Rounds presentation, questioned whether Hasan was fit to graduate. He thought Hasan was “very lazy” and “a religious fanatic.”so Ultimately, Hasan improved the presentation sufficiently to receive credit, although a review of the PowerPoint presentation and a video of the event shows that it was still essentially a collection of Koranic verses with minimal scholarly content. According to the Program Director, a major reason that his presentation was acceptable was because standards for such presentations did not yet exist. He graduated despite the Program Director’s reservations.

The most chilling feature of both the draft and final presentation was that Hasan stated that one of the risks of having Muslim-Americans in the military was the possibility of fratricidal murder of fellow service members.

Hasan advanced to a two-year fellowship at USUHS. As a threshold matter, had established procedures been followed, he would not have been accepted into the fellowship. According to the Army Surgeon General, fellowships are typically reserved for elite medical professionals. Officers involved in the fellowship selection process recounted that Hasan was offered a fellowship because he was the only Army applicant and the Army did not want to risk losing that fellowship if it was not filled. Hasan confided to a colleague that he applied for the fellowship to avoid a combat deployment in a Muslim country; one of Hasan’s supervisors realized that he had the wrong motivation for applying and warned against accepting him.

Hasan’s radicalization became unmistakable almost immediately into the fellowship, and it became clear that Hasan embraced violent Islamist extremist ideology to such an extent that he had lost a sense of the conduct expected of a military officer. Classmates – who were military officers, some outranking Hasan – described him as having ” fixed radical beliefs about fundamentalist Islam” that he shared “at every possible opportunity” or as having irrational beliefs.

Less than a month into the fellowship, in August 2007, Hasan gave another off-topic presentation on a violent Islamist extremist subject instead of on a health care subject. This time, Hasan’s presentation was so controversial that the instructor had to stop it after just two minutes when the class erupted in protest to Hasan’s views. The presentation was entitled, Is the War on Terror a War on Islam: An Islamic Perspective? Hasan’s proposal for this presentation promoted this troubling thesis: that U.S. military operations are a war against lslam rather than based on non-religious security considerations. Hasan’s presentation accorded with the narrative of violent Islamist extremism that the West is at war with Islam. Hasan’s paper was full of empathetic and supportive recitation of other violent Islamist extremist views, including defense of Osama bin Laden, slanted historical accounts blaming the United States for problems in the Middle East, and arguments that anger at the United States is justifiable. Several colleagues who witnessed the presentation described Hasan as justifying suicide bombers. These colleagues were so alarmed and offended by what they described as his “dysfunctional ideology” and “extremist views” that they interrupted the presentation to the point where the instructor chose to stop it. The instructor who stopped the presentation said that Hasan was sweating, quite nervous, and agitated after being confronted by the class.

The Senate Report continues to describe more of this same behavior in detail and states:

In sum, Hasan engaged in the following conduct in front of or as reported to his superiors
within little more than one year:

• Making three off topic presentations on violent Islamist extremist topics instead of medical subjects.

• Giving a class presentation perceived as so supportive of violent Islamist extremist conflict against the United States that it was almost immediately stopped by an instructor after classmates erupted in opposition to Hasan’s views.

• Justifying suicide bombings in class at least twice, according to the accounts of classmates.

• Suggesting in writing in his proposals for presentations that some actions of Osama bin Laden may be justified.

• Telling several classmates that his religion took precedence over the U.S. Constitution he swore a military oath to support and defend.

• Stating three times in writing that Muslim-Americans in the military could be prone to fratricide.

Despite Hasan’s overt displays of radicalization to violent Islamist extremism, Hasan’s superiors failed to discipline him, refer him to counterintelligence officials, or seek to discharge him. One of the officers who reported Hasan to superiors opined that Hasan was permitted to remain in service because of “political correctness” and ignorance of religious practices. That officer added that he believed that concern about potential discrimination complaints stopped some individuals from challenging Hasan.


The Report goes on to say that while political correctness and fear of being hit with a “Muslim discrimination” charge were obvious motivators most of Hasan’s superiors were unwilling to say that they didn’t act because of these reasons which were obvious according to the interviews with those he worked with and the circumstances. Officers felt compelled to invent reasons that sounded justified for continually giving him glowing performance reports and recommendations for promotion.

One of the officers who reported Hasan to superiors opined that Hasan was permitted to remain in service because of “political correctness” and ignorance of religious practices. That officer added that he believed that concern about potential discrimination complaints stopped some individuals from challenging Hasan. We are concerned that exactly such worries about “political correctness” inhibited Hasan’s superiors and colleagues who were deeply troubled by his behavior from taking the actions against him that could have prevented the attack at Fort Hood.


This is where the report talks about Hasan’s rigged performance evals. Having served in the military I know that much of the time these performance reviews do not reflect the ability of the officer or NCO at all. These are often done by popularity, who was “kissing up” to the brass, if said person had powerful relatives etc. Reports are also skewed down on those who are more prone to follow the rules and whistleblowers.

When it came to this situation this is no surprise. This very writer was a part of one of the first co-ed Basic Military Training Unit’s in the USAF. The pressure to make the unit work completely overcame the fact that the unit was a disaster. I remember several female trainees who could not perform some of the basic tasks and were moved along anyways because the political pressure to make it work and the fear of being reported to “social actions” always won (There were some male trainees who couldn’t handle it and they were discharged). If you get reported to social actions you ARE guilty unless you can prove beyond all doubt that you are innocent. That is not how the system is intended to run on paper, but that is the reality.  


Hasan was a chronic poor performer during his residency and fellowship. The program directors overseeing him at Walter Reed and USUHS both ranked him in the bottom 25 percent. He was placed on probation and remediation and often failed to meet basic job expectations such as showing up for work and being available when he was the physician on call.

Yet Hasan received evaluations that flatly misstated his actual performance. Hasan was described in the evaluations as a star officer, recommended for promotion to major, whose research on violent Islamist extremism would ass ist U.S. counterterrorism efforts.

• His Officer Evaluation Report for July 2007 to June 2008 described Hasan as “among the better disaster and psychiatry fellows to have completed the MPH at the Uniformed Services University.” The report described how Hasan had “focused his efforts on illuminating the role of culture and Islamic faith within the Global War on Terrorism” and that his “work in this area has extraordinary potential to inform national policy and military strategy”. The report also sta ted, “His unique interests have captured the interest and attention of peers and mentors alike”.

• His Officer Evaluation Report for July 2008 to June 2009 gave him passing marks for all even Army Values and all 15 Leadership Attributes.90 “Islamic studies” was listed under the category of “unique skills” Hasan possessed.91 The evaluation commented on Hasan’s “keen interest in Islamic culture and faith and his shown capacity to contribute to our psychological understanding of Islamic nationalism and how it may relate to events of national security and Army interest in the Middle East and Asia”.

These evaluations bore no resemblance to the real Hasan, a barely competent psychiatrist whose radicalization toward violent Islamist extremism alarmed his colleagues and his superiors. The lone negative mark in the eval uations was the result of Hasan failing to take a physical training test. Other than that, there is not a single criticism or negative comment of Hasan in those evaluations.

Now look at why the FBI dropped the investigation of Hasan after they caught him corresponding with Al-Qaeda:

The DCIS [Defense Criminal Investigative Service] [FBI] agent believed it was relevant that Hasan had not tried to hide his identity [REDACTED] in his communications with the Suspected Terrorist, which the agent believed implied that the communications were legitimate research efforts.


They looked as Hasan’s juiced up performance reviews and concluded that his contacts with Al-Qaeda were legitimate research. If the truth was in his performance reports the DCIS would have been all over him.

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Violence | Leave a Comment »

Protesters with Former Obama Advisor Van Jones: “String Up Clarence Thomas” – “Revolution Now Like in Egypt”

Posted by iusbvision on February 4, 2011

The elite media likes to tell you that the Tea Party are hateful racists, in spite of the fact that there is no good evidence to demonstrate that. However getting people to say these types of things at almost any left of center protest is easy (especially on most any college campus where there are plenty of unhinged Marxist professors and indoctrinated students in one place). I have seen it first hand as a former counter protester myself. What are the odds of seeing this on NBC News?

This group is called “Common Cause” and do I really have to state the obvious?… Yes they get money from George Soros.

Thanks to Andrew Brietbart for the footage.

The Kicker:

Common Cause is a nonpartisan, nonprofit advocacy organization founded in 1970 by John Gardner as a vehicle for citizens to make their voices heard in the political process and to hold their elected leaders accountable to the public interest.
The IRS considers them a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity because they are “non-partisan” (non partisan my ear…), so yes indeed being tax exempt means that YOU help subsidize them.


Posted in Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Violence | Leave a Comment »

Awesome: Hungarian who fought the Soviets with Allen West on illegal immigration

Posted by iusbvision on February 4, 2011

West gives the man Obama’s answer from the SOTU and then West gives his answer. President Obama hopes that he never finds himself on the same stage as Cong. Allen West.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

OK, I’m an American, why care about Egypt?

Posted by iusbvision on February 4, 2011


Bob Schneider served on Ronald Reagan’s National Security Council. He is a recognized expert on Middle Eastern policy and a respected consultant on international business and foreign affairs. Schneider is also a humorist whose writings are popular among the politically savvy.



By Bob Schneider:

There it is on our TV sets, hour after hour, day after day, a constant barrage of information about Egypt.  Egypt: the land of the Pharos, and Pyramids, and Mummies.  So what?  Why should I care?  I have the mortgage to pay, food to put on the table, kids who are demanding on my time, Egypt, so what?  It is thousands and thousands of miles away, and means very little to me.  I’m sorry they’re having unrest, but it doesn’t affect my American life, not one iota. 

Oh Really?

To the contrary, there are some compelling reasons why we, as Americans, should be concerned about Egypt.

Our Economy  Let’s put the big one on the table first, our American pocketbooks.  How on earth is that an issue?  It boils down to two words: Suez Canal.  But wait, why is the Suez Canal important to our economy?  The price of oil at the gas pump is why.  Ships bringing crude from the Middle East, pass through the Suez Canal, on their way through Gibraltar, then to ports in the East Coast, and Gulf of Mexico.  Without the Canal open to traffic, oil will have to go all the way around Africa, then all the way up Africa to those ports, adding weeks, and weeks to the trip.  Time is money, and the crude will cost a lot more.  In fact, the U.S. benchmark West Texas Intermediate crude oil closed at $92.19 a barrel Monday, up $2.85 or 3.2% — the highest price since October 2008.  With the Canal still open, oil prices have jumped nearly 8% over all.  This has a ripple effect throughout our economy, and the Global Economy.  Higher oil prices means higher prices from everything from  food, to textiles, to housing will also rise.  It’s all interconnected: the rise in prices for consumer goods, will spell inflation.  The only way to combat inflation, is to raise interest rates.  What will higher interest rates do to an already morose economy?  It will kill any chance of recovery, keep unemployment high, and further weaken the dollar, which will make that oil, an import, even more expensive.  So our lifestyle and recovering from a horrible recession are at stake.

World Peace   This is starting to sound like a really bad George Clooney film you say?  Maybe so, but it is true.  The Muslim Brotherhood, the oldest, and one of the most extreme, radical Islamist organizations, believe in building a society which complies with Sharia, from the ground up.  They are like the Taliban, only more severe.  Think of them as Iran, only without a sense of humor.  Egypt has been our strategic ally: Mubarak has cooperated with the USA in a multitude of programs, many of which are very unpopular at home: joint military exercises, he put together the coalition in 1990 which ejected Saadam Hussein from Kuwait, and deployed thousands and thousands of combat troops against his Arab Brother.  Egypt has also been an honest broker for Peace in the Mideast, and has enjoyed friendly relations with Israel.  Of course, they have been compensated, but they were influenced by the West, and tried to live in both worlds: the Muslim emerging world, and as a Western Partner.  While many cite their cooperating with the West as Mubarak’s weak spot, leading to the current instability, that is a straw-man: corruption has led to this situation.  With World Peace affected, refer back to the Economy section above: same rules apply.  Do you think an Islamic Radical new state will keep the Canal open to Western ships?  Do you think if they try to close it, we won’t have a military response?  Wrong on both, if you think regime change will put things back the way they were.  It will not. 

So the people in the streets of Cairo, isn’t just a curiosity on TV.  They are events which affect us from Sea to Shining Sea, and all points in between.  Watch and monitor this one closely.  It does affect you and I, and our everyday lives. 

Posted in Chuck Norton, Egypt, Israel | Leave a Comment »

Marxist Left allies with Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Middle East.

Posted by iusbvision on February 4, 2011

Bloggers who speak both Arabic and English are saying that in English the Muslim Brotherhood is talking peace, love, democracy, can’t we all just get along; in Arabic they are saying prepare for violence and to unite against Israel, Arab Christians, and the West.

The left appears to have been fooled again, as this is exactly what happened in the run up to the Mullah’s taking power in Iran. The Mullah’s completely hoodwinked the Carter Administration. We know now from recent unsealing of documents from the National Archives that the Carter Administration actually helped the Mullah’s come to power. The result has been incredible levels of death and suffering.

Democrat Strategist Kirsten Powers gives her perspective at The Daily Beast (Daily Beast normally is not very reliable but once in a while they have something solid and this was). Powers has family in Egypt so her perspective has street cred and she makes it clear that the left has been fooled [again]:

I spent much of yesterday interviewing American experts on the region—including two Brookings [Brookings is a left-wing think tank – Editor] Institution scholars who are experts on the Muslim Brotherhood—and was reassured over and over that the organization has reformed and does not seek to establish a fundamentalist state. One claimed that Brotherhood officials have said they view Copts as equal citizens.

My relative laughed at this. He says when Brotherhood members have been asked about how they would treat Christians they are vague. When asked about whether they would nationalize the banks, they are vague. Even one of the Brookings scholars told me that the Brotherhood would probably segregate the sexes. This is far from a secular group.

They are vague because they are using Iran as a model. They are vague because they are using a Taqiyyah strategy. They are vague because if they had been more forward up front the United States, Israel and Mubarak’s police would have eliminated much of the Muslim Brotherhood’s leadership in advance. It seems clear now that the killings of Christians and the burning of churches in Egypt was a precursor to see if they could get away with violence without fear of retaliation guided by government sponsored intelligence.

The Muslim Brotherhood is the overseer and grand daddy of all terror organizations.

Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist whose family as been among the leadership of the Muslim brotherhood spoke out:

RIA Novosti (Russia) Reports that the Muslim Brotherhood has stated that it will end the Israeli Peace Treaty if it takes power. apparently they are getting confident enough to start putting off the false pretenses:

Egypt’s banned Muslim Brotherhood movement has unveiled its plans to scrap a peace treaty with Israel if it comes to power, a deputy leader said in an interview with NHK TV.

Rashad al-Bayoumi said the peace treaty with Israel will be abolished after a provisional government is formed by the movement and other Egypt’s opposition parties.

“After President Mubarak steps down and a provisional government is formed, there is a need to dissolve the peace treaty with Israel,” al-Bayoumi said.

Egypt was the first Arab country to officially recognize Israel and sign a peace agreement with the Israeli government in 1979. It is also a major mediator of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

So much for peace, love and can’t we all just get along…

It seems to be official. Obama is siding with the Muslim Brotherhood. The continued parallels between Obama and Carter still manage to amaze me even though it shouldn’t.

Mini-Update – Left-wing Brookings Institute: “Don’t fear Muslim Brotherhood“. Wow, either these people are the worlds biggest dupes, or the growing antisemitism of the academic left is so pronounced that it has gone just this far.

Arutz Sheva (2):

For the first time, a U.S. government supports granting a government role to an extremist Islamic organization: the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

On Monday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Egypt’s new government will have to include a “whole host of important non-secular actors.” Most prominent among these is clearly the Muslim Brotherhood – which has made Islamic world domination one of its ultimate goals. It also opposes Egypt’s 30-year-old peace treaty with Israel.

Gibbs said the Muslim Brotherhood must reject violence and recognize democratic goals for the U.S. to be comfortable with it assuming a role in the new government. This caveat does not significantly alter the new American approach, which is very different than that of the previous Administration, in which George W. Bush pushed Mubarak for democratic reforms but never publicly accepted a role for Islamists.

Today, new White House chief of staff William Daley moderated the position very slightly, saying the U.S. hopes for a “strong, stable and secular Egyptian government.” Noting that the strengthening of the Muslim Brotherhood is “some people’s expectation [and] some people’s fear,” Daley acknowledged that the situation in Egypt is largely out of American control.

Obama’s new position, while not totally surprising, is worrisome to many. “The White House appears to be leaving Hosni Mubarak, an ally for three decades and lynchpin of Mideast stability, twisting slowly in the wind,” writes David Horowitz of the Freedom Center. “And worse, it appears to be open to allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to play a key role in a ‘reformed’ Egyptian government, as long as the organization renounces violence and supports democracy. If the Obama White House really believes this is possible, it is even more hopelessly incompetent than we imagined!”


American Thinker has a good summation of what is going on. We are witnessing the collapse of the Middle East:

If Egypt should fall, it will mark the beginning of the end for what little remaining stability there is in the Middle East. Jordan is facing similar unrest, as are Algeria and Yemen. Lebanon and Tunisia fell in January. It is highly unlikely that these events are unrelated. A combination of leftist and Islamist forces provoked the protests, and we are likely looking at a ring of radical Islamic states rising up to surround Israel. Once their power is solidified, perhaps in a year or two, they will combine forces to attack Israel. If Israel falls, the United States will stand alone in a sea of virulent enemies and impotent allies.

So whom does Obama support, Mubarak or his enemies?

Obama wasted no time in telling us. He supports Mubarak’s opponents, and he probably has been all along. The Los Angeles Times reported on Sunday that the Obama administration favors a role for the Muslim Brotherhood in a new Egyptian government.

The Muslim Brotherhood, the oldest extremist Muslim organization, is behind practically every Muslim terrorist organization ever formed. And while they may have publicly renounced violence as the LA Times article claims, internal documents tell a completely different story.

And if that weren’t bad enough, Obama’s latest comment to Egypt’s leader is that “an orderly transition … must begin now.”

Must begin. Now.

Simply stunning.

Juxtapose Obama’s statements toward our allies with his reaction to the genuine uprising that occurred last year in Iran. Tunisia: “Reform or be overthrown.” Egypt: “an orderly transition … must begin now.” Iran: “It is not productive … to be seen as meddling.” Meanwhile, candidate Obama claimed that the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezb’allah have “legitimate claims,” and we all remember his mindless counterterrorism czar, John Brennan, reaching out to “moderate” Hezb’allah members last spring. Hezb’allah moderates?

The seeming inconsistency is astonishing. Unfortunately, there is a consistency. Obama uniformly sides with our enemies but rarely, if ever, with our friends and allies. His administration is packed with far-left radicals and vicious anti-Semites. And therein lies the rub, because what we are witnessing in reality is this president’s un-American, anti-American, treasonous ideology in full play.

Perhaps this is the real reason for Bill Ayers’s, Bernardine Dohrn’s, Code Pink’s Medea Benjamin’s and Evans’s trips to Egypt in 2009. Following those trips, these same people made multiple visits to the White House.

Obama’s breathlessly arrogant answer? Not the same Ayers, Dohrn, Benjamin, and Evans. Sure.

A few years back, I cited a quote by Lynn Stewart, the National Lawyers Guild attorney jailed for helping blind sheikh Omar Adel Raman foment terror from his New York jail cell. One might think that atheistic radical leftists would be foursquare against a political movement that tramples women’s rights, murders homosexuals, and enforces strict theocratic mandates. No such luck, Stewart said:

They [radical Islamic movements] are basically forces of national liberation. And I think that we, as persons who are committed to the liberation of oppressed people, should fasten on the need for self-determination. … My own sense is that, were the Islamists to be empowered, there would be movements within their own countries … to liberate.

” … movements within their own countries … to liberate.” Given recent developments, Stewart’s statement was prescient. But I think it had a special meaning. Because when movement leftists like Stewart talk about “liberation,” they are really talking about communism.

It has been my longstanding assertion that Muslim terrorism is simply a false flag operation, managed in the background by our main enemies, Russia and Red China. Almost since the beginning, Muslim terrorist organizations have been supported and nurtured by the Soviet Union or its Middle Eastern surrogates.

Yasser Arafat’s PLO is a prime example. Created by the KGB, the PLO was always about providing a Soviet counterweight to Israel in the Middle East. They were uninterested in the Palestinian cause, and they said so! Alexander Litvinenko, the KGB defector poisoned by Polonium 210 in what was assumed to be a KGB hit, claimed in his book, Allegations, that al-Qaeda’s number two man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was a Soviet agent. And while today Hezb’allah is the de facto ruler of Lebanon, the real power is Ba’athist Syria.

David Horowitz wrote of the alliance between leftists and Muslim terrorists in his seminal book: Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left. He describes in detail how the left and Muslim radicals work together to achieve their mutual ends: the destruction of America.

It is incomprehensible that President Obama does not recognize the strategic significance of what is happening, and if he does, then his support of Egypt’s sham “democracy movement” is a naked betrayal of our Middle Eastern allies and, by extension, our own country.

Unfortunately, his view is shared by some Republicans who are so in love with the idea of “democracy” that it doesn’t matter to them that the “democrats” in this case include fanatic mass murderers. At best, it can be seen only as incredibly myopic and ignorant to support Mubarak’s enemies. People make the same mistake Carter did with Iran and Nicaragua: they commit the logical error of assuming that just because a country’s current leadership is flawed and “undemocratic,” that automatically means that someone else would do better. Newsflash: they can do worse, and almost without exception, they do, because people who take power by street riot have no interest in “democracy.”

If their street revolutions are successful, these Middle Eastern countries will rapidly degenerate into radical Muslim thugocracies allied with our communist enemies. Israel will be the first target, and with Obama’s radically anti-Israel orientation, the Israelis will stand alone. We will be next. One wonders if Obama will then stand to defend the country he swore to, or if he will be out in the streets with his fellow radical leftists burning American flags.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Egypt, Israel | 1 Comment »