<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; George W. Bush</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/tag/george-w-bush/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 16:20:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>Poll Says Obama is Worst President in 70 Years</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/poll-says-obama-is-worst-president-in-70-years/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=poll-says-obama-is-worst-president-in-70-years</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/poll-says-obama-is-worst-president-in-70-years/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2014 15:02:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Point]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Quinnipiac]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=235466</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Obama has been running against Bush, but he finally managed to beat him in one election. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/bush_.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-235467" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/bush_-234x350.jpg" alt="bush_" width="234" height="350" /></a></p>
<p>Obama has been running against Bush for so long that he finally managed <a href="http://www.jammiewf.com/2014/quinnipiac-poll-obama-worst-president-since-wwii/">to beat him in one election</a>. As <a href="http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2056">the worst president </a>since WW2.</p>
<p>33 percent said that Obama was the worst president with 28 percent for George W. Bush.</p>
<p>Obama did even better among independents who listed Obama as the worst president by 36 percent to only 23 percent for Bush.</p>
<p>A majority also said that Obama was a worse president than Bush. 41 percent of independents agreed with that. Only 31 percent though that Obama was better than Bush.</p>
<p>In 2011 a majority still thought that Obama was better, but now the Hope and Change is dead.</p>
<p>45% to 38% also say that the country would have been better off today if Mitt Romney had won. 47% of independents agree while only 33% disagree.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/poll-says-obama-is-worst-president-in-70-years/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>37</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>NBC Blames Bush for Al Qaeda Takeover of Fallujah in 2014</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/nbc-blames-bush-for-al-qaeda-takeover-of-fallujah-in-2014/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=nbc-blames-bush-for-al-qaeda-takeover-of-fallujah-in-2014</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/nbc-blames-bush-for-al-qaeda-takeover-of-fallujah-in-2014/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jan 2014 15:42:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Point]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[al Qaeda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fallujah iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214821</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Apparently we're on George W. Bush's fourth term.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Williams-pointing-bush.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-214822" alt="Williams pointing bush" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Williams-pointing-bush-450x266.jpg" width="450" height="266" /></a></p>
<p>Apparently <a href="http://weaselzippers.us/?p=166920">we&#8217;re on George W. Bush&#8217;s fourth term</a>. And here I&#8217;ve been making a fool of myself criticizing some Illinois senator for messing up the country. If only<a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2014/01/07/nbc-bush-blame-security-vacuum-iraq-created-obamas-troop-withdrawal#ixzz2pjehMCWd"> NBC News had told me </a>this piece of breaking news sooner.</p>
<blockquote><p>Introducing a report on Monday’s NBC Nightly News about Al-Qaeda forces seizing control of the Iraqi city of Fallujah, anchor Brian Williams went out of his way to blame the President George W. Bush for the deteriorating security situation: “U.S. fighting forces are gone from Iraq. But as so many predicted when President Bush chose to go to war there after 9/11, the fighting has started up again.”</p></blockquote>
<p>Wait.</p>
<p>They predicted in 2002 that the United States would withdraw and that over a decade later, Al Qaeda in Iraq would take over Fallujah? That is some impressive crystal ball work.</p>
<p>But let&#8217;s be fair here, Brian Williams is a worse anchorman than most of the cast of Anchorman. He&#8217;s a walking cartoon who probably couldn&#8217;t find the entire continent on a map without a teleprompter.</p>
<p>The odds are good that Brian Williams had just snorted so much cocaine before the show that he was under the impression that it was still 2006. For all we know he thinks it&#8217;s been 2006 for the last 8 years.</p>
<p>But it&#8217;s also a firm tenet of the left that George W. Bush is to blame for everything. Especially if it involves Iraq or racism or NBC&#8217;s falling ratings.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/nbc-blames-bush-for-al-qaeda-takeover-of-fallujah-in-2014/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>41</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Barely Half of Liberals say Obama is Better at Foreign Policy than Bush</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/barely-half-of-liberals-say-obama-is-better-at-foreign-policy-than-bush/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=barely-half-of-liberals-say-obama-is-better-at-foreign-policy-than-bush</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/barely-half-of-liberals-say-obama-is-better-at-foreign-policy-than-bush/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:00:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Point]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=203753</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Among liberals, only 54% say that Obama's handling of foreign policy is better than that of Bush. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/obama-bush.jpeg-1280x960.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-203754" alt="obama-bush.jpeg-1280x960" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/obama-bush.jpeg-1280x960-450x337.jpg" width="450" height="337" /></a></p>
<p>These are not good numbers.<a href="http://weaselzippers.us/2013/09/10/poll-64-of-americans-rate-obamas-foreign-policy-as-same-or-worse-than-george-w-bushs/"> These are really as bad as numbers get</a> considering that Democrats took it as an article of faith that George W. Bush had destroyed foreign policy completely and was barely more than a gibbering chimp.</p>
<blockquote><p>As the country debates launching airstrikes on Syria, President Barack Obama’s standing on foreign policy has taken such a hit that the latest Reason-Rupe poll finds 64 percent of Americans, including 68 percent of independents and 41 percent of Democrats, believe President Obama’s handling of foreign policy is worse than, or the same as, former President George W. Bush’s handling of foreign policy.</p></blockquote>
<p>When looking directly at the Democrats column, we find that only 56% of Dems say that Obama&#8217;s foreign policy skills are better than those of George W. Bush.</p>
<blockquote><p>Would you say President Obama’s handling of foreign policy has been better or worse than former President George W. Bush’s handling of foreign policy, or are they about the same?</p></blockquote>
<p>56% of Democrats say better.</p>
<p>13% actually say worse.</p>
<p>28% say about the same.</p>
<p>Among liberals, only 54% say that Obama&#8217;s handling of foreign policy is better than that of Bush. Among progressives, it&#8217;s at 58%. 16% of progs even seem to prefer Bush&#8217;s foreign policy.</p>
<p>Looks like Obama is losing even the Dems on foreign policy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/barely-half-of-liberals-say-obama-is-better-at-foreign-policy-than-bush/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bush Approval Rating Rises 10 Points Among Democrats Since Obama Win</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/bush-approval-rating-rises-10-points-among-democrats-since-obama-win/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=bush-approval-rating-rises-10-points-among-democrats-since-obama-win</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/bush-approval-rating-rises-10-points-among-democrats-since-obama-win/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2013 17:23:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Point]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=192909</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[More Americans remember George W. Bush approvingly than negatively, according to a new survey]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/obama-bush1.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-192911" alt="obama-bush1" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/obama-bush1-450x269.jpg" width="450" height="269" /></a></p>
<p>Those ratings were pretty basement to begin with, but it does look like<a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/approve-george-w.-bushs-favorability-reaches-post-presidency-high/article/2531627?custom_click=rss"> some Democrats are rethinking how bad Bush was</a> after a term and change of Obama.</p>
<blockquote><p>More Americans remember George W. Bush approvingly than negatively, according to a new survey released with Washington mired in scandals and President Obama under fire for expanding his predecessor’s surveillance of Americans.</p>
<p>Forty-nine percent of Americans view Bush favorably while 46 percent view him negatively, Gallup reports. Democrats developing an appreciation for Bush at a faster rate than any other group, though his numbers are up among across the political spectrum.</p>
<p>“Currently, 84 percent of Republicans, 46 percent of independents, and 24 percentof Democrats have a favorable view of Bush, each up more than 10 points since 2009,” Gallup notes. “However, the more recent improvement in his ratings, a five-point overall uptick since November 2010, has been more apparent among Democrats, whose rating has increased by 10 points since then.”</p></blockquote>
<p>That gives Bush a <a href="http://weaselzippers.us/2013/06/11/poll-george-w-bushs-approval-rating-jumps-to-post-presidency-high-now-more-popular-than-obama/">better approval rating than Obama among</a> voters in general. Bush&#8217;s approval ratings among independents are striking considering that Obama&#8217;s ratings in that group <a href="http://patdollard.com/2013/06/nbcwsj-poll-obamas-approval-rating-among-independents-only-29/">was down as low as 29 percent</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/bush-approval-rating-rises-10-points-among-democrats-since-obama-win/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Even George W. Bush Doesn&#8217;t Support Gang of 8 Illegal Alien Amnesty</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/even-george-w-bush-doesnt-support-gang-of-8-illegal-alien-amnesty/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=even-george-w-bush-doesnt-support-gang-of-8-illegal-alien-amnesty</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/even-george-w-bush-doesnt-support-gang-of-8-illegal-alien-amnesty/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Jun 2013 13:31:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Point]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[amnesty for illegal aliens]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=191683</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[“The right reason is it’s important to reform a broken system. I’m not sure a right reason is that in so doing we win votes."]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/ap165536507703.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-191684" alt="George W. Bush" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/ap165536507703-450x337.jpg" width="450" height="337" /></a></p>
<p>George W. Bush is the opposite of a hardliner on illegal immigration.Republican advocates of illegal alien amnesty always bring up Bush&#8217;s wins among Latino voters and suggest that amnesty will bring th0se votes in.</p>
<p>And yet <a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/george-w.-bush-skeptical-of-current-immigration-push/article/2530854?custom_click=rss">Bush has challenged the premise of the Gang of 8</a> that adopting illegal alien amnesty will win Latino votes.</p>
<blockquote><p>Former President George W. Bush expressed skepticism of the current push for immigration reform, warning Republicans not to adopt a measure just because they hope it will help them at the polls, although he still believes that reform is necessary.</p>
<p>“I think the atmosphere, unlike when I tried it, is better, maybe for the wrong reason,” Bush told The Huffington Post’s Jon Ward. “The right reason is it’s important to reform a broken system. I’m not sure a right reason is that in so doing we win votes. I mean when you do the right thing, I think you win votes, as opposed to doing something that’s the right thing to win votes. Maybe there’s no difference there. It seems like there is to me though.”</p></blockquote>
<p>I don&#8217;t agree with Bush&#8217;s position on amnesty, but he makes a very valid point. Having mixed motives may work well for Democrats, but it doesn&#8217;t work too well for Republicans.</p>
<p>The idea that Republicans are going to get credit for an illegal alien amnesty implemented under Obama is ridiculous. Instead the GOP will be shooting itself in the foot twice, strengthening Democrats among Latino voters and increasing the number of Democratic voters.</p>
<p>The new converts to amnesty in the Republican Party don&#8217;t believe it&#8217;s the right thing to do. It&#8217;s the convenient thing to do. They think of it as a quick fix that will save them from having to do the hard work of finding real solutions to the problems of this country.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/even-george-w-bush-doesnt-support-gang-of-8-illegal-alien-amnesty/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hipster Icon Patti Smith: &#8216;We Can Live with Terrorism&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/mark-tapson/hipster-icon-patti-smith-%e2%80%9cwe-can-live-with-terrorism%e2%80%9d/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=hipster-icon-patti-smith-%25e2%2580%259cwe-can-live-with-terrorism%25e2%2580%259d</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/mark-tapson/hipster-icon-patti-smith-%e2%80%9cwe-can-live-with-terrorism%e2%80%9d/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2012 04:22:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark Tapson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[art]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mick Jagger]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patti Smith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[punk rock]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=135207</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Artist "more concerned about the death of a bee" than preventing the next 9/11.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/PattiSmithPA160911.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-135281" title="PattiSmithPA160911" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/PattiSmithPA160911.gif" alt="" width="375" height="250" /></a>In <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rockandpopfeatures/9300370/Patti-Smith-Im-more-worried-about-the-death-of-a-bee-than-I-am-about-terrorism.html">a fawning profile</a> of Patti Smith, the grande dame of bohemian pretension, an interviewer from England’s <em>Telegraph</em> raved about “all her colours, her raging but formed opinions, her uncompromising spirit, the torrent of words and art and music that have poured from her for more than 40 years.” Here is one of Smith’s raging opinions, albeit more <em>unin</em>formed than formed: “We can live with terrorism.”</p>
<p>For those who are blissfully ignorant of Patti Smith’s putative artistic genius, her creative “torrent” includes poetry, artwork, and music of negligible impact and popularity. Her sole appearance on the musical charts, for example, is 1978’s “Because the Night,” a song written by superstar Bruce Springsteen with some lyrical additions by Smith.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, her “Godmother of Punk” persona and her association with more talented figures of hipster adoration like pornographic photographer Robert Mapplethorpe and heroin-fueled novelist William Burroughs have earned her a National Book Award for Nonfiction (for her name-dropping memoir <em>Just Kids</em>), an <em>Ordre des Arts et des Lettres</em> from the French Minister of Culture<em>, </em>and a slot in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Do such awards even have any credibility anymore? Barack Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize, for Pete’s sake.</p>
<p>Fellow Hall of Famer Mick Jagger once famously said of Smith, “I think she&#8217;s so awful&#8230; She&#8217;s full of rubbish, she&#8217;s full of words and crap. I mean, she&#8217;s a poseur of the worst kind, intellectual bullshit.” And yet her aura of artsy cool has many believing that she has had a seminal cultural influence. It’s similar to the delusional reverence sometimes accorded Yoko Ono, whose notable influence on pop culture was breaking up The Beatles.</p>
<p>Asked in the<em> Telegraph</em> interview about the political scene in the States, Smith expressed a dissatisfaction with the radical Obama that is typical of far-leftists, who complain that he hasn’t been radical <em>enough</em>:</p>
<blockquote><p>I voted for Obama. I was very happy when he won. But Obama hasn’t really been able to effectively do anything that has made me… [pause] He hasn’t helped the environment. He didn’t close Guantánamo Bay. He went deeper into Afghanistan.</p></blockquote>
<p>But, Smith explains, that was all because Obama has simply continued the line peddled by “the last regime.” George W. Bush, whose impeachment Smith lobbied for, “completely embedded the idea that the most important issue in the whole world is terrorism. It’s not the most important issue in the world,” she says with what the interviewer described as “a solemn shake of her head.” Actually, when you have an avowed enemy who is literally hellbent on killing you, other issues tend to go on the backburner. But the only time progressives take terrorism seriously is when they’re accusing America of it.</p>
<p>And predictably, Smith is as much of a lemming as any anti-war progressive when it comes to <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/patti-smith-rails-against-israel-and-us-415231.html">blaming America and Israel for war crimes and atrocities</a>. Activists like Smith are not anti-war; they are anti-America. If they were truly anti-war they would protest both parties to a conflict. Wake me when Smith and her ilk start denouncing the Taliban or Hamas.</p>
<p>She expounded further on her “raging but formed opinion” about terrorism:</p>
<blockquote><p>And I’ve said this over and over, but I’ll say it a million more times — I’m concerned more about the death of a bee than I am about terrorism. Because we’re losing hives and bees by the millions because of such strong pesticides. We can live with terrorism. We can’t live without the bee.</p></blockquote>
<p>In all fairness, this isn’t <em>quite</em> as inane as it first sounds. Bees do play a very significant role in plant pollination; the bee population has apparently declined sharply in recent years, and their extinction would have a dramatic impact on the food chain (<em>how</em> dramatic is debatable, but to suggest that humanity will end – in <em>four years</em>, according to one estimate! – is typical environmentalist hysteria). Claiming that this somehow renders terrorism insignificant and harmless is dangerous nonsense, typical of the left’s denial of any threat from America’s existential enemies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/mark-tapson/hipster-icon-patti-smith-%e2%80%9cwe-can-live-with-terrorism%e2%80%9d/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>109</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Five Pearls of Wisdom for Young Leftists</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/sammy-levine/five-pearls-of-wisdom-for-young-leftists/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=five-pearls-of-wisdom-for-young-leftists</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/sammy-levine/five-pearls-of-wisdom-for-young-leftists/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 04:05:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sammy Levine]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Afternoon Edition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Che Guevara]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Liberals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=132805</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Key lessons not taught in universities. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Occupy-Wall-Street-protes-007.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-132842" title="Occupy-Wall-Street-protes-007" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Occupy-Wall-Street-protes-007.gif" alt="" width="375" height="252" /></a></strong></p>
<p>The left lives in a bubble full to the brim with self-righteousness and notions of grandeur. They see themselves as the tolerant, compassionate, intelligent ones, as opposed to those mean, greedy, stupid conservatives. In an attempt to reel these leftists back to reality, here are a few things every liberal should be reminded of:</p>
<p><strong>1.) Che Guevara is not cool</strong>. In fact, he was a sadistic mass murderer, who killed in the name of Communism—arguably the worst ideology ever to be inflicted on the human race, along with Nazism, which killed about 100 million people in the 20<sup>th</sup> century. Death and murder gave Che such a thrill that he had a stone slab removed from his office so he could personally witness the firing squads outside.</p>
<p>But, for some reason, <a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2054">Che Guevara</a> is idolized by the Left. Naive college students wear t-shirts with his face imprinted on them, and admire him for being a “man of the people.” University of California, San Diego named its student café, “Che Café.” Much of Hollywood adores him, as is evident by Steven Soderbergh’s biopic, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0892255/">“Che,”</a> starring Benicio del Toro, which portrays the Communist thug in a very pleasant light. This left-wing admiration of an anti-American, murdering Communist is repulsive.</p>
<p><strong>2.) The Left treated George W. Bush much worse than the Right is treating Obama</strong>. This is just a friendly reminder to those who think the Right is mean-spirited. Yes, of course there are many on the Right who personally hate Obama and say cruel things about him. But nothing the Right has said about Obama even compares to the hate and vitriol directed at George W. Bush for 8 years.</p>
<p>Do you remember the constant death threats against George W. Bush? Do you remember the signs that read: “Hang Bush For War Crimes,” “Bush Is the Disease, Death Is the Cure,”  “Bush Is the Only Dope Worth Shooting” and “Death to Extremist Christian Terrorist Pig-Bush” (for more of the &#8220;tolerant&#8221; Left, <a href="http://www.binscorner.com/pages/d/death-threats-against-bush-at-protests-i.html">click here</a>). Do you remember those who burned Bush in effigy? Now, do you recall the signs at Tea Parties calling for Obama’s death? Didn’t think so.</p>
<p>Imagine what would happen if one person at a Tea Party rally carried a sign like those above about Obama. What would happen if a person at a Tea Party burned President Obama in effigy? Every single major newspaper in America would run a front-page story about it, condemning the Tea Party, and by extension the Republicans, for condoning incitement and racism. The Democrats would hold hearings on Capitol Hill about the fomenting of hate and violence by the Right. The double standard and hypocrisy of the left is laughable.</p>
<p><strong>3.) Conservatives give more money to charity than liberals. </strong>Sorry to burst your bubble, my young, idealistic, liberal friends, but it&#8217;s true. And it’s not because conservatives have more money than liberal, because they don’t.</p>
<p>Check out these statistics from a <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html">Syracuse University study</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>Although liberal families&#8217; incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).</p>
<p>&#8211; Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.</p>
<p>&#8211; Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.</p>
<p>&#8211; Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.</p>
<p>&#8211; In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.</p></blockquote>
<p>This discredits the argument that “conservatives are greedy, rich people who don’t care about the poor,” doesn’t it?</p>
<p>The reason conservatives get labeled as uncaring and greedy is because they do not think that an ever-expanding government is the best way to help the needy. Therefore, conservatives are against tax hikes, spending increases and other measures that grant the government more power. This principle of limiting the size of government should not be confused with greed and apathy for the poor, as the statistics above definitively prove.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/sammy-levine/five-pearls-of-wisdom-for-young-leftists/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama the Out-of-Touch Elitist</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/larry-elder/obama-the-out-of-touch-elitist/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obama-the-out-of-touch-elitist</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/larry-elder/obama-the-out-of-touch-elitist/#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 2011 04:05:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Larry Elder]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Afternoon Edition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mitt romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Out-of-Touch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Rich]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=116112</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why the president is hardly a "man of the people." ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/image.gif"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-116114" title="image" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/image.gif" alt="" width="375" height="251" /></a></p>
<p>The next best thing to calling a Republican &#8220;racist,&#8221; &#8220;sexist,&#8221; &#8220;homophobic,&#8221; or &#8220;Uncle Tom&#8221; (where appropriate) is to call him &#8220;out of touch.&#8221;</p>
<p>Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is the latest wealthy Republican to be called &#8220;out of touch.&#8221; The proof? Why, he offered to bet rival Texas Gov. Rick Perry. The amount offered was — gasp — $10,000! This, of course, makes him another born-on-third-base-and-thought-he-hit-a-triple Republican. The Democratic National Committee pounced and immediately put out a video: &#8220;Mitt Romney: Simply Out of Touch — Ten Thousand Times Over.&#8221;</p>
<p>But which &#8220;elite, out-of-touch politician&#8221; considers a $172,200 annual salary &#8220;relatively modest&#8221; — Republican presidential hopeful Romney or President Barack Obama? Answer: Obama.</p>
<p>Whose $300K-per-year hospital-executive wife traveled to working-class Zanesville, Ohio, and complained about the high cost of her daughters&#8217; summer camp, piano and dance lessons? Answer: Obama&#8217;s.</p>
<p>The then-U.S. senator was making $170K. The 2005-2009 median income in Zanesville: $28,854, almost $13,000 less than the national median.</p>
<p>Romney fits this role perfectly. Son of a former American Motors CEO and Michigan governor, Romney made a bundle buying and selling businesses. Pretty blond wife. Pretty kids. Every hair in place. What&#8217;s not to hate?</p>
<p>Never mind that there are more multimillionaire Democrat senators than multimillionaire Republican senators. Never mind that the average contribution to the DNC is larger than the average contribution to the RNC.</p>
<p>If not enough anecdotes exist to paint a Republican as a condescending patrician, why, just make something up. The New York Times wrote a phony story to slap the &#8220;elitist&#8221; label on former President George Herbert Walker Bush. At a grocers convention, Bush was intrigued by a device that could read torn bar code labels. Only one pool reporter was present, from a Texas paper, and he filed an unremarkable two-paragraph report on Bush&#8217;s tour at the convention.</p>
<p>The New York Times, however, ran a front-page story headlined, &#8220;Bush Encounters the Supermarket, Amazed.&#8221; The Times falsely wrote that the allegedly clueless out-of-touch Bush was surprised by an ordinary checkout scanner.</p>
<p>Reacting to the Bush-didn&#8217;t-know-a-scanner assertion, a systems analyst for the National Grocers Association who showed Bush the scanner said: &#8220;The whole thing is ludicrous. What he was amazed about was the ability of the scanner to take that torn label and reassemble it.&#8221; Nevertheless, Bush&#8217;s image as a rich, out-of-touch patrician hurt.</p>
<p>Obama, on the other hand, is a &#8220;man of the people.&#8221;</p>
<p>But Obama has long enjoyed a very un-Joe Sixpack-like life.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/larry-elder/obama-the-out-of-touch-elitist/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Good Progressive War</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/dgreenfield/a-good-progressive-war/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=a-good-progressive-war</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/dgreenfield/a-good-progressive-war/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2011 04:22:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq War]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Libya]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Muammar al-Qadaffi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saddam Hussein]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=110733</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What opponents of the Iraq war think a good war looks like.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Colonel-Gaddafi.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-110735" title="Colonel-Gaddafi" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Colonel-Gaddafi.jpg" alt="" width="420" height="280" /></a></p>
<p>Finally after ten years of bitter debates over when the United States is allowed to go to war, what a legitimate war is and how much intelligence, indignation and international approval is required before we go to war, the Obama administration has hand delivered the progressive definition of what a good liberal war is. If we can just analyze and break down the elements of what a good liberal war is, then we can be sure to have the support of the left in any future military campaign.</p>
<p>Bad War: A bad war is fought in response to an attack on the United States, the mass murder of American civilians, an attempted assassination of an American president and attacks on American aircraft.</p>
<p>Good War: A good war is fought on behalf of Islamic interests to the detriment of American interests.</p>
<p>Bad War: A bad war is initiated by the United States which gathers a coalition in support of its course of action.</p>
<p>Good War: A good war is initiated by France which eventually convinces the United States to go along because there&#8217;s an election coming up and it&#8217;s a chance for its failed leader to look tough.</p>
<p>Bad War: A bad war is a unilateral action fought by a coalition of 48 countries without United Nations approval.</p>
<p>Good War: A good war is a multilateral action fought by 16 countries under a fraudulent United Nations mandate that called for a cease fire and a no-fly zone, not the overthrow of a regime.</p>
<p>Bad War: A bad war is fought with bipartisan congressional support (at least until new elections approach).</p>
<p>Good War: A good war is fought while ignoring Congress and daring it to do anything to stop the invasion.</p>
<p>Bad War: A bad war is announced and explained to the American people in a presidential address before it happens.</p>
<p>Good War: A good war is announced and explained to the American people in a presidential address nine days after it has begun&#8230; that dares them to do anything to stop it.</p>
<p>Bad War: A bad war is fought with the support of 62 percent of the American people.</p>
<p>Good War: A good war is fought with the support of <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/polls-show-american-public-not-sold-libya-intervention-20110318-072002-793.html">26 percent </a>of the American people.</p>
<p>Bad War: A bad war is fought against a murderous tyrant who failed to comply with UN disarmament resolutions.</p>
<p>Good War: A good war is fought against a less murderous tyrant who voluntarily disarmed and gave up his weapon stockpiles.</p>
<p>Bad War: A bad war is fought against a tyrant who was responsible for murdering close to a quarter of a million people in brutal campaigns of ethnic cleansing and with the use of chemical weapons.</p>
<p>Good War: A good war is fought against a tyrant who might have killed some civilians if we hadn&#8217;t intervened.</p>
<p>Bad War: &#8220;Iraq&#8217;s weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States&#8221; (George Walker Bush, Oct 2002).</p>
<p>Good War: &#8220;In this particular country -– Libya  &#8212; at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale&#8230;  A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya’s borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful –- yet fragile -– transitions in Egypt and Tunisia&#8221; (Barack Hussein Obama, Mar 2011).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/dgreenfield/a-good-progressive-war/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>49</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Left&#8217;s Reaction to Obama&#8217;s Iraq Surrender: Triumphalism and Hate</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/rick-moran/lefts-reaction-to-iraq-withdrawal-triumphalism-and-hate/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=lefts-reaction-to-iraq-withdrawal-triumphalism-and-hate</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/rick-moran/lefts-reaction-to-iraq-withdrawal-triumphalism-and-hate/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 2011 04:25:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rick Moran]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Salon.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Troop Withdrawal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=110341</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Progressives' fondest wish comes true. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/troops.gif"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-110407" title="troops" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/troops.gif" alt="" width="375" height="252" /></a></p>
<p>Reaction on the Left to President Obama&#8217;s announcement that the remaining 40,000 troops in Iraq would be coming home at the end of the year &#8212; with no residual force to counter the Iranian threat &#8212; has not been surprising. With a mixture of <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/23/us-withdrawal-iraq-defeat-bush-neocons">triumphalism</a> and <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/10/22-3">hate,</a> leftists are celebrating their victory; not over al-Qaeda or the achievement of democracy in a totalitarian prison state, but over their domestic political enemies, while still advocating the <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/10/22-3">prosecution</a> of &#8220;criminals&#8221; who led the battle to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein.</p>
<p>Despite the fact that George W. Bush has been out of office for nearly three years, there are many on the Left who can&#8217;t shake their feelings of loathing and hate for the man who led the nation for 8 years, and who took us to war in Iraq. Bush Derangement Syndrome is alive and well among leftists and it colors their analysis and criticism of the Iraq War to this day.</p>
<p>Perhaps most remarkable of all is the surety with which the Left has <a href="http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/good-riddance-woebegone-war-6068">pronounced history&#8217;s judgment</a> on the war as a universal failure, a blunder, a waste. History doesn&#8217;t give out grades before the results are in. And Iraq, as it has been since the beginning, is a work in progress. That progress has been slow at times, but a foundation for democratization has been built in a sea of Islamist totalitarianism. Although not perfect, what we have today is nascent democracy where before there was only mass oppression and killing. For the US, Iraq today serves as a vital strategic asset for America in the Middle East &#8212; all now to be given away by Obama to Iran. And the Left applauds.</p>
<p>It is impossible for anyone today to see how the Iraqi experiment will play out over the next few years. Yes, some of the immediate results are not good, even if we had been able to keep a small force garrisoned for a few years. But to believe that this can&#8217;t change is to ignore the underlying historical forces that the liberation of Iraq has unleashed. Indeed, dismissing the idea that a struggling democracy on Tehran&#8217;s borders doesn&#8217;t constitute a threat to the mullahs&#8217; total control is to ignore Iran&#8217;s own actions in seeking to destroy the Iraqi government in its cradle. The Saudis, too, were worried enough about contagion from Iraq to spend billions of dollars building a fence to keep the disease out. The Iraqi experiment, consequently, serves as a threat to Islamist totalitarianism in the region and, therefore, serves the interests of America and freedom.</p>
<p>But leftists are not interested in these humanistic endeavors or American achievements &#8212; which explains their celebration of Obama&#8217;s surrender in Iraq. Successful democracy in Iraq would have meant the discrediting of the Left&#8217;s ferocious opposition to the entire operation. In celebrating America&#8217;s willing defeat in Iraq, therefore, the Left is cheering the defeat of democracy and security in the fragile, developing country, which makes the progressives&#8217; triumphalism and hate all the more disturbing and hypocritical.</p>
<p>This perversity could not have been more adequately expressed as when radical leftist <a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1334">Tom Hayden</a> gleefully wrote in <a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/164087/after-nearly-nine-years-war-and-occupation-america-withdraw-all-troops-iraq">The Nation</a> that the Iraq decision was a &#8220;stunning&#8230;victory for the American peace movement.&#8221; Not a victory for Iraq, but for Hayden and his allies. Hayden doesn&#8217;t exhibit the slightest concern for a fledgling democracy in need of support to preserve the precious gains it has already made; he shrugs off the reality that the country has been &#8220;delivered&#8230; to the orbit&#8221; of the fanatical, despotic mullahcracy next door. And this is a person who purports to care about human rights.</p>
<p>In &#8220;Good Riddance to a Woebegone War,&#8221; Paul Pillar, writing at <a href="http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/good-riddance-woebegone-war-6068"><em>The National Interest, </em></a>encapsulates the view that history is so judgmental that it renders its verdict with blinders on; he refuses to acknowledge an unknowable future:</p>
<blockquote><p>The return of the last combat troops from Iraq will be a good time to reflect on the nature and broader consequences of what future historians will regard as one of the biggest blunders in U.S. history. That reflection can consider how a small number of determined advocates of war were able to use the post-9/11 political milieu and scary themes about dictators giving weapons to terrorists to get enough people to go along with their idea. The reflection also can consider the full range of costs and damage to U.S. interests, from the more than four thousand Americans dead and tens of thousands wounded, to the trillions of dollars of direct and indirect fiscal and economic losses, to the tarring of America&#8217;s standing abroad and the boost the war gave to America&#8217;s extremist enemies.</p></blockquote>
<p>Much of what Pillar writes is simply untrue. In the first place, it is not clear at all that our &#8220;standing abroad&#8221; could have gotten much worse than it was before the invasion. Whether we are loved or hated, despite notions of &#8220;soft power&#8221; to the contrary, the world can&#8217;t ignore us and must deal with us as we are, or as we choose to be.</p>
<p>The assumption that history&#8217;s judgment, flowing from the immediate past to the immediate future, is set in stone and unchangeable is disingenuous. The last Iraqi election saw a secular, nationalistic party, the Iraqi National Movement, out-poll the coalition of religious parties led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. A party not even in existence for a year had gained two more seats in the Iraqi parliament than Maliki&#8217;s coalition, a political power in Iraq since 2004. This was a huge success. Would a future Iraqi government made up of secular parties be able to resist Iranian influence and work to heal the nation&#8217;s sectarian divide? Perhaps the better question is: Does Pillar honestly believe that this objective could be better achieved if Iraq is left to twist in the wind?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/rick-moran/lefts-reaction-to-iraq-withdrawal-triumphalism-and-hate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>63</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Another Phony “Veteran”</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/rich-trzupek/another-phony-%e2%80%9cveteran%e2%80%9d/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=another-phony-%25e2%2580%259cveteran%25e2%2580%259d</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/rich-trzupek/another-phony-%e2%80%9cveteran%e2%80%9d/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2010 04:04:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rich Trzupek]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[benefit of the doubt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[boy scout troop]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[candidate richard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case point]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congressman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[connecticut senate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[constituent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[doesn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[having a bad day]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Illinois]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ken Moffett]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal definitions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legitimate inquiries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[letter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liberal democrat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Moline]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mr. Hare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[name]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Phil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Phil Hare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[richard blumenthal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scout]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[veteran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vietnam]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=62314</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Illinois’ Phil Hare is the latest Democratic candidate to embellish his military service record.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/HarePhil070508.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-medium wp-image-62318" title="HarePhil070508" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/HarePhil070508-300x202.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="202" /></a></p>
<p>There’s nothing quite so arrogant as an arrogant liberal occupying a position of power. Connecticut senate candidate Richard Blumenthal’s non-apologetic apology over his false claims to have served in Vietnam was a case point. Last week, another liberal Democrat, Illinois congressman <a href="http://hare.house.gov/">Phil Hare</a> (D -17) was in the news again, this time for <a href="http://biggovernment.com/bmccarty/2010/06/05/congressman-phil-hare-fails-with-vets-and-threats/#more-129074">allegedly threatening a constituent</a> who called the congressman out over his fatuous claims of being a veteran.</p>
<p>You may remember Phil Hare. He was filmed telling a constituent that he <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2iiirr5KI8">doesn’t worry about the Constitution</a>. It was a stupid thing to say, but I’m inclined to give Hare the benefit of the doubt regarding the Constitution. In the context the question he was being asked – where in the Constitution does it say that Americans have the right to health care? – he probably meant that he felt that the healthcare bill would survive a constitutional challenge, rather than thumbing his nose at that hallowed document itself. Not that many a Democrat doesn’t <em>think</em> in the latter terms, but they surely know better than to express such an opinion.</p>
<p>What was more troubling in that video was the sneering arrogance that seemed to seethe through congressman Hare’s very pores. Hare sounded more like a feudal lord putting an annoying peasant in his rightful place for daring to question his master’s wisdom than he did an elected representative addressing the legitimate inquiries of an obviously upset and concerned constituent. But, perhaps Phil Hare was just having a bad day? It seems not. The latest accusations leveled against the congressman are enough to make one question not just his qualifications to serve in the United States Congress, but whether he would be fit to lead a Boy Scout troop.</p>
<p>Hare has repeatedly called himself a “veteran.” In fact, he joined the reserves during the Vietnam era and was never called to active service. By most legal definitions of the word, and most importantly to most real veterans themselves, a former reservist is not entitled to call himself a veteran. When a former reservist uses their honored word, real veterans get touchy, and understandably so. If such a deception doesn’t qualify as a case of full-blown stolen honor, it’s certainly matter of taking out an extended, zero-interest loan against the honor of those men and women who earned the title.</p>
<p>Ken Moffett, a constituent of Hare’s from Moline, Illinois and an actual veteran, asked the congressman to stop describing himself using the term to which – in Moffett’s and many a veteran’s view – Hare is not entitled. The congressman’s reaction was so offensive that Moffett was moved to <a href="http://bobmccarty.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Phil-Hare-Intimidates-Veteran.pdf">pen a letter to Blake Chisam</a>, committee staff director and chief counsel of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (Ethics). The following excerpt from that letter, dated June 2, 2010, describes what Moffett says happened during his encounter with Hare:</p>
<blockquote><p>“After I pointed out that according to the law he is not a veteran, he became very upset and demanded to know my name. I refused to tell him my name, saying that this was about his claim of being a veteran and not about me.</p>
<p>Mr. Hare then told one of his aides who was with him, to follow me to my car and get my license plate number so he could find out who I was. I have since been told that Mr. Hare’s daughter works for the DMV.</p>
<p>I then asked Mr. Hare if he was going to stop telling people that he was a veteran. Mr. Hare again demanded to know my name, and again told his aide to get my name or to follow me to get me license number so he could find out who I was, so he could tell the former reservists what I said.</p>
<p>I asked Mr. Hare if he as a public official was going to use his official office to run name checks on private citizens, in order to intimidate them into not asking questions he did not want to answer.</p>
<p>As Mr. Hare was turning to walk away from me he paused, and turning back to my direction, he glared at me intently, and while leaning forward pointed his finger at me, and in a threatening and intimidating manner said, “I’ll find out who you are!”</p></blockquote>
<p>Aside from tossing in the obligatory “and your little dog too!” Hare sounds a lot more like the Wicked Witch of the West than a reasoned and sober representative of the people according to Moffett’s account. The arrogance and veiled threats that Moffett describes in his letter are consistent with the persona Hare revealed in the “what, me worry about the Constitution?” video.</p>
<p>Will there be outrage over these allegations? Will there be a full-blown investigation to find out if Phil Hare has threatened to misuse, or has actually misused, his power to intimidate voters? There ought to be, on all counts. “I’ll find out who you are!” sounds a hell of a lot more scary than all of the rights that we supposedly lost when George W. Bush flushed the Constitution down the toilet so the NSA could snoop around in search of terrorist e-mails.</p>
<p>When it comes to the media and progressives, the “good intentions test” (good intentions, being of course defined solely by them) is the only thing that matters. I suspect Phil Hare, like Jesse Jackson and so many others before him, will get a free pass. Whether Illinois voters will let him off the hook so easily remains to be seen.</p>
<p><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/rich-trzupek/another-phony-%e2%80%9cveteran%e2%80%9d/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>40</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Disasters and Double Standards</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/andrew-cline/disasters-and-double-standards/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=disasters-and-double-standards</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/andrew-cline/disasters-and-double-standards/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jun 2010 04:26:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew Cline]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Andrew Cline]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arizona]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barbara Boxer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cbs news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coast]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[didn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Getty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[getty oil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gordon Getty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gulf]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gulf Coast]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[heir]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[helicopter tour]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[home]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[horizon oil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Katrina]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Los Angeles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mark Knoller]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[minerals management service]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Orleans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new orleans after hurricane katrina]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OIL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oil leaks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Orleans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Press]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[San Francisco]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secretary Janet Napolitano]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the Gulf]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Minerals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[week]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[york times reports]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=61788</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Where’s the media outrage over Obama's mismanagement of the Gulf Coast crisis?]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/gallery-obamabpspill1.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-medium wp-image-61790" title="gallery-obamabpspill1" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/gallery-obamabpspill1-300x216.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="216" /></a></p>
<p>Remember the big stories in the national media when George W. Bush waited four days to tour New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina hit? Here’s a pop quiz: How long did it take President Obama to visit the Gulf coast after the Deepwater Horizon oil leak began?</p>
<p>The answer is 13 days. Here is how The <em>Washington Post</em> described that visit:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;He flew in and out of New Orleans on May 2, drove two hours to a Coast Guard station and got a briefing before taking a quick helicopter tour. He did not even see the oil slick.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Mark Knoller of CBS News reported last week that in the first 39 days after each respective catastrophe, Obama visited the Gulf coast twice; Bush visited New Orleans seven times. But remember, this is not Obama’s Katrina!</p>
<p>Now imagine if President Bush, five weeks into one of the largest oil leaks in U.S. history, and without ever having seen the slick, jetted across the country to headline a $17,600 per-person fund-raiser at the home of an oil-fortune heir. How do you think the national press would have treated that? Bush didn’t do that, which is why you didn’t hear about it. President Obama did — which is why you didn’t hear about it.</p>
<p>The media covered Obama’s trip to San   Francisco to raise money for Barbara Boxer. Some news outlets even reported that Obama spoke at a private reception at the home of Democratic Party donor Gordon Getty. But few reported that Getty is the heir to the Getty Oil fortune. For instance, the <em>New York Times</em> reports on Obama’s trip never identified Getty as an oil heir. Do you think that would have been omitted had Bush been Getty’s guest?</p>
<p>What if, hours after the head of the U.S. Minerals Management Service left her job over Washington’s mishandling of that giant oil spill, President Bush held a press conference (his first in months) and, when asked about that agency head, could not say whether she had resigned or been fired? What if, hours later, the White House stated that the President knew all along that she had been dismissed, but that story was contradicted by the Cabinet secretary — the one who supposedly did the dismissing — having said that morning during a congressional hearing that she’d resigned voluntarily?</p>
<p>That happened in the Obama administration last week. Where are the outraged cries of incompetence and dishonesty?</p>
<p>Can you imagine the charges of buffoonery that would pour forth from New York, Washington, and Los Angeles, if the George W. Bush administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a state law that had been signed into law by one of Bush’s own cabinet secretaries?</p>
<p>Well, last week the Obama administration did exactly that. The Department of Justice asked the court to overturn a 2007 Arizona immigration law that punishes employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano signed the bill into law when she was Arizona governor.</p>
<p>All of these events were reported in the mainstream media. But they were not reported in the same way they would have been had a Republican been president. The point of this criticism is not to say that Bush was great and Obama stinks. Bush was not a great president. The point is to illustrate the double standard most of the media have.</p>
<p>Media bias exhibits itself in the subtle favoring of liberal politicians and ideas. The same rules don’t apply to the left and the right. The left is presumed to have good intentions, the right bad. So when Bush took four days to get to New Orleans after Katrina hit, it was evidence of racism, elitism, a general lack of concern for the little people. But when it took Obama three times as long to visit the Gulf Coast, there was silence.</p>
<p>When a left-wing administration makes mistakes or contradicts itself, that is simply human nature. When a right-of-center administration does, it is incompetence or duplicity. Or both.</p>
<p>At least some on the left are calling out Obama for his inattentiveness to the Gulf oil spill. That’s no substitute for the press setting the national narrative by holding him to the same standards to which it held Bush. But it’s a start.</p>
<p><em>Andrew Cline is editorial page editor of the New Hampshire Union Leader. Follow him on twitter @Drewhampshire.</em></p>
<p><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/andrew-cline/disasters-and-double-standards/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>74</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The New Way to Fight Terror</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/matt-gurney/the-new-way-to-fight-terror-2/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-new-way-to-fight-terror-2</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/matt-gurney/the-new-way-to-fight-terror-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jun 2010 04:09:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matt Gurney]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Africa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cannot]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[command]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[david petraeus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General David Petraeus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General Petraeus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[human intelligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intelligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intelligence agencies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intelligence operatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iranian regime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[memo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[military strikes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[order]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Robert Gates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[September]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[special forces operations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[terrorist cells]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Yemen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[York]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=61720</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[America's new intelligence strategy to disrupt terrorist cells and training operations.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/sf-beard-hires.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-medium wp-image-61724" title="sf-beard-hires" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/sf-beard-hires-300x198.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="198" /></a></p>
<p>Last September, General David Petraeus, Commander in Chief of the Central Command, signed a seven-page memo authorizing an increase in American special forces operations across his command. Under the order, which was <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/world/25military.html?hp">reported</a> by the <em>New York Times</em> last week, American special forces would be able to deploy to countries throughout CENTCOM’s area of responsibility (the Middle East and Africa) to “gather intelligence and build ties with local forces.” They would also gather intelligence “that could pave the way for possible military strikes in Iran.” Notably, the order applies to all countries within the region. Many are at least officially friendly to the United   States, but some, notably Syria and the afore-mentioned Iranian regime, are decidedly unfriendly.</p>
<p>The <em>New York Times</em> report makes for fascinating reading and certainly sounds portentous. But it is important to understand exactly what such an order means (to the extent it is possible to understand a classified document that has not been seen by the general public). General Petraeus has not authorized any attacks or disruptive operations by American forces, he lacks the authority to do so; any major operations would require Washington’s approval. But he has made it possible for American military personnel to function as intelligence operatives, infiltrating countries both hostile and friendly, to assess conditions on the ground and work, perhaps in conjunction with local friendly forces, to disrupt terrorist cells and training operations.</p>
<p>These efforts will provide the United   States with valuable human intelligence in areas where the CIA and other intelligence agencies lack significant resources, and will provide details that even the most advanced satellite or drone cannot possibly detect. While deploying American troops secretly into any country will always carry risks, General Petraeus will not be freelancing any unsanctioned invasions, despite some of <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/25/opinion/main6517976.shtml" target="_blank">alarmed reaction</a> the memo has generated.</p>
<p>These assignments will be dangerous, both for the personnel involved and for the United   States politically, but they should still be applauded. Nine years of warfare in Afghanistan, and now seven years in Iraq, have shown how difficult it is to wage war against diffuse terrorist cells linked only by their ideology, with heavy weapons and mass formations of troops designed to do battle with the Cold War-era Soviet  Union. It took a long time after the shocking attacks of September 11<sup>th</sup> for the American military, as powerful as it is, to adjust to the new kind of war, waged not by billion-dollar battalions, but the courage and ingenuity of small units.</p>
<p>Given the current weaknesses in the American economy, such a shift away from the massive deployments of the last ten years was inevitable. America cannot afford to keep fighting <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100502/ap_on_re_us/us_times_square_car_smoke" target="_blank">attempted car bombers</a> with columns of tanks. Once American forces have left Iraq, and after Afghanistan is stable enough to leave (<a href="http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=3063490" target="_blank">if ever</a>), future battles in the war against Islamist extremism will be waged by these clandestine warriors. By infiltrating extremist hotbeds, they will make possible the same kind of targeted killings of enemy leaders that have of late proven so successful in Pakistan and Yemen.</p>
<p>They will not be enough to defeat militant Islamism, but if kept up at a steady pace, will serve to keep it off balance and offer local governments the chance to develop functional, stable societies of the sort less likely to export fanatical suicide bombers to the West. For that reason, this plan — what we know of it — should be commended. It offers the prospects of tangible benefits to the United   States for relatively little risk.</p>
<p>But the risk is real, not just for the soldiers whose lives will be in danger (though we of course must keep them in our thoughts) but due to the temptation to become overly reliant upon these elite teams at the expense of other, more traditional elements of American military strength. Given the enormous financial pressure the United   States finds itself under, and given the tendency thus far of the current White House Administration and Congress to favor social spending, cutbacks to some elements of American military readiness are inevitable. Until America’s fiscal house can be put back in order, that is simply the bleak reality.</p>
<p>But the cuts made today to save money tomorrow will have an enormous impact for decades to come. Ballistic missile defense, as originally envisioned by the administration of George W. Bush, has already been scrapped, and the orders for advanced navy destroyers and F-22 stealth fighters have been slashed. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently got into a <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6460AN20100507" target="_blank">public spat</a> with the Navy over whether or not the United States truly needed 11 aircraft carriers when the rest of the world combined does not have that many. Such debates will undoubtedly become more common in the years ahead, and military leaders and politicians alike must avoid cutting American capabilities too deep on the false assumption that special forces teams can pick up the slack.</p>
<p>To an extent, they can — but only to that extent. Indeed, it is worth noting that the original report on the expanded role for these teams was quite clear that one of their missions is reconnaissance in preparation for a possible American attack against the Iranian nuclear program. That example perfectly illustrates the proper balancing of unconventional special forces and old fashioned heavy firepower. After all, once American special units conducted such preliminary survey missions, it would fall to the Navy and Air Force to blast their way into Iran, destroy their targets, and then deal with the inevitably violent Iranian response.</p>
<p>There is a role for special forces teams in future wars and low-level conflicts, and General Petraeus and the Obama Administration are to be praised for recognizing that. But the best efforts of those brave Americans deployed far from home will be wasted if the United   States does not maintain the striking power to make use of their hard-won information and chooses instead of cut the military too deep to reduce deficits or free up funds for social programs of dubious value.</p>
<p><em>Matt Gurney is an editor at the </em>National Post<em>, a Canadian national newspaper, and writes and speaks on military and geopolitical issues. He can be reached at <a href="mailto:matt@mattgurney.ca" target="_blank">matt@mattgurney.ca</a>. </em></p>
<p><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/matt-gurney/the-new-way-to-fight-terror-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Luck Is Not A Strategy</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/rich-trzupek/luck-is-not-a-strategy/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=luck-is-not-a-strategy</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/rich-trzupek/luck-is-not-a-strategy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 May 2010 04:09:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rich Trzupek]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aftermath]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[american soil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Attorney General Eric Holder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bunker mentality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[courtesies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enemy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enemy combatants]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Eric Holder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[example]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Faisal Shahzad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[isolated incidents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[James Earl Carter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jihad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joe Liebermann]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Miranda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[miranda rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mr. Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nazi spies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Times Square]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[way]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[world war ii]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=59851</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[America’s safety depends on the proposition that Islamic terrorists will prove more incompetent than the Obama administration.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Barack-Obama-082107.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-medium wp-image-59853" title="Barack-Obama-082107" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Barack-Obama-082107-300x225.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="225" /></a></p>
<p>There’s no better way to summarize president Obama’s approach to fighting the war against jihad than this: For the next three years, we’re betting our safety on the proposition that Islamic thugs and terrorists will prove to be more incompetent than the Obama administration. In the aftermath of the Times  Square bombing attempt, is there another way to consider it? How many “isolated incidents” have to pile up before the president wakes up to the fact that there’s a pattern, one that just might have something to do with a particular fundamentalist religious outlook, and that the politically correct bunker mentality is not going to cut it?</p>
<p>Reluctantly, Attorney General Eric Holder has conceded that it might be a good idea to adjust, not totally eliminate mind you, the law with regards to reading <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/09/holder-calls-review-miranda-rights-law-suggests-possible-changes/">a terror suspect their Miranda rights</a>, provided that it can be done within constitutional bounds, of course. Holder’s tepid foray into the waters of treating enemy combatants like enemies was prompted by the increasing volume of criticism showered on the administration for advising Christmas bomber <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1239543/The-fanatic-invited-jihad-cleric-address-British-students.html">Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab</a> and Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad that they have the right to remain silent. Holder assures us that both Abdulmutallab and Shahzad talked anyway, and perhaps they have, but are we really supposed to believe that investigators got as much out of them as they would have had not these enemy combatants been treated to the courtesies of our legal system?</p>
<p>The idea that we should extend constitutional protections to enemy combatants, particularly when that enemy is not in uniform, is a concept that would have perplexed any other American president in history, with the possible exception of James Earl Carter. The famous example of FDR <a href="http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq114-1.htm">summarily executing six Nazi spies</a> found on American soil during World War II is but one case that illustrates the way our commanders-in-chief have always dealt with spies and saboteurs – until now.</p>
<p>But then few past presidents would approve of the “cower behind the walls” strategy of fighting this war that Obama has adopted. In the aftermath of Times  Square, with three enemy infiltrations onto American soil in the space of six months, Senate Homeland Security chair <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/09/lieberman-the-system-failed-with-times-square-bomber/">Joe Liebermann observed</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>“We were lucky. We did not prevent the attempted attack. It’s hard to stop them every time, but that has to be our goal. … So I’d say in terms of prevention, the system failed.”</p></blockquote>
<p>We <em>were</em> lucky. We will have to continue to be lucky, because when you choose to go on the defensive, luck is the only thing that keeps a shell from landing in the wrong place at the wrong time and these particular shells have two legs and access to a bag of tricks. The history of warfare shows that in the battle between artillery and fortifications, artillery always wins, eventually. You build a castle and somebody is going to invent a trebuchet big enough to batter down your walls. Build a fort and somebody’s going to come along with a bigger cannon. The Obama administration is counting on the massive security apparatus of the United States to create the modern-day equivalent of the Maginot line around the borders of America, manned by an army of bureaucrats.</p>
<p>It’s not going to work. It’s never worked. Philosophically, Bush made it clear that he would target the enemy where he lies, for as long as it took to win. On the other hand, Obama makes it increasingly obvious that he longs to disengage from the enemy, thus providing them a host of targets over here, for as long as “isolated incidents” continue to occur.</p>
<p>In a tough, cynical world, ruthless leaders can smell weakness and this president reeks of it. During the 2008 campaign, when conservatives were critical of Obama’s offer to sit down with our enemies, a re-occurring example of the kind of hopeful change we could expect in a post-American world, liberals roundly accused them of war-mongering. In fact, there’s no mongering involved, there’s just war, right on our doorstep.</p>
<p>There’s no better example of the scorn with which angry, murderous jihadists view this president than the words of the man whom Obama really wanted to sit down with and have a chat and whom has thus become the sterling symbol of Obama’s global naiveté. Speaking to thousands of his countrymen with respect to Obama’s feeble attempts to curb Iran’s nuclear program, <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2010/04/07/2010-04-07_iranian_president_mahmoud_ahmadinejad_mocks_obamas_cowboy_nuclear_plan.html">Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>“Mr. Obama, you are a newcomer to politics. Wait until your sweat dries and get some experience…. American officials bigger than you, more bullying than you, couldn’t do a damn thing, let alone you.”</p></blockquote>
<p>George W. Bush may have been the devil to Ahmadinejad and his ilk, but one would be foolish indeed not to fear the devil. To the Iranian president and his partners in waging jihad, Obama is no more than an ineffectual, unimportant, low-grade, mildly demonic imp, far down on the west’s satanic organizational chart. For them, Obama is annoying at times, sure – but not really anything to worry about.</p>
<p>If nothing changes about the way this administration fights the jihadists, consider the following scenario. In 2012 America elects a new, tough-on-terror president, in part because everyone recognizes how ineffective Obama has been as commander in chief. Ahmadinejad, seeing the writing on the wall – that his nuclear ambitions will go up in smoke courtesy of the Israeli Defense Force once the new, pro-Israel guy is sworn in and having put together a couple of nuclear tipped missiles under the UN’s noses – decides that it’s use it or lose it time.</p>
<p>Far-fetched? Sure, especially when you know that Israel has the capability to retaliate in force. But impossible? Mixing religious fanatics with weak, appeasing leadership in the west makes for a very dangerous stew. Based on his performance as a war-time leader so far, it’s going to take a significant tragedy before this president decides to fight.</p>
<p><em> </em></p>
<p><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/rich-trzupek/luck-is-not-a-strategy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Remembering the Cold Warriors</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/rich-trzupek/remembering-the-cold-warriors/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=remembering-the-cold-warriors</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/rich-trzupek/remembering-the-cold-warriors/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Apr 2010 04:39:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rich Trzupek]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[baby boomers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Berlin Wall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cold]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[crazy cowboy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[daily basis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hollywood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Indochina]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[joe lieberman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[korea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[missile]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear armageddon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear reduction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Orion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political prospects]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[quite some time]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reduction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[republican members]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TIME]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tom Hanks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Treaty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Viet Nam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warriors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[way]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=58328</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Will the unsung heroes who guarded against the communist threat ever get their due?]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/American-Soviet-Flag.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-58333" title="American Soviet Flag" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/American-Soviet-Flag.jpg" alt="" width="409" height="343" /></a></p>
<p>Both the public and policy makers will be debating the wisdom of the nuclear reduction treaty that president Obama recently concluded with Russia for quite some time, as well they should. The stakes don’t get much bigger. Joe Lieberman said that the treaty <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/11/lieberman-nuclear-deal-ob_n_533204.html">won’t make it through the Senate</a> unless there are significant modifications to the pact. That seems the probable result, especially if the Senate voting on the treaty includes, as seems likely, more Republican members.</p>
<p>I’m not up to speed enough on the merits and risks of this deal to comment on it. But, whenever nuclear reduction is on the table, I suspect that I’m not the only baby-boomer to recall a time when the ominous specter of nuclear war loomed just over the horizon, not as a somewhat unsettling possibility, but – in our then-young imaginations – a likely probability. For many young people today, the threat of terrorism, if they worry about it at all, is something that involves a couple of wars half a world away, and that threat probably wouldn’t exist at all if George W. Bush weren’t such an <a href="http://www.uswarcrimes.com/">arrogant, imperialist cowboy</a>. Could they even imagine a childhood that featured – not terrorism – but actual terror on a daily basis; the terror that a Soviet missile would streak over the horizon at any moment?  You learned to “<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0K_LZDXp0I">duck and cover</a>” at elementary school. Everybody knew where the nearest fall-out shelter was. If your dad drove you down the right road, you might get a glimpse of the nearby Nike defensive missile site as he grimly explained its purpose.</p>
<p>The nuclear Armageddon that everyone expected never happened, even after the guy that the Democrats assured us was a <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/02/books-reagans-secret-war/">crazy cowboy from California</a>, certain to turn the world into a smoldering ruin, was first elected president in 1980. (Democrats using crazed hyperbole to advance their political prospects – who could have seen that coming?) A big part of the reason that we baby-boomers never had to run to the fall-out shelter or cower beneath our desks was the professionalism, vigilance and courage of the cold-warriors who stared down the Soviet  Union over the course of five decades. Will the Cold Warriors <a href="http://coldwarriors.net/">ever get their due</a>? For it’s certain that, but for their tireless dedication to the defense of this nation we wouldn’t even be in a position to talk to our somewhat subdued, but by no means emasculated, Cold War opponent about further reducing nuclear weapons.</p>
<p>It’s easy to overlook the Cold Warriors. In the forty-four years of the Cold War, the United States was engaged in two major “hot wars” with Soviet proxies – in Korea and Viet Nam – and numerous skirmishes in lesser theaters. We recognize, and justifiably so, the valor of the soldiers, marines, sailors and aviators who put themselves in harm’s way when bullets were flying. Yet, the Cold Warriors charged with keeping the peace were no less important to America than the grim soldiers slogging through rice paddies in Indochina.</p>
<p>The Cold Warriors’ mission demanded two diametrically opposed skills. On the one hand, they had to demonstrate unparalleled proficiency, such that the Soviets always knew that they were facing an opponent who was as least as good as they were, if not a fair bit better, at the art of waging war. On the other hand, while they might flaunt their proficiency, that demonstration could not be allowed to turn into outright confrontation. It was a very fine line and all of the Cold Warriors were expected to know exactly where it was drawn. The Cold War was a game of chicken on a global scale, with the greatest possible stakes on the table, and our troops played the game better than anyone could have ever imagined.</p>
<p>The Cold Warriors paid a price in blood as well. A friend who flew in <a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/p-3.htm">P-3 Orions</a> chasing Soviet subs during the Cold War ruefully observed that daily losses of life among military personnel during the Cold War often exceeded monthly losses in today’s Iraq War. He wasn’t being disrespectful or ungrateful to the boots on the ground risking their lives in Iraq, rather he was plaintively observing that the nature of the Cold War meant that those killed fighting it were, by necessity, generally invisible to the public’s eye. Cold Warriors killed while doing their job were, the vast majority of the time, officially lost “in training accidents” rather than in combat. It had to be that way. If an Orion pilot dumped his aircraft pursuing a Soviet missile boat as part of a war that did not officially exist, how could the crew be honored for giving their lives in combat? That’s not a criticism of the way the United States government treated such situations, but – twenty one years after the fall of the Berlin Wall – perhaps it is an admission that is’s time to publically acknowledge the bravery, heroism and dedication of the Cold Warriors.</p>
<p>Hollywood heavyweight Tom Hanks has dedicated a great deal of time, money and effort towards telling <a href="http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1969606,00.html">the personal stories of the men</a> who fought and won World War II. For that, he is to be commended. But, most of us are well aware of the heroism and patriotism of our fathers and grandfathers that fought in that war. The inspiring stories of the Cold Warriors are, for the most part, still sadly untold. How about it Tom? Let’s give this generation of heroes their due, before they are too old to appreciate it. They sure as hell deserve it.</p>
<p><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/rich-trzupek/remembering-the-cold-warriors/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>42</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Legacy of a Judicial Activist</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/john-perazzo/legacy-of-a-judicial-activist/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=legacy-of-a-judicial-activist</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/john-perazzo/legacy-of-a-judicial-activist/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Apr 2010 04:12:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[John Perazzo]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ahmed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Al]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[al gore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anthony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arizona]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chicago]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[city]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Davis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decision]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dissent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[edmond]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Florida]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Geneva]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guantanamo Bay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hamdan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Illinois]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Indianapolis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[john paul stevens]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Anthony Kennedy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[justice john paul]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Stevens]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justices Souter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Miranda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[path of least resistance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[plaintiff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political agendas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president gerald ford]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President. In]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[private property rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public scrutiny]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Salim Ahmed Hamdan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stevens]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Thomas Sowell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=58359</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[John Paul Stevens prepares to retire after 35 years on the Supreme Court.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="color: #0000ee; text-decoration: underline;"><br />
</span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/john-perazzo/legacy-of-a-judicial-activist/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tom Campbell: Tool of the Muslim Brotherhood?</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/ryan-mauro/tom-campbell-tool-of-the-muslim-brotherhood/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=tom-campbell-tool-of-the-muslim-brotherhood</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/ryan-mauro/tom-campbell-tool-of-the-muslim-brotherhood/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Apr 2010 04:20:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ryan Mauro]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Al-Amoudi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Al-Marayati]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bethlehem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brotherhood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brotherhood member]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Campbell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Christian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[congressman tom campbell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Council]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Eugene]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[executive decision]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foundation-]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[group]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Holy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[islamic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[islamic society of north america]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Zogby]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Khan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kurt Russel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[land]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michigan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Muslim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[muslim brotherhood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[muslim students association]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Norquist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Palestine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[palestinian islamic jihad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Sperry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rep. Janice Schakowsky]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[republican senate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[saeed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sami]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sami Al-Arian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Steve Martin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sudan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[suhail khan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[youssef nada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=57809</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What you haven’t heard about the troubling record of the Republican Senate candidate in California.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/20100222__tomcampbell1.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-57811" title="20100222__tomcampbell~1" alt="" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/20100222__tomcampbell1.jpg" width="400" height="274" /></a></p>
<p>Republican Senate candidate in California Tom Campbell is the frontrunner in the nomination fight and his ties to radical Muslims, specifically Sami al-Arian, have become an issue, but the story is bigger. Campbell has surrounded himself with people tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, who recruited him for their political agenda in a campaign that ultimately reached the Bush White House.</p>
<p>In November 2001, a Brotherhood document <a href="http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=4476">called</a> “The Project” from 1982 was found by Swiss police raiding the home of Youssef Nada, a Brotherhood leader thought to be financing terrorism. It detailed a sophisticated plan to incrementally bring Sharia Law to the world, including deep political influence operations in the democratic institutions of the West. The Muslim Brotherhood has been diligently following this plan ever since.</p>
<p>The story of the infiltration of the Republican Party should start with Sami al-Arian, a former University of South Florida professor now convicted of being a leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and admitted Muslim Brotherhood member. In 1997, his brother-in-law, Mazen al-Najjar, was held without bail based on classified <a href="http://www.investigativeproject.org/758/telling-half-the-story">evidence</a> connecting him to terrorism after he appealed his deportation. Al-Arian began using his political connections to try to free his brother-in-law, arguing that his civil liberties were being violated. This effort ultimately failed, and al-Najjar was deported in 2002.</p>
<p>One of al-Arian’s political allies was Suhail Khan, the Director of Policy and Press Secretary of Congressman Tom Campbell of California. Campbell introduced <a href="http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2000/campbell.html">legislation</a> to ban the use of secret evidence in immigration court, which would free al-Najjar. This was not merely a consequence of Campbell’s legislation, it was the intent. Campbell wrote a letter defending the man and visited him in jail in May 2000.</p>
<p>Khan’s father <a href="http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=63">served</a> as vice president of the Muslim Students Association and was in the leadership of the Islamic Society of North America, two Brotherhood-created groups. The mosque his father founded was later visited  after he moved by Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, the “Blind Sheikh” involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, where he preached violent jihad. In 1983, his father founded the Muslim Community Association, which was used by the Egyptian Islamic Jihad to fundraise twice, including one appearance by Ayman al-Zawahiri. His mother served on the board of the mosque and was also on the board of the California branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, whose founders are now known to be secret members of the Brotherhood’s “Palestine Committee.”</p>
<p>Khan himself regularly speaks at events put together by Brotherhood-connected groups. Frank Gaffney, a former Assistant Secretary of Defense and current President of the Center for Security Policy, told me last week that an FBI Special Agent involved in counter-terrorism confirmed to him that Khan is a member of the Brotherhood. On November 6, 2009, Rachel Maddow <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9wkD6ecS_Q">interviewed</a> Khan about the Fort Hood shootings and asked about the criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. He responded by saying that it was “even more sad to see that there might be some who would use and exploit this strategy for their political partisan and worse, for their racist ends.”</p>
<p>Grover Norquist, a prominent conservative activist who had very close ties to the Bush campaign and White House, is central to this <a href="http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=15084">story.</a> He founded the Islamic Free Market Institute in 1998 with tens of thousands of dollars from Abdulrahman Alamoudi, who later professed his support for Hamas and Hezbollah and was found to be a top Brotherhood leader in the U.S. involved in massive terrorism fundraising operations. Money also <a href="http://www.sptimes.com/2003/03/11/Floridian/Friends_in_high_place.shtml">came from</a> the International Institute of Islamic Thought, a Brotherhood front, and The Safa Trust, whose offices were raided in 2002 as part of a terrorism investigation.</p>
<p>Alamoudi’s top aide, Khalid Saffuri, became the executive-director of Norquist’s group. Saffuri later became the National Advisor on Arab and Muslim Affairs for Bush’s presidential campaign in 2000. He would go on to help build relations between the Bush team and Sami al-Arian and later oppose the shutting down of the Holy Land Foundation.</p>
<p>Norquist’s ties to the high-profile groups of the Muslim-American community, a prime target for the GOP’s social conservative message, made him a valuable asset in the eyes of the Bush campaign and White House. John Zogby <a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/561786/posts">described</a> Norquist in November 2001 as being “central to the White House outreach” by acting as an “interlocutor.”</p>
<p>These ties become more understandable when it is understood that a devout Muslim married Norquist, something a follower of Islam would never do unless her spouse converted. When Paul Sperry <a href="http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/04/is-grover-norquist-an-islamist">asked</a> him if he had converted to Islam, Norquist would only say that it was“personal.” In 2008, Norquist <a href="http://thehill.com/capital-living/in-the-know/20559-watch-out-angelina-norquist-adopts-from-abroad">adopted</a> a baby from the now-Palestinian city of Bethlehem. By no means does being a Muslim convert mean you are an extremist, but it is a factor in explaining what could cause Norquist to seek out relationships like these.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.investigativeproject.org/">The Investigative Project on Terrorism</a> provided me with several documents showing how Campbell and Khan were active in the political agenda of these groups. The October 1996 newsletter from the American Muslim Council included an interview with Campbell, where he expressed his anger at the “gross stereotyping and dehumanization of Muslims and Arabs” in movies like <em>Executive Decision</em> and <em>Father of the Bride II.</em> He said that he wrote letters to Kurt Russel, Steve Martin, and Eugene Levy asking them to be more responsible in the future.</p>
<p>In the interview, Campbell also boasted of his role in trying to get “inflammatory language” removed from a House resolution. The “inflammatory” language was “in several Islamic countries conversion to Christianity from Islam is a crime punishable by death” and “Sudan is waging a jihad (religious war) against the Christian southern part of the country.” Khan spoke at a Council on American-Islamic Relations conference in August 1997 where he again boasted of Campbell’s effort, saying that the resolution was offensive to Muslims and should instead condemn all religious persecution.</p>
<p><em>The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs</em>’ issue from July/August 1999 reported on the American Muslim Council’s annual convention. It says that Khan and Campbell spoke for the group, with Khan focusing on the ban on the use of secret evidence in immigration court. Campbell, speaking alongside Rep. Janice Schakowsky who condemned Israel’s “ethnic cleansing,” said “We [Congress] have to recognize that there are people in Palestine who have the right to their own land.”</p>
<p>The event also included a talk from Mazen al-Najjar’s daughter, crying for her father’s freedom, and the presentation of an award to The Holy Land Foundation. The director of the group said, “Although the Holy Land Foundation is a non-profit organization, we profit the lives of many Palestinians.” Apparently those Palestinians they profited were members of Hamas, as the charity was later found guilty of financing the terrorist group.</p>
<p>When Campbell ran for Senate in 2000, Sami al-Arian and figures from other Brotherhood affiliates like the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, and the Islamic Society of North America donated to his campaign and spoke at his fundraisers as he courted Muslim votes.</p>
<p>Sami Al-Arian donated to his campaign, as did Abdulrahman Alamoudi. On May 24, 2000, Alamoudi was interviewed by an Islamic website that asked him how to “decrease the influence of the zionist (sic) lobby on presidential candidates.” He <a href="http://www.investigativeproject.org/1874/from-radical-islamist-ally-to-superhawk">responded</a> by calling on Muslims to help elect favorable candidates, specifically mentioning Campbell as a “tested friend.”</p>
<p>When Alamoudi publicly <a href="http://spectator.org/blog/2010/02/27/campbell-defended-muslim-donor">declared</a> his support for Hamas and Hezbollah, Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush returned his donations. Campbell did not. He defended Alamoudi, saying he had not advocated violence. Also donating to his campaign was Nihad Awad, the current executive-director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a group now labeled as an unindicted co-conspirator in the terrorism financing trial of The Holy Land Foundation.</p>
<p>Awad, a Brotherhood member, was recorded by the FBI participating in a secret <a href="http://www.investigativeproject.org/282/cair-executive-director-placed-at-hamas-meeting">meeting</a> of Hamas and Brotherhood supporters in 1993 where he emphasized the need to moderate their language in order to advance their political agenda. The first executive-director of CAIR’s Michigan chapter, Muthanna al-Hanooti, donated $2,000 to Campbell. He was later found guilty of being a spy for Iraqi intelligence, who apparently appreciated Campbell’s criticism of U.S. sanctions on their country.</p>
<p>Another donor was Agha Saeed from the American Muslim Alliance, a group that later opposed the Bush Administration’s shutting down of The Holy Land Foundation for financing Hamas. Saeed spoke in support of the “armed resistance” of the Palestinians, prompting Hillary Clinton to return his donation. Like the case of Alamoudi, Campbell did not return his donation and was not turned off by his pro-jihad rhetoric. The votes and confidence of his Brotherhood friends were too important. Saeed’s group put together a conference in October 2001 where Campbell was given a “lifetime achievement” award. In 2000, Saeed’s group actually held a <a href="http://spectator.org/blog/2010/02/26/one-month-after-911-campbell-h">fundraiser</a> for Campbell, bringing in $35,000 for him.</p>
<p>In September 2000, Campbell was on a panel at the Islamic Society of North America’s annual conference about how Muslims could mobilize to support the ban on using secret evidence in immigration court. Joining him on that panel was Agha Saeed; Salam Al-Marayati of the Muslim Public Affairs Council; Nihad Awad; and Najir Khaja from Al-Amoudi’s American-Muslim Council. In other words, his Brotherhood political allies.</p>
<p>After Bush’s election victory, these various individuals saw their power increase. Suhail Khan began working in the Office of Public Liaison and then as Assistant to the Secretary for Policy at the Transportation Department. Norquist has <a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/561786/posts">said</a> that he used his influence in the White House to get Khan the position. David L. Norquist, Grover’s brother, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_L._Norquist">became</a> the Bush Administration’s Chief Financial Officer at the Department of Homeland Security in 2006.</p>
<p>President of the Center for Security Policy Frank Gaffney <a href="http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=15084">writes</a> that a memo prepared by Khan in early 2001 shows that Norquist’s Islamic Free Market Institute “provided the White House with a list of Muslim invitees, with the name, date of birth and Social Security number of each.” In 2003, Mary Jacoby of <em>The St. Petersburg Times</em> <a href="http://www.sptimes.com/2003/03/11/Floridian/Friends_in_high_place.shtml">wrote</a> that “For a time, the point person at the White House arranging the Muslim groups’ access was Suhail Khan, a former director of the Islamic Institute.”</p>
<p>The success of this effort to gain influence inside the White House was clearly seen following the attacks of September 11, 2001. Ironically, on that very day, these various Muslim leaders and groups who won White House access via Khan were set to meet with President Bush to discuss his pledged support of a ban on using secret evidence in immigration court, a position he likely came to because of the influence of the Brotherhood team. Sami Al-Arian was supposed to call into the meeting. When the attacks prevented the meeting, they met up in Norquist’s conference room, which he shared with Frank Gaffney.</p>
<p>On September 26, President Bush understandably wanted to make clear that the war on terror was not a war on Islam or all Muslims, so he appeared with 15 Muslim-American leaders who condemned the vague term of terrorism. Included were the leaders of the American-Muslim Council, Muslim Public Affairs Council, and the Islamic Society of North America. Government agencies, officials and candidates built strong relations with groups such as these in the aftermath of the attacks, hoping to win the support of the Muslim communities through them. In reality, these groups used such connections to try to influence the government, gain prestige, and actually <a href="http://www.investigativeproject.org/632/cair-portrays-war-on-terrorism-as-malicious-war-on-islam">undermined</a> support for the government’s counter-extremism efforts, such as by painting the war on terror as a war on Islam—the precise image the government was trying not to create by working with these groups.</p>
<p>Campbell continued to be a friend to these Brotherhood leaders after 9/11. In 2002, he wrote a <a href="http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/359.pdf">letter</a> defending Sami Al-Arian, who was under pressure from his school for reports tying him to extremism. Campbell now says that he was unaware of al-Arian’s terrorist activity, but by this time, al-Arian had publicly <a href="http://www.investigativeproject.org/1834/the-letter-dogging-tom-campbell">supported</a> jihad and made anti-Semitic and anti-American statements. A report by The Investigative Project on Terrorism stated, “If he didn’t know it then, it wasn’t because the information wasn’t available. Campbell either never sought it out or simply ignored it.”</p>
<p>Campbell does have a <a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/tom-campbells-problematic-ties-to-radical-muslims/2/">record</a> of supporting Israel as a congressman, but that hasn’t stopped him from endorsing virulently anti-Israel activists, such as Alison Weir of <a href="http://www.ifamericansknew.org/">If Americans Knew</a> (not to be confused with the British historian and author <a href="http://alisonweir.org.uk/">Alison Weir</a>). The organization’s website proudly shows off his endorsement of her. Campbell says that his praise came from one speech of hers, and the relationship did not continue. He did not say what that speech consisted of. According to Weir, it was a talk she gave in the spring of 2001 where she talked of the brutality and oppression of the Israeli military in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. “One of the first on his feet [to applaud her] was Tom Campbell,” she <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/weir03052010.html">says.</a></p>
<p>The cast of characters and organizations who penetrated the White House and Bush campaign are the same ones who counted on Campbell as a close ally, supporting him politically and financially. Campbell is not a proponent of Sharia Law, but those involved with the Brotherhood saw him as an official they could influence and use. Eager to win Muslim support, politicians such as Campbell are tempted to follow the advice of advisors like those suggested by Norquist. Based on his record, it is disturbing to think who Campbell will surround himself with should he become the next Republican Senator from California.</p>
<p><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/ryan-mauro/tom-campbell-tool-of-the-muslim-brotherhood/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>32</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Getting Gas Wrong</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/rich-trzupek/getting-gas-wrong/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=getting-gas-wrong</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/rich-trzupek/getting-gas-wrong/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 2010 04:04:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rich Trzupek]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cost of natural gas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[environmental initiative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EPA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[form]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hydraulic fracturing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[natural gas prices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[natural gas wells]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OIL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[path of least resistance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[piece of the puzzle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rock]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sand]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sand particles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[seasonal variations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[true technique]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[water]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=57690</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How an Obama administration environmental initiative could cut gas production, slash jobs, and raise energy prices.  
]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/f_01.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-57693" title="f_01" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/f_01.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="300" /></a></p>
<p>In an economy full of problems there are still a few high points. One of them, as you may have noticed if you pay attention to your utility bills, is that natural gas prices are relatively low. Back in mid-2008, natural gas prices hit record highs. The market reacted as it is supposed to: exploration took off, production increased and now, almost two years later, the cost of <a href="http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n3035us3m.htm">natural gas has stabilized</a> at a comfortable level, amid normal seasonal variations. We shouldn’t have to worry about this sector of the economy, but there is a dark cloud looming on the horizon in the form of yet another environmental initiative that the Obama administration is pushing forward, one that has the potential to cut domestic natural gas production, cost us jobs and revenue and force energy prices upward.</p>
<p>There is quite a bit of natural gas and oil trapped in shale and rock formations located thousands of feet underground. The tried and true technique of “hydraulic fracturing” has been used for about sixty years to coax these hydrocarbons to deep wells, where they can be recovered. In simple terms, hydraulic fracturing fluids are pumped down into a deep well under pressure. The fluid consists mostly of water and sand, with a small amount of other chemicals. As the pressurized fluid is distributed along a horizontal plane, it creates micro-fractures in the rock holding the natural gas. The sand particles hold these fractures open, allowing gas to flow along the path of least resistance up into the borehole of the well.</p>
<p>There are more than a million natural gas wells that utilize hydraulic fracturing in the United States. About ninety-five per cent of natural gas wells in the country use this form, or an analogous form, of reservoir enhancement to recover energy. The process is an important – some would say vital – piece of the puzzle if the nation is going to maintain some degree of energy independence. However, the technology caught the attention of Barack Obama’s EPA, which <a href="http://blogs.chron.com/newswatchenergy/archives/2010/03/epa_confirms_pl.html">recently confirmed</a> that it is “<a href="http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw000/uic/wells_hydrofrac.html">studying the issue</a>”. When uttered by members of this administration those three words generally sound rather ominous and this is no exception. “Studying the issue,” whatever the issue, typically means more regulations, more restrictions and higher costs. When it comes to a part of our economy as vital as the energy sector, one has to wonder: how many more studies and subsequent “recommendations” can we afford?</p>
<p>Why is the EPA studying hydraulic fracturing? For environmental reasons of course. Scattered, unconfirmed and wholly anecdotal claims that hydraulic fracturing has contaminated drinking water in a few locations across the nation spurred the EPA into action. From a scientific point of view, it’s hard to understand why the EPA would lend any credibility to these tales, much less allocate $1.9 million dollars to take another look at a technology that has been studied to death, not only by the oil and natural gas industries, but by the EPA itself. A 2004 EPA study concluded that hydraulic fracturing didn’t present any threat to human health and the environment, but of course that was George W. Bush’s EPA, so any of its decisions are subject to a Barack Obama do over.</p>
<p>There are a number of reasons why it’s just plain silly to spend almost two million dollars to reconfirm what we already know. Chemically, as noted above, hydraulic fracturing fluid is overwhelmingly water and sand (or ceramic, or some other inert solid used to keep rock pores open). Other chemicals, which are often proprietary, represent a very small fraction of the whole. Geologically, the formations holding the gas and oil are located thousands of feed underground, under layers of different strata, while drinking water aquifers are typically no more than a few hundred feet below ground. The natural gas recovered, like the fracturing fluid, will naturally follow the path of least resistance and flow to the bore hole that’s been drilled for that purpose, rather than try to find a tortuous path through all of the layers of rock and sediment containing it. Plus, consider this: even as the EPA looks at ways to restrict an important means of producing energy, they’re simultaneously developing regulations that encourage another segment of the power industry to inject chemicals deep underground without the kind of relief valve that a bore hole represents. Carbon storage and sequestration is the leading, EPA approved way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. In this case, carbon dioxide is injected deep underground at high pressures, but because there is no well to relieve the pressure, it’s free to find fractures that will carry it, and any contaminants from the stack gas that remain, into aquifers.</p>
<p>The Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC) of EPA’s <a href="http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabpeople.nsf/WebCommittees/BOARD">Science Advisory Board</a> is in charge of studying hydraulic fracturing. The <a href="http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabpeople.nsf/WebCommitteesSubcommittees/Environmental%20Engineering%20Committee">EEC has sixteen members</a>, fourteen of which are academics and two of which are consultants. Not a single industry expert sits on the committee. The energy industry will be free to comment on the committee’s work of course, but is Obama’s EPA likely to pay serious attention to experts who represent evil corporate interests?</p>
<p>According to a <a href="http://api-ep.api.org/Newsroom/hf-rules-usecon.cfm">study conducted by IHS Global Insight</a>, a ban on hydraulic fracturing would cost the United States $374 billion in lost Gross Domestic Product by 2014, would result in the loss of about 3 million jobs and would require a sixty per cent increase in imported oil and natural gas to make up the difference. Placing restrictions on the fluids that can be used for hydraulic fracturing would be slightly less painful, but painful enough. In that scenario, IHS’s study foresees a $172 billion reduction in GDP, 1.4 million jobs lost and a thirty per cent increase in energy imports.</p>
<p>It should be noted that hydraulic fracturing is already regulated on the state and federal levels. Studying the practice once again will lead to one of two results. Either the EPA will conclude that existing regulatory protections are sufficient, which doesn’t seem likely given this administration’s record when it comes to environmental issues, or the EPA will deem it necessary to pile another layer of crippling regulations onto an industry that has been one of the few bright spots in a floundering economy.</p>
<p><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /></p>
<p><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /><input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/rich-trzupek/getting-gas-wrong/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Against ObamaCare?</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/larry-elder/against-obamacare/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=against-obamacare</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/larry-elder/against-obamacare/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Apr 2010 04:00:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Larry Elder]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Adolf Eichmann]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[al gore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bennie]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bernie Madoff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bonnie]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clyde]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[communist propaganda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[communist regimes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Duke]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Davis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democratic national chairman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrats and republicans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dick Cheney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digital brownshirts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dr. J]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dr. Oz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dr. Seuss]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ed Schultz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ga.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gary Coleman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George Soros]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[grim reaper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[harriet tubman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Harry Belafonte]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hatred]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Heinrich Himmler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Helen Thomas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Howard Dean]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intolerance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ivan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jack]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jack Bauer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jeffrey Dahmer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joseph Goebbels]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Katie Couric]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Katrina]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lady]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lady gaga]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[martin luther king]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mass]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Miss Piggy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mr. T]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.Y.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Orleans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nobel laureate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obamacare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Bill Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Racism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rep. Barney Frank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rep. Charlie Rangel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rep. Jim McDermott]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rep. John Lewis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rev. Jesse Jackson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rev. Pat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Robertson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sen. Claire McCaskill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sen. Hillary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sen. Joe Lieberman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supporter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[T. Washington]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Teresa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wash.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=56882</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you are, then you're a fascist racist hater.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/oabamcare..jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-56884" title="oabamcare." src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/oabamcare..jpg" alt="" width="375" height="382" /></a></p>
<p>Differences of opinion and ideology, passionately held, drive the opposition against ObamaCare.</p>
<p>Yet to shut down the effort to overturn ObamaCare&#8217;s unpopular assault on freedom and prosperity, the left resorts to a frequently employed tactic. They and their media co-conspirators find whack jobs holding stupid signs — or saying or doing stupid things — and say, &#8220;See! Right-wing intolerance, hatred and racism fuel this movement.&#8221;</p>
<p>Idiots, wing nuts and haters exist — on both sides of the political spectrum — in a country of 300 million people. Those who threaten and engage in violence should be arrested and prosecuted. Those who use incendiary language should be denounced.</p>
<p>But which &#8220;hater&#8221; said the following, and where was the condemnation?</p>
<p>&#8220;The (George W.) Bush administration and the Nazi and Communist regimes all engaged in the politics of fear. &#8230; Indeed, the Bush administration has been able to improve on the techniques used by the Nazi and Communist propaganda machines.&#8221; Was it a) Miss Piggy, b) Lady Gaga, c) the Dog Whisperer, or d) George Soros, billionaire Democratic supporter?</p>
<p>&#8220;(George W. Bush&#8217;s) executive branch has made it a practice to try and control and intimidate news organizations, from PBS to CBS to Newsweek. &#8230; And every day, they unleash squadrons of digital brownshirts to harass and hector any journalist who is critical of the President.&#8221; a) Dan Rather, b) Katie Couric, c) Helen Thomas, d) Al Gore, Nobel laureate.</p>
<p>&#8220;(Republicans are) coming for our children. They&#8217;re coming for the poor. They&#8217;re coming for the sick, the elderly and the disabled.&#8221; a) Mother Teresa, b) the Grim Reaper, c) Jack Bauer, d) Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga.</p>
<p>The contest between Democrats and Republicans is &#8220;a struggle of good and evil. And we&#8217;re the good.&#8221; a) Wolverine, b) Spider-Man, c) RoboCop, d) Howard Dean, then-Democratic national chairman.</p>
<p>When asked whether the number and prominence of blacks in the Bush administration suggested a lack of racism, he said, &#8220;Hitler had a lot of Jews high up in the hierarchy of the Third Reich.&#8221; a) Adolf Eichmann, b) Joseph Goebbels, c) Heinrich Himmler, d) Harry Belafonte, entertainer and liberal activist.</p>
<p>He called President Bush&#8217;s perceived lack of help for Katrina victims &#8220;ethnic cleansing by inaction&#8221; and called it a &#8220;calculated &#8230; policy.&#8221; He added, &#8220;So by simply not doing anything to alleviate this &#8230; crisis that was so greatly exaggerated by Katrina, they let the hurricane do the ethnic cleansing, and their hands are clean.&#8221; a) David Duke, b) Jack the Ripper, c) Jeffrey Dahmer, d) Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass.</p>
<p>&#8220;When you look at the way the (then-Republican-controlled) House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation. And you know what I&#8217;m talking about.&#8221; a) Kunta Kinte, b) Harriet Tubman, c) Booker T. Washington, d) then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, former first lady and current secretary of State.</p>
<p>&#8220;George Bush let people die on rooftops in New Orleans because they were poor and because they were black.&#8221; a) Ming the Merciless, b) Ivan the Terrible, c) Vlad the Impaler, d) Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo.</p>
<p>&#8220;It&#8217;s not &#8216;spic&#8217; or &#8216;nigger&#8217; anymore. (Instead, Republicans) say, &#8216;Let&#8217;s cut taxes.&#8217;&#8221; a) Bernie Madoff, b) Bonnie and Clyde, c) Bennie and the Jets, d) Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y.</p>
<p>&#8220;You&#8217;re damn right; Dick Cheney&#8217;s heart&#8217;s a political football. We ought to rip it out and kick it around and stuff it back in him.&#8221; a) Dr. Seuss, b) Dr. Oz, c) Dr. J, d) Ed Schultz, MSNBC and radio host.</p>
<p>&#8220;We are in danger. The extreme right wing has seized the government. Tonight (John) Ashcroft and the CIA and the FBI and Homeland Security and the IRS can work together. So look out, because without a definition of who is a terrorist, anyone can be. &#8230; Martin Luther King could have been. &#8230; The right-wing media, the FBI — they are targeting our leadership.&#8221; a) Mr. T, b) Flavor Flav, c) Gary Coleman, d) the Rev. Jesse Jackson.</p>
<p>&#8220;And what we are dealing with right now in this country is whether we are having a kind of bloodless, silent coup or not. &#8230; (George W. Bush) is trying to bring to himself all the power to become an emperor — to create Empire America,&#8221; a) Darth Vader, b) Satan, c) the Rev. Pat Robertson, d) Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash.</p>
<p>Lanny Davis, former special counsel to President Bill Clinton, campaigned for Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. Lieberman, despite his reliably left-wing voting record, infuriated the left for supporting the Iraq War. Davis found himself on the receiving end of &#8220;hate and vitriol of bloggers on the liberal side of the aisle&#8221; and &#8220;their extremism, bigotry and intolerance.&#8221; A friend and fellow Lieberman supporter, said Davis, became &#8220;fearful for his physical safety.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;I held on to the view,&#8221; Davis admitted, &#8220;that the left was inherently more tolerant and less hateful than the right. &#8230; I have reluctantly concluded that I was wrong. The far right does not have a monopoly on bigotry and hatred and sanctimony.&#8221;</p>
<p>The majority of Americans oppose ObamaCare. Their opposition is not racist, fascist or intolerant. Let us work to prevail.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/larry-elder/against-obamacare/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>20</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Politically Incorrect Fiction</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/davidforsmark/politically-incorrect-fiction/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=politically-incorrect-fiction</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/davidforsmark/politically-incorrect-fiction/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 05:04:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Forsmark]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[agent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[air national guard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alex Berenson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bernard goldberg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bob]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bob Lee Swagger]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brown]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bush is a moron]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chicago]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[crazed killer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elvis Cole]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gray lady]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hero]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hollywood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hollywood Station]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hunter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jack Bauer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jayson blair]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joe Pike]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John LeCarre]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Wells]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joseph Wambaugh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[L.A]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Midnight]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Moon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[narrative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nick Memphis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[North Vietnamese]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Poland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Robert Crais]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rodney King]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rule]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sandra Bullock]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sergeant York]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[series]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Simon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[someone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Thomas Sowell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[true believer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[veteran fbi agent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vietnam war hero]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vince flynn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[weapons of mass destruction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wells]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wyatt Earp]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=54174</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[New novels challenge the liberal mainstream narrative. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0399156208?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;tag=fronmaga-20&amp;amp;linkCode=as2&amp;amp;camp=1789&amp;amp;creative=390957&amp;amp;creativeASIN=0399156208"><img class="size-full wp-image-54196 alignnone" title="I, Sniper" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/isniper.png" alt="" width="375" height="500" /></a></p>
<p>In <em>I, Sniper</em>, Stephen Hunter’s latest thriller, a Vietnam War hero is assumed to be a crazed killer, but a veteran FBI agent smells a rat.</p>
<p>As the agent and his colleague dare to challenge the media&#8217;s &#8220;narrative,” he delivers a wonderful rant that combines critiques of the mainstream press that Thomas Sowell and Bernard Goldberg have advanced:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;The narrative is the set of assumptions the press believes in, possibly without even knowing that it believes in them. It&#8217;s so powerful because it&#8217;s unconscious. It&#8217;s not like they get together every morning and decide &#8216;these are the lies we tell today.&#8217; No, that would be too crude and honest. Rather, it&#8217;s a set of casual non-rigorous assumptions about a reality they&#8217;ve never really experienced that’s arranged in such a way as to reinforce their best and most ideal presumptions about themselves and their importance to the system and the way they&#8217;ve chosen to live their lives. It&#8217;s their way of arranging things a certain way what they all believe in without ever really addressing it carefully. It permeates their whole culture. They <em>know,</em> for example, that Bush is a moron and Obama a saint. They <em>know</em> Communism was a phony threat cooked up by right-wing cranks as a way to leverage power to the executive. They <em>know</em>Saddam didn&#8217;t have weapons of mass destruction, the response to Katrina was f&#8212;-ed up, torture never works, and mad Vietnam sniper Carl Hitchcock killed the saintly peace demonstrators. Cheney’s a devil, Biden’s a genius. &#8230;The story was somewhat suspiciously concocted exactly to their prejudices, just as Jayson Blair&#8217;s made-up stories and Dan Rather&#8217;s Air National Guard documents were. And the narrative is the bedrock of their culture, the keystone of their faith, the altar of their church. They don&#8217;t even know they&#8217;re true believers, because in theory they despise the true believer in anything. But they will absolutely de-frackin-stroy anybody who makes them question all that. &#8230;&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>And this from a fellow who&#8217;s not only a former journalist but also a Pulitzer Prize winner (for his film criticism).</p>
<p>As this long, hard winter (sorry, Al Gore) winds down, here are a few red-hot reading choices to help you stave off that last bit of cabin fever by five authors who dare to challenge the intelligentsia’s conventional wisdom.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1416565159?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=fronmaga-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=1416565159">I, Sniper</a><img style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=fronmaga-20&amp;l=as2&amp;o=1&amp;a=1416565159" border="0" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></strong> by Stephen Hunter</p>
<p>“Someone once defined a newspaper gun story as ‘something with a mistake in it.’&#8221;</p>
<p>While <em>I, Sniper</em> (Simon &amp; Schuster, $26) ostensibly is about iconic hero Bob Lee Swagger taking down snipers who have killed several Vietnam-era radicals and framed a war hero for the crime, Hunter’s crosshairs are really on the mainstream media in general and the New York Times in particular.</p>
<p>Hunter, a former film critic for the Washington Post, obviously is fed up with the media’s narrative about Americans who love their guns and the warriors who fight for our freedom.</p>
<p>After someone has taken out an actress who collaborated with the North Vietnamese and made a fortune out of exercise videos, then shot two Chicago academics who were &#8217;60s domestic terrorists (yes, the resemblance is intentional), FBI agent Nick Memphis has this exchange at a press conference:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;Do you have any opinions, special agent, on the use of &#8216;trained killers&#8217; in the military and the risks such men pose for society when they return to civilian world? I mean this seems to dovetail neatly with the report released by the Homeland Security Agency some months ago that &#8211;&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;You must be from the <em>New York Times</em>.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;Yes sir,&#8221; the young man said.</p></blockquote>
<p>This is Hunter’s sixth novel featuring Bob Lee Swagger, a combination of Sergeant York and Jack Bauer whom Hunter uses as an archetype of the small town, gun-handy American who does his duty as a matter of course and confounds the bad guys with toughness and know-how.</p>
<p>While the political jabs and media commentary are fun, <em>I, Sniper</em>’s main goal is to entertain, and it does.  In many ways this could be considered the ultimate Swagger tale. If this, indeed, is the final adventure for the 60-something hero with the stainless steel hip, it would be a fitting sendoff.</p>
<p>Though if Bob goes into retirement, I will certainly miss lines like this:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;I sure wouldn&#8217;t want to be in your shoes,&#8221; said Bob. &#8220;I can&#8217;t help out with the papers. Never read ‘em. I get my news from Fox.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0399156208?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=fronmaga-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=0399156208" target="_blank"><strong><em>The Midnight House</em></strong></a><strong> </strong><strong>by Alex Berenson</strong></p>
<p>Speaking of New York&#8217;s Old Gray Lady, former Timesman Alex Berenson certainly hasn&#8217;t adopted the paper’s narrative that the United   States under George W. Bush became a lawless nation of torturing and liberties-violating rogues.</p>
<p>In the press material for <em>The Midnight House</em> (Putnam, $25.95), his latest best-seller, Berenson says:</p>
<blockquote><p>“If you take a fair-minded view of what the United States has actually been doing the last eight to ten years, you really can’t conclude that is torture.  When you’ve got one set of lawyers arguing that someone can be held in a room that is 46 degrees, while another set of lawyers argue it must be at least 48 degrees, you’d be hard pressed to say we’re torturing people.”</p></blockquote>
<p>Berenson also doesn&#8217;t cotton to the so-called experts&#8217; insistence that harsh interrogation techniques don’t work on terrorists.  In <em>The Midnight House</em>, he proposes an effective secret interrogation base in Poland where a group of interrogators goes considerably farther than Americans have actually gone — and his main concern is what the adverse effects might be on the good guys, not the bad &#8216;uns.</p>
<p>The Midnight House has been disbanded by the “new administration,” and someone is killing the retired interrogators one by one. CIA agent John Wells, on a well-deserved vacation after saving the nation from yet another big terrorist strike is put on their trail.</p>
<p>Like all of Berenson’s books, <em>The Midnight House</em> is well-researched, intelligent and suspenseful.  Unlike the others, this is not an action-packed yarn where Wells saves the world from terrorists. Rather, this is more of a whodunit with a jaded look at the bureaucracy that “Homeland Security” has become.</p>
<p>This book is less Vince Flynn and more John LeCarre — if LeCarre weren&#8217;t such a pedantic bore, that is.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0399156135?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=fronmaga-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=0399156135" target="_blank"><strong><em>The First Rule</em></strong></a><strong> </strong><strong>by Robert Crais</strong></p>
<p>Under the media&#8217;s current narrative, private military companies like Blackwater are the bad guys du jour. In Robert Crais’ excellent series of private eye novels, PMC contractor Joe Pike has mostly served as the dark Doc Holliday to series hero Elvis Cole’s Wyatt Earp.</p>
<p><em>The First Rule</em><em> </em>(Simon &amp; Schuster, $26.95) is the second novel featuring Pike, an ex-LAPD patrolman, former Marine, current gun shop owner and sometime mercenary whose protective instincts would even impress Sandra Bullock’s character in <em>The Blind Side.</em></p>
<p>Crais’ recent books have tended to stress the human need for family and the vital role of fatherhood, but Pike here takes on Serbian mobsters whose first rule is the direct opposite &#8212; family is nothing next to the criminal brotherhood.  But when the criminals kill a family that Pike loves, they learn a new primary rule: don’t incur Pike&#8217;s wrath.</p>
<p>The first rule for mystery or suspense fans should be read all the Robert Crais you can get your hands on.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0316045187?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=fronmaga-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=0316045187" target="_blank"><strong><em>Hollywood</em></strong><strong><em> Moon</em></strong></a><strong> </strong><strong>by Joseph Wambaugh</strong></p>
<p>In the dark days of the &#8217;60s and &#8217;70s, when “pig” was the word of choice for police among elite radicals, real-life L.A. cop Joseph Wambaugh changed the mainstream narrative with such powerful novels as <em>The New Centurions</em> and nonfiction masterpieces like <em>The Onion Field</em>.  The books were dark enough to appeal to critics but also told the truth about policing in a turbulent era. Wambaugh helped restore cops to their rightful place as American literary heroes (and led to a lot of cops taking writing classes hoping to emulate him.)</p>
<p><em>Hollywood Moon</em> (Little, Brown, $26.99) is the third book in his series about the LAPD&#8217;s wild and woolly Hollywood Station. As Wambaugh examines the near-impossibility of doing good police work under the federal oversight placed on the LAPD after the Rodney King riots, he offers a collection of riotous, bawdy, tawdry and tragic vignettes that one might hear a few beers into a good night in a cop bar; the yarns ofter are tied together with one overriding crime or group of criminals.</p>
<p>In <em>Moon</em>, a hen-pecked identity thief decides to recruit his clueless gopher to kidnap his ruthless wife and find out where she’s been hiding all the money they’ve been scamming.</p>
<p>Think of the usual Wambaugh antics taking place under a full moon, and you’ll get the picture.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0061929379?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=fronmaga-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=0061929379" target="_blank"><strong><em>Pirate Latitudes</em></strong></a><strong> </strong><strong>by Michael Crichton</strong></p>
<p>I had to laugh at some of the critics who lamented that <em>Pirate Latitudes </em>(Harper $27.99), Michael Crichton’s last novel, which was posthumously discovered in his computer, was “not up to his usual standards.”  Most of these were the same blowhards who lambasted Crichton for trashing their narrative of man-made global warming in his provocative bestseller, <em>State of Fear</em>.</p>
<p>Crichton’s final novel, however, contains neither a political point nor a warning about the dangers of arrogant technology.  Instead, it’s just a swashbuckling entertainment about a British privateer attacking a Spanish stronghold for king, country&#8211;and a 50 percent share of the booty.</p>
<p><em>Pirate Latitudes</em> has the feel of a very polished first draft or the novelization of an action-packed miniseries, rather than a completed Crichton novel — which makes sense, since it wasn’t.  Still, it&#8217;s a fast moving, thoroughly enjoyable adventure; think <em>The Guns of Navarone</em> meets a Wilbur Smith sea-going swashbuckler. While it may not be as good as either, or up to Crichton’s normal standards, it’s a good, if imperfect, way to say bon voyage to one of the more dominant writers of his generation.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312380429?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=fronmaga-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=0312380429" target="_blank"><strong><em>The Lock Artist</em></strong></a><strong> </strong><strong>by Steve Hamilton</strong></p>
<p>As long as we’re talking about books that have no relation to the topic at hand, I&#8217;d like to take a point of personal privilege. I’ve long been an admirer of Steve Hamilton’s Alex McKnight mystery series set in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, describing it as Travis McGee in a cold climate.</p>
<p>After a lackluster stand-alone novel set in upstate New York, Hamilton returns to Michigan for an utterly original thriller set in Milford, one of my favorite small towns in the Detroit metro area.</p>
<p>In <em>The Lock Artist</em> (Minotaur, $25.96) Mike, a mute teenager, is known as “The Miracle Boy” since surviving an infamous atrocity as a toddler. He comes to the attention of an organized crime boss because a high school prank reveals his skill with locks of all kinds to the wrong people.  (On the plus side, it also brings him into contact with the girl of his dreams.)</p>
<p>Like all top thriller writers, Hamilton takes this unusual situation and relates it to everyday emotions and common fears and insecurities, from the longing to fit in, to the satisfaction of being really good at something.</p>
<p>As silent Mike tells his story in flashback from his prison cell, the reader finds an uncommon connection with this anti-hero and will root for him to find redemption.  Even the most jaded mystery readers who think they’ve seen it all will love this one.</p>
<p><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/davidforsmark/politically-incorrect-fiction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 2243/2616 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 12:36:52 by W3 Total Cache -->