<?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; Munich</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/tag/munich/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>Obama Midwifes a Nuclear Iran</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/obama-midwifes-a-nuclear-iran/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obama-midwifes-a-nuclear-iran</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/obama-midwifes-a-nuclear-iran/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2014 05:45:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bruce Thornton]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeasement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Munich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[negotiation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear Weapons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=244867</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The president's Munich moment draws near. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/obama.png"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-244883" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/obama-419x350.png" alt="obama" width="340" height="284" /></a>The news that President Obama has sent a secret letter to Iranian leader Ayatollah Khamenei––apparently promising concessions on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for help in defeating ISIS–– is a depressing reminder of how after nearly 40 years our leaders have not understood the Iranian Revolution. During the hostage crisis of 1979, Jimmy Carter sent left-wing former Attorney General Ramsay Clark to Tehran with a letter anxiously assuring the Ayatollah Khomeini that America desired good relations “based upon equality, mutual respect and friendship.” Khomeini refused even to meet with the envoys.</p>
<p>Such obvious contempt for our “outreach” should have been illuminating, but the same mistakes have recurred over the past 4 decades. But Obama has been the most energetic suitor of the mullahs, sending 4 letters to Khamenei, none directly answered. In May of 2009 he sent a personal letter to Khamenei calling for “cooperation in regional and bilateral relations.” Khamenei’s answer in June was to initiate a brutal crackdown on Iranians protesting the rigged presidential election. Obama’s response was to remain silent about this oppression lest he irritate the thuggish mullahs, who blamed the protests on American “agents” anyway. Even Carter’s phrase “mutual respect” has been chanted like some diplomatic spell that will transform religious fanatics into good global citizens. In his notorious June 2009 Cairo “apology” speech, Obama assured Iran, “We are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect.” This latest letter repeats the same empty phrase.</p>
<p>But our president is nothing if not persistent. In October of 2009, it was revealed that Iran had failed to disclose a uranium enrichment facility in Qom. Obama commented on this obvious proof of Iran’s true intentions, “We remain committed to serious, meaningful engagement with Iran,” and promised that the “offer stands” of “greater international integration if [Iran] lives up to its obligations.” Iran answered by increasing the pace of enrichment, helping the insurgents in Iraq kill our troops, and facilitating the movement and communications of al Qaeda with other jihadists.</p>
<p style="color: #272727;"><span style="color: #000000;">Indeed, every concession and failure to respond forcefully to Iranian intransigence and aggression confirm its belief that Iran is strong and America weak. As Khamenei has said, </span>“The reason why we are stronger is that [America] retreats step by step in all the arenas [in] which we and the Americans have confronted each other. But we do not retreat. Rather, we move forward. This is a sign of our superiority over the Americans.”</p>
<p>Given this long sorry history, how long will it take for our foreign policy geniuses to figure out that Iran’s theocrats don’t want better relations, or “mutual respect,” or “international integration,” or anything else from the infidel Great Satan and its Western minions, other than capitulation? The mullahs and their Republican Guard henchmen may lust for wealth and power as much as anyone, but the foundation of their behavior is a religious faith that promises Muslims power and dominance over those who refuse the call to convert to Islam and thus by definition are enemies of the faithful to be resisted and destroyed.</p>
<p>Given these spiritual imperatives, the material punishment of the regime through economic sanctions, particularly limited ones, is unlikely to have much effect. During the hostage crisis, mild sanctions and the threats of more serious ones were brushed away by Khomeini. The <i>Economist</i> at the time pointed out the obvious reason why: “The denial of material things is unlikely to have much effect on minds suffused with immaterial things.” Khomeini made this same point after the humiliating disaster of Carter’s half-hearted attempt to rescue the hostages in April 1980, when mullahs were televised worldwide poking their canes in the charred remains of 8 dead Americans. Speaking of the sandstorm that compromised the mission, Khomeini preached, “Those sand particles were divinely commissioned . . . Carter still has not comprehended what kind of people he is facing and what school of thought he is playing with. Our people is the people of blood and our school is the school of Jihad.”</p>
<p>With their eyes on Allah’s intentions for the faithful, the leaders of Iran see the acquisition of nuclear weapons as the most important means of achieving the global power and dominance their faith tells them they deserve as “the best of nations produced for mankind,” as the Koran says. Thus duplicitous diplomatic engagement and negotiation are tactics for buying time until the mullahs reach “nuclear latency,” the ability quickly to build a bomb. Every concession or offer of bribes from the West are seen not as an inducement to reciprocate in order to meet a mutually beneficial arrangement, but rather as signs of weakness and failure of nerve, evidence that the mullahs can win despite the power and wealth of the West. That’s because the Iranian leadership views international relations as resting not on cooperation or negotiation, but on raw power. As Suzanne Maloney of the Brookings Institute <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/iran-at-saban/posts/2014/11/06-letter-khamenei-ayatollah-iran-obama-nuclear-isis"><span style="color: #0433ff;">quotes</span></a> from a hardline Iranian newspaper, “Our world is not a fair one and everyone gets as much power as he can, not for his power of reason or the adaptation of his request to the international laws, but by his bullying.” And the Iranians believe that their power politics serves the will of Allah.</p>
<p>Obama is not the first president who has completely failed to understand the true nature and motives of his adversary. FDR misunderstood “Uncle Joe” Stalin, and George Bush misread the eyes of Vladimir Putin. This mistake of diplomacy reflects the peculiar Western arrogant belief that the whole world is just like us and wants the same things we want––political freedom, leisure, material affluence, and peaceful relations with neighbors. Some Iranians may want those things too, but a critical mass wants obedience to Allah and his commands more. Obama’s endemic narcissism has made this flaw worse in his relations with the rest of the world, for he can’t believe that the leaders of other nations, many of them brutal realists indifferent to the opinions of the “international community,” aren’t as impressed as he is with his alleged brilliance and persuasive eloquence.</p>
<p>As a result we are on the brink of a dangerous realignment of the balance of power in the Middle East. Despite Iran’s continuing defiance of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, and its long record of lies and evasion, Obama allegedly has offered to raise the number of centrifuges enriching uranium from 4000 to 6000, bringing the mullahs closer to “nuclear latency”––in a regime that has officially been designated the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism; that has threatened genocide against Israel, our most important strategic asset in the region; and that for the last 40 years has stained its hands with American blood.</p>
<p>Rather than the ornament of his foreign policy legacy, as Obama hopes, his pursuit of a deal that will make Iran a nuclear power will be remembered as his Munich.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/obama-midwifes-a-nuclear-iran/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>17</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Lessons of Munich</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/the-lessons-of-munich/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-lessons-of-munich</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/the-lessons-of-munich/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jan 2014 05:05:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bruce Thornton]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Communism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Czechoslovakia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hitler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lessons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Munich]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=215119</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What we can learn from the twentieth century’s greatest diplomatic disaster.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/mu.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-215121" alt="mu" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/mu.jpg" width="280" height="175" /></a><strong></strong></p>
<p><em>Originally published by the <a href="http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/165326">Hoover Institution</a>. </em></p>
<p><strong>[Photo credit: Anna Newman]</strong></p>
<p>During the recent foreign policy crises over Syria’s use of chemical weapons and the Obama administration’s negotiations with Iran, the Munich analogy was heard from both sides of the political spectrum. Arguing for airstrikes against Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, Secretary of State John Kerry warned that the nation faced a “Munich moment.” A few months later, numerous critics of Barack Obama’s diplomatic discussions with Iran evoked Neville Chamberlain’s naïve negotiations with Adolph Hitler. “This wretched deal,” Middle East historian Daniel Pipes said, “offers one of those rare occasions when comparison with Neville Chamberlain in Munich in 1938 is valid.” The widespread resort to the Munich analogy raises the question: When, if ever, are historical analogies useful for understanding present circumstances?</p>
<p>Since the time of the ancient Greeks and Romans, one important purpose of describing historical events was to provide models for posterity. Around 395 B.C., Thucydides wrote that his history was for “those inquirers who desire an exact knowledge of the past as an aid to the understanding of the future, which in the course of human things must resemble if it does not reflect it.” Thus he proclaimed his history to be “a possession for all time.” Nearly four centuries later, the Roman historian Livy wrote his history of the Roman Republic from its foundations to Augustus in order to show “what to imitate,” and to “mark for avoidance what is shameful in the conception and shameful in the result.”</p>
<p>Both historians believed the past could inform and instruct the present because they assumed that human nature would remain constant in its passions, weaknesses, and interests despite changes in the political, social, or technological environment. As Thucydides writes of the horrors of revolution and civil war, “The sufferings . . . were many and terrible, such as have occurred and always will occur as long as the nature of mankind remains the same; though in severer or milder form, and varying in their symptoms, according to the variety of the particular cases.” Good history must take into account that “variety of the particular cases,” but an unchanging human nature will over time and space work similar effects. The past, then, can provide analogies for the present, provided they are based on “exact knowledge,” and the “variety of particular cases” is respected.</p>
<p>In contrast, the modern idea of progress––the notion that greater knowledge of human motivation and behavior, and more sophisticated technology, are changing and improving human nature––suggests that events of the past have little utility in describing the present, and so every historical analogy is at some level false. The differences between two events separated by time and different levels of intellectual and technological sophistication will necessarily outweigh any usefulness. The progressive improvement of human nature, however, is a cultural idea, not a scientific fact. If the gruesome twentieth century shows us anything, it is that the destructive passions, irrational motives, and dangerous weaknesses of human nature still persist. As long as the important differences between past and present events are respected, the similarities can be useful for understanding our own predicaments.</p>
<p>An example of a historical analogy that failed because it neglected important differences was one popular among those supporting the Bush Doctrine during the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Bush Doctrine was embodied in the president’s 2005 inaugural speech: “The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.” Promoting democracy and political freedom in the Middle East was believed to be the way to eliminate the political, social, and economic dysfunctions that presumably breed Islamic terrorism. Supporters of this view frequently invoked the transformation of Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union from aggressive tyrannies into peaceful democracies to argue for nation building in the Muslim Middle East.</p>
<p>Natan Sharansky, a former Soviet dissident and political prisoner, used this analogy in his 2004 book <em>The Case for Democracy</em>, which was an important influence on President Bush’s thinking<em>.</em> Yet in citing the examples of Russia, Germany, and Japan as proof that democracy could take root in any cultural soil, including in Iraq and Afghanistan, Sharansky overlooked some key differences. Under Soviet communism, a highly religious Russian people were subjected to an atheist regime radically at odds with the beliefs of the masses. Communism could only promise material goods, and when it serially failed to do so, it collapsed. As for Germany and Japan, both countries were devastated by World War II, their cities and industries destroyed, the ruins standing as stark reminders of the folly of the political ideologies that wreaked such havoc. Both countries were occupied for years by the victors, who had the power and scope to build a new political order enforced by the occupying troops. As political philosopher Michael Mandelbaum reminds us, in Germany and Japan, democracy was introduced at gunpoint.</p>
<p>In Iraq and Afghanistan, neither of these important conditions existed when U.S. forces invaded. The leaders of these countries are Muslim, thus establishing an important connection with the mass of their people. Unlike Nazism and communism, which were political fads, Islam is the faith of 1.5 billion people, and boasts a proud, fourteen-centuries-long history of success and conquest. For millions of pious Muslims, the answer to their modern difficulties lies not in embracing a foreign political system like democracy, but in returning to the purity of faith that created one of the world’s greatest empires. Moreover, no Muslim country has suffered the dramatic physical destruction that Germany and Japan did, which would illuminate the costs of Islam’s failure to adapt to the modern world. Finally, such analogies downplay the complex social and economic values, habits, and attitudes––many contrary to traditional Islamic doctrine––that are the preconditions for a truly democratic regime.</p>
<p>More recently, people are invoking the Munich analogy to describe the Syria and Iran crises. But these critics of Obama’s foreign policy misunderstand the Munich negotiations and their context. The <em>Wall Street Journal</em>’s Bret Stephens, arguing that Obama’s agreement with Iran is worse than the English and French betrayal of Czechoslovakia, based his assessment on his belief that “neither Neville Chamberlain nor [French prime minister] Édouard Daladier had the public support or military wherewithal to stand up to Hitler in September 1938. Britain had just 384,000 men in its regular army; the first Spitfire aircraft only entered RAF service that summer. ‘Peace for our time’ it was not, but at least appeasement bought the West a year to rearm.”</p>
<p>Stephens, however, is missing an important historical detail that calls into question this interpretation. France in fact did have the “military wherewithal” to fight the Germans. The Maginot line had 860,000 soldiers manning it––nearly six times the number of Germans on the unfinished “Western Wall” of defensive fortifications facing the French—and another 400,000 troops elsewhere in France. Any move east by the French would have presented Germany with a two-front war it was not prepared to fight. Nor would Czechoslovakia have been an easy foe for Hitler. As Churchill wrote in <em>The Gathering Storm, </em>the Czechs had “a million and a half men armed behind the strongest fortress line in Europe [in the mountainous Sudetenland on Germany’s eastern border] and equipped by a highly organized and powerful industrial machine,” including the Skoda works, “the second most important arsenal in Central Europe.” Finally, the web of military agreements among England, France, Poland, and the Soviet Union was dependent on England backing France, which would not fight otherwise, and without the French, the Poles and the Soviets would not fight either. Had England lived up to its commitment to France, Hitler would have faced a two-front war against the overwhelming combined military superiority of the Allies. And he would have lost.</p>
<p>The lessons of Munich, and its value as a historical analogy, have nothing to do with a material calculation. Rather, the capitulation of the British and the French illustrates the perennial truth that conflict is about morale. On that point Stephens is correct when he writes that Chamberlain and Daladier did not have “public support,” and he emphasizes the role of morale in foreign policy. A people who have lost the confidence in the goodness of their way of life will not be saved by the material superiority of arms or money. And, as Munich also shows, that failure of nerve will not be mitigated by diplomatic negotiations. Talking to an enemy bent on aggression will only buy him time for achieving his aims. Thus Munich exposes the fallacy of diplomatic engagement that periodically has compromised Western foreign policy. Rather than a means of avoiding the unavoidable brutal costs of conflict, diplomatic words often create the illusion of action, while in reality avoiding the necessary military deeds. For diplomacy to work, the enemy must believe that his opponent will use punishing force to back up the agreement.</p>
<p>This truth gives force to the Munich analogy when applied to diplomacy with Iran. Hitler correctly judged that what he called the “little worms” of Munich, France and England, would not use such force, and were only looking for a politically palatable way to avoid a war. Similarly today, the mullahs in Iran are confident that America will not use force to stop the nuclear weapons program. Iran’s leaders are shrewd enough to understand that the Obama administration needs a diplomatic fig leaf to hide its capitulation to their nuclear ambitions, given his doubts about the rightness of America’s global dominance, and the war-weariness evident among the American people. Unfortunately, this deal allows the Iranians to continue spinning the centrifuges and inching ever closer to the capacity quickly to build a nuclear weapon, even as they receive the much needed funds that will come from sanctions relief.</p>
<p>The weakening faith in American goodness that afflicts millions of Americans, and the use of diplomacy to camouflage that failure of nerve and provide political cover for the leaders charged with protecting our security and interests, are a reprise of England and France’s sacrifice of Czechoslovakia in 1938. That similarity and the lessons it can teach about the dangers of the collapse of national morale and the risky reliance on words rather than deeds are what continue to make Munich a useful historical analogy.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>.</b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/the-lessons-of-munich/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>24</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama&#8217;s Munich</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-thornton/obamas-munich/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obamas-munich</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-thornton/obamas-munich/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Nov 2013 05:56:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bruce Thornton]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[churchill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Geneva]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hitler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Munich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear Weapons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=211658</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[History repeats itself -- will the same atrocities follow? ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/143022.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-211663" alt="143022" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/143022-406x350.jpg" width="284" height="245" /></a>The interim agreement negotiated by the Security Council and Germany with Iran is a serious advance toward what Winston Churchill <a href="http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/speeches/speeches-of-winston-churchill/101-the-munich-agreement">called</a> the Munich agreement: “a total and unmitigated defeat” and a “disaster of the first magnitude.” Nothing in the agreement guarantees that Iran will fulfill its promises, or that inspectors will be allowed access to all of Iran’s enrichment facilities, let alone its secret sites, or that serious consequences will follow violations of the terms of the agreement. The agreement does nothing to force Iran to come clean on, let alone dismantle, all its weapons facilities, or to reverse Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium––indeed, it is arguably a de facto recognition of Iran’s right to do so. In exchange for signing, Iran will gain access to multiple billions of dollars in sanction relief, and 6 more months to spin the centrifuges, confident that sanctions once relaxed are unlikely to be reimposed.</span></b></p>
<p>No wonder they are celebrating in Tehran. And for good reason, given how much they will receive and how little they have promised. It reminds me of Churchill’s metaphor in the same speech when he refuted the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s claim that Hitler had been made to “retract.” In fact, Churchill said of the three meetings between Chamberlain and Hitler,  “£1 was demanded at the pistol’s point. When it was given, £2 were demanded at the pistol’s point. Finally, the dictator consented to take £1 17s. 6d. and the rest in promises of goodwill for the future.”</p>
<p>So much is obvious, even to many Democrats in Congress, who may join with Republicans to stop this quantum leap towards full-blown appeasement and a nuclear-armed Iran when in 6 months some “comprehensive” appeasing agreement is proffered. What remains to be seen is whether the American people will become as worried over this disaster as they have been angry over Obamacare. Weary of war, and seemingly indifferent to the squandering of lives in Iraq and Afghanistan wrought by Obama’s hasty and feckless withdrawal from those countries, Americans may feel about the Middle East and its complex hatreds and rivalries as Chamberlain did about the crisis in Czechoslovakia–– “a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing.”</p>
<p>Such shortsightedness is dangerous not just to our ally Israel. For years Europe––and now it appears America too––has tried to force Israel into the role of Czechoslovakia in the Munich crisis in order to appease Palestinian Arab aggression and violence. In 1938 politicians in France and England were impatient with the Czechs’ desire to maintain their sovereignty and ensure their security against an aggressor on their borders. Every outrageous demand made by Hitler and his stooges in the Sudetenland was met with scolding of the Czechs for their intransigence. The French warned the Czechs not to be “unreasonable,” the British thought they needed “to get a real twist of the screw,” the English minister in Prague advised Czech president Edvard Benes to “go forthwith to the very limit of concession,” English Foreign Minister Lord Halifax told the Czechs that “in the interests of international peace every possible step should be taken to remove the cause of friction or even of conflict,” and both French and English diplomats urged the Czechs to accept the dismemberment of their country “before producing a situation for which France and Britain could take no responsibility.” Faced with a ruthless aggressor, the victim was bullied into committing suicide by its so-called allies.</p>
<p>How similar to the shameless pressure on Israel from the Western powers and the Obama administration. They have scolded and bullied Israel over “settlements” and the so-called “occupation” of lands that were the homeland of the Jewish people for two millennia. They have urged Israeli acquiescence to the specious “two-state solution” and respect for “Palestinian self-determination.” They have pressed negotiations with and concessions to enemies that have made plain in word and bloody deed their goal of “wiping Israel off the map,” as an ex-president of Iran once said, and as every Friday imams across the Muslim Middle East preach to their flocks. Once more Churchill is instructive: “We in this country, as in other Liberal and democratic countries, have a perfect right to exalt the principle of self-determination, but it comes ill out of the mouths of those in totalitarian states who deny even the smallest element of toleration to every section and creed within their bounds.” Yet this current agreement, which de facto concedes to Iran the right to create the weapons that can turn these threats to reality, ignores the true nature of Israel’s intolerant enemies, and the security concerns of the most vulnerable state in the region.</p>
<p>On the contrary, Obama is pressuring Israel to forbear and trust the oft violated and broken promises of a mortal enemy, just as France and England in 1938 ignored Hitler’s threats at the Nuremberg party-rally that no agreements would be reached with an “irreconcilable” enemy. It would be dangerous for Americans sick of this seemingly far-away conflict to buy into this false narrative that blames Israeli “intransigence” and “occupation” over a “Palestinian homeland” for Muslim terrorism and violence that are in fact rooted in Islamic doctrine and evidenced by the record of history.</p>
<p>Worse yet, it would be equally dangerous to think that the comparison of the current appeasement of Iran with Munich is false because we Americans do not face an existential threat from an enemy as militarily powerful as we, or that, to paraphrase Churchill, “nothing vitally affecting us [is] at stake.” If Iran becomes a nuclear power, there will not be a world war like the one that was spawned by Munich and that cost 50 million lives. But we will indeed be vitally affected. The on-going conflicts of Sunni against Shiites, jihadists against autocrats, and everyone against Israel will be intensified and magnified immeasurably by Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons and the regional proliferation to follow––assuming Israel does not strike the facilities and set back the program, with violent and disordering blowback that can only be imagined.</p>
<p>And make no mistake, this violence and disorder will indeed affect our interests and security. We may be nearing energy independence, but in a globalized economy, the rest of the world with whom we trade will still be dependent on Middle Eastern oil, and the disruption to their economies from oil shortages and a shut-down of the straits of Hormuz will affect our own, which is still struggling with unemployment, rising debt, and run-away entitlement spending. Nor should we dismiss as fantastic the possibility that Iran, the world’s foremost supporter of terrorism with 35 years of American blood on its hands, will hand off dirty bombs to one of its many jihadist affiliates for attacks on our homeland. Who on September 10, 2001 believed that terrorists armed with box-cutters would level the World Trade Center? Total war will not follow from Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons, but an insidious degradation of our security will, until another terrorist attacks breeds more war, more compromises of our individual freedoms, more erosion of our morale and will, and more appeasement, the consequences of which will be borne by our children and grandchildren.</p>
<p>Finally, this deal signals once again that under Obama America is now considered weak and cowardly, uninterested in acting on the global responsibilities that necessarily have attended its unprecedented wealth and power, and eager for retreat and withdrawal no matter how dangerous the long-term consequences. Here too we resemble the British as Churchill described them in his Munich speech: “We have been reduced in those five years [since Hitler’s rise to power] from a position of security so overwhelming and so unchallengeable that we never cared to think about it. We have been reduced from a position where the very word ‘war’ was considered one which could be used only by persons qualifying for a lunatic asylum. We have been reduced from a position of safety and power––power to do good, power to be generous to a beaten foe, power to make terms with Germany, power to give her proper redress for her grievances, power to stop her arming if we chose, power to take any step in strength or mercy or justice which we thought right––reduced in five years from a position safe and unchallenged to where we stand now.” All diplomacy and negotiation with our foes depends on their belief that we back our agreements with punishing force. Today both our friends and enemies no longer believe that we have the will or courage to back our words with deeds.</p>
<p>Only the American people can stop the unfolding disaster of the agreement with Iran, and only by the means Churchill recommended to his countrymen: with “a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigor, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.”</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-thornton/obamas-munich/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>167</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>74-Year-Old Woman Collecting Petitions Against Mosque Sentenced to Pay 1000 Euros to Amnesty International</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/74-year-old-woman-collecting-petitions-against-mosque-sentenced-to-pay-1000-euros-to-amnesty-international/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=74-year-old-woman-collecting-petitions-against-mosque-sentenced-to-pay-1000-euros-to-amnesty-international</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/74-year-old-woman-collecting-petitions-against-mosque-sentenced-to-pay-1000-euros-to-amnesty-international/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Feb 2013 20:50:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Point]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[germany]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[islamizationofeurope]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mosque]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Munich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Protest]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=177128</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Maria Frank was given a warning  and ordered to pay 1000 euros to Amnesty International.  She said she doesn’t like this organization and asked to be allowed to pay the money to a charity for persecuted Christians instead. The judge said no, it had to go to Amnesty International!]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/74-year-old-woman-collecting-petitions-against-mosque-sentenced-to-pay-1000-euros-to-amnesty-international/attachment/180627718/" rel="attachment wp-att-177130"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-177130" title="180627718" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/180627718.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="266" /></a></p>
<p>Freedom isn&#8217;t free. And when you&#8217;re being sentenced to pay 1000 Euros to a human rights organization for speaking out, then you know that your freedom is gone and <a href="http://sheikyermami.com/2013/02/10/munich-state-sanctioned-terror-against-74-year-old-pensioner-who-collects-signatures-against-mosque/">your human rights have gone with it</a>.</p>
<blockquote><p>Maria Frank, a 74-year-old woman, who leads an organisation called “Association for the Future of Germany” peacefully gathers signatures calling for a referendum on whether an “Islam in Europe” centre should be built in Munich. She is constantly mobbed by antifa, green and trade union activists, so her placards are hardly visible. Despite that, she is prosecuted for incitement to hatred.</p>
<p>In Rotkreuzplatz the 74-year-old pensioner exhibited a placard on this day, which among other thing said that after the siege of Vienna by the Ottoman empire in 1683 now “the arrogant Turks and Muslims … [are threatening] Europe again”. The accused thus established and suggested the reference to a war of aggression, at least “implicitly accepting” that fear of Islam and Turks would be generated, argued the state prosecutor. She thus disturbed the public peace.</p>
<p>Maria Frank was given a warning  and ordered to pay 1000 euros to Amnesty International.  She said she doesn’t like this organization and asked to be allowed to pay the money to a charity for persecuted Christians instead. The judge said no, it had to go to Amnesty International!</p>
<p>In addition the judge warned Frank, who has made numerous negative statements about Turks and Muslims on the internet, sometimes in a much more drastic way than on the placard.</p>
<p>“You need to stop that and become aware of what is acceptable and what isn’t.”</p></blockquote>
<p>Not a major surprise in Red Munich, but this is coming to America.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/74-year-old-woman-collecting-petitions-against-mosque-sentenced-to-pay-1000-euros-to-amnesty-international/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>16</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama Administration Offers Direct Talks with Iran</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/obama-administration-offers-direct-talks-with-iran/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obama-administration-offers-direct-talks-with-iran</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/obama-administration-offers-direct-talks-with-iran/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2013 04:58:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arnold Ahlert]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[direct talks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joe Biden]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John McCain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Munich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=176333</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The calculating Islamic Republic hails the U.S.'s new direction.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/obama-administration-offers-direct-talks-with-iran/mahmoud-iranian-ahmadinejad-sotakbar-706-n/" rel="attachment wp-att-176340"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-176340" title="mahmoud-iranian-ahmadinejad-sotakbar-706.n" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/mahmoud-iranian-ahmadinejad-sotakbar-706.n.jpg" alt="" width="296" height="222" /></a>On Saturday, the Obama administration&#8217;s efforts to maintain the fantasy that diplomatic efforts will get Iran to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons was again on display for all the world to see, courtesy of Vice President Joe Biden. During a speech at the Munich Security Conference, Biden <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/02/politics/biden-us-iran/index.html">contended</a> that the United States &#8220;would be prepared to meet bilaterally with the Iranian leadership.&#8221; &#8220;There has to be an agenda that they are prepared to speak to,&#8221; Biden added. &#8220;We are not just prepared to do it for the exercise.&#8221; The Iranians, meanwhile, are <a href="http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/02/04/287276/iran-optimistic-on-us-policy-change-fm/">hailing</a> the new approach the Obama administration is taking with Tehran and are no doubt looking forward to the extra time it will afford them to continue on the trajectory of their nuclear weapons program.</p>
<p>One is forced to ponder what outcome Biden could possibly be envisioning that would rise above the level of a futile &#8220;exercise,&#8221; given Tehran&#8217;s continual intransigence and the Obama administration&#8217;s indulgence of the regime&#8217;s games. The latest failure to move the needle occurred as recently as January, when nuclear inspectors from the UN&#8217;s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) were <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/18/us-nuclear-iran-iaea-idUSBRE90G14Q20130118">denied</a> access to the Parchin military complex southeast of Tehran. Parchin is where it has long been suspected that the Iranians are <a href="http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2013/01/19/official-iran-wont-stop-uranium-enrichment">working</a> on a nuclear trigger for a bomb. IAEA deputy inspector Herman Nackaerts expressed his frustration at the time: &#8220;We had two days of intensive discussions. Differences remain so we could not finalize the structured approach to resolve the outstanding issues regarding possible military dimensions of Iran&#8217;s nuclear program,&#8221; he said at the time. The two side are scheduled to meet again on February 12.</p>
<p>So what has changed? Nothing on the part of the Iranians. Yet Biden insisted that Iran still had time to change course and resolve the issue through diplomacy. &#8220;The ball is in the government of Iran&#8217;s court,&#8221; said Biden. &#8220;It is well past time for Iran to adopt a serious good-faith approach to negotiations. Abandon the illicit nuclear program and your support for terrorism and there will be meaningful incentives.&#8221;</p>
<p>Watered-down sanctions and poor oversight are already incentive enough for Iran to stay the course. For instance, Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction John Sopko <a href="http://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/Middle-East/U.S.-Violating-its-Own-Sanctions-on-Iran.html">revealed</a> that an audit of U.S. defense spending in Afghanistan shows that the Pentagon may have spent a &#8220;significant amount&#8221; of money for fuel purchased from Iran, due to a &#8220;lack of oversight&#8221; on the billions of dollars of taxpayer funds used to support the Afghan military. &#8220;The fact that the United States has paid for the acquisition and delivery of imported fuel for the Afghan National Security Forces &#8212; nearly $1.1 billion for the Afghan National Army alone between fiscal years 2007 and 2012 &#8212; raises concerns that U.S. funds could have been used to pay for imports of fuel potentially in violation of U.S. economic sanctions against Iran,&#8221; said Sopko.</p>
<p>No doubt this is due to a certain level of bureaucratic sloppiness that is endemic to the kind of ever-expanding government this administration champions. And while that may be somewhat understandable, this administration&#8217;s ongoing diplomatic approach seems destined to do little more than give Tehran the time it needs to finally cross the nuclear weapon threshold.</p>
<p>Thus it was completely unsurprising that Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi was <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/04/us-iran-usa-germany-idUSBRE9130LU20130204">pleased</a> with Biden&#8217;s offer. &#8220;As I have said yesterday, I am optimistic, I feel this new administration is really this time seeking to at least divert from its previous traditional approach vis-a-vis my country,&#8221; Salehi told the German Council on Foreign Relations. Salehi, who also attended the Munich conference, went further. &#8220;I think it is about time both sides really get into engagement because confrontation certainly is not the way,&#8221; he added.</p>
<p>Such a statement is a typical rewriting of history. Negotiations between some combination of the P5+1 countries (United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany) and Iran have been ongoing <a href="http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Iran_Nuclear_Proposals">for a decade</a>. In all that time, not a single proposal has gained acceptance from all the parities involved. Such orchestrated futility is the essence of what a diplomatic approach has produced. Yet once again the P5+1 is offering Iran another chance to engage in negotiations on February 24, possibly in Kazakhstan. While Salehi called this &#8220;good news,&#8221; the Iranians have yet to accept. Even if they do, Salehi has offered a hint as to where they are likely to go. &#8220;And another thing: this issue of the nuclear file is becoming boring,&#8221; he said during the same interview.</p>
<p>In London, Hossein Mousavian, one of Iran&#8217;s former nuclear negotiators, also hinted at the likely futility another round of multilateral negotiations would produce, claiming that they are meaningless without &#8220;parallel dialogue&#8221; between the Obama administration and Iran. &#8220;I believe they should start immediately. They should put all issues on the table. They should start with issues of common interest like Afghanistan in order to create a positive momentum,&#8221; he said.</p>
<p>Senator John McCain, who also spoke in Munich, proved once again that willful blindness with regard to Iran is a bipartisan problem. He favors direct talks with Tehran as well, even as he cautioned that optimism may be unwarranted. &#8220;I think we should learn the lessons of history and that is that no matter what the talks are, if you still have the fundamental problem&#8211;and the fundamental problem is Iranians&#8217; commitment to acquisition of a nuclear weapon&#8211;it doesn&#8217;t matter to a significant degree,&#8221; he said. &#8220;We&#8217;ve seen this movie before. And obviously, I think any venue we would support, but to have grounds for optimism I think would be a mistake.&#8221;</p>
<p>After more than ten years of fruitless negotiations, one might be forgiven for wondering when anyone involved in this ongoing fiasco will &#8220;learn the lessons of history.&#8221;</p>
<p>That would be anyone on the Western side of the equation. Iran is learning that the Obama administration is seemingly determined to find some sort of accommodation with the fanatical mullahs , and nothing says this better than the president&#8217;s attempt, and likely success, in getting Chuck Hagel appointed Secretary of Defense. In 2007, Hagel <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-ironies-of-hagels-no-vote-on-irans-revolutionary-guards/2013/01/31/bfdf7686-6c04-11e2-ada0-5ca5fa7ebe79_blog.html">voted against</a> designating Iran&#8217;s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group. In 2008 Hagel, like Biden, also <a href="http://mondoweiss.net/2012/12/hagel-called-for-setting-up-us-interests-section-in-iran-and-resuming-commercial-flights-so-as-to-engage-iran-on-palestinian-issue.html">favored</a> direct negotiations with Iran, despite noting that &#8220;they support terrorists, they support Hezbollah. They’ve got their tentacles wrapped around every problem in the middle East. They’re anti-Israel, anti-United States. Those are realities. Those are facts.&#8221; In his Senate hearing last week, Hagel &#8220;explained&#8221; his reasoning in a jaw dropping moment when he noted that the U.S. had never &#8220;designated a part of a legitimate government [Iran]&#8221; as a terrorist organization. Realizing his mistake he corrected himself. Iran&#8217;s government is &#8220;recognizable,&#8221; he said.</p>
<p>So is Hagel&#8217;s cluelessness. It is all the more amplified by another <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/339446/hagel-flops-iran-containment-andrew-stiles">gaffe</a> during which he said he supported the Obama&#8217;s administration policy of &#8220;containment&#8221; with regard to Iran, even though the administration has repeatedly ruled that out as an option. In fact, Iran would probably like nothing more than to be at the stage of &#8220;containment&#8221; after securing a nuclear weapon.</p>
<p>So what policy should the United States be pursuing with regard to Iran? Writing for PJ Media, Middle East expert Andrew McCarthy <a href="http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2012/10/22/thinking-iran-its-the-regime-not-the-nukes/">explains</a> that focusing solely on nukes is &#8220;delusional.&#8221; &#8220;Exportation of their Islamist revolution, hatred of America and, within that sweep, the destruction of Israel have been the operating premises of Khomeinist Iran since 1979,&#8221; he writes. &#8220;The facilitation of terrorism&#8211;a barbaric way to pursue national interests&#8211;has been the regime’s principal means of operation. The mullahs have killed or aided and abetted in the killing of thousands of Americans, and every day they try to kill more. The regime is an incorrigible enemy of the United States. There should be nothing they can do at this point, after over 30 years of this, to convince us otherwise.&#8221;</p>
<p>Apparently the Obama administration remains unconvinced. Though ten years of pursuing diplomacy have produced no tangle results, this administration still believes it is capable of getting an apocalyptic regime to alter its divine objective: hastening the second coming of the Twelfth or Hidden Imam whose re-emergence must be preceded by a period of chaos. And as the U.S. continues down the road of appeasement, expect fanatical Iran to respond accordingly.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/obama-administration-offers-direct-talks-with-iran/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>38</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Left&#8217;s Lincoln</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/ben-shapiro/the-lefts-lincoln/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-lefts-lincoln</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/ben-shapiro/the-lefts-lincoln/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2012 04:39:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ben Shapiro]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Daniel Day Lewis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hollywood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lincoln]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Munich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[saving private ryan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Segregation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Slavery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Steven Spielberg]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=148080</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Republican president was secretly a Democrat.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/ben-shapiro/the-lefts-lincoln/danieldaylincoln/" rel="attachment wp-att-148082"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-148082" title="danieldaylincoln" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/danieldaylincoln.jpg" alt="" width="347" height="302" /></a>Steven Spielberg announced a couple of years ago that he wanted to make a movie based on Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book, <em>Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln</em>. And he quickly signed up the world’s finest actor, Daniel Day Lewis, to inhabit the role of Lincoln.</p>
<p>Then he made a mistake. He hired <em>Munich</em> screenwriter and radical gay leftist Tony Kushner to write the script.</p>
<p>It was all downhill from there.</p>
<p>This week, Spielberg spoke out about his movie. And, as it turns out, we’re going to get a view of American history that looks distinctly Democratic. When asked about the fact that Lincoln was a Republican – the first Republican president, in fact – Spielberg answered, “I just said, please don’t release this until the election is over. I didn’t want it to be this political football going back and forth. Because it’s kind of confusing. The parties traded political places over the last 150 years. That in itself is a great story, how the Republican Party went from a progressive party in 1865, and how the Democrats were represented in the picture, to the way it’s just the opposite today. But that’s a whole other story.”</p>
<p>Well, actually, it’s not a whole other story. Because it’s not even close to a true story. The Republican and Democratic Parties never “traded political places.” Racism is still the preserve of the Democratic Party, which utilizes skin color as a political tool; color-blindness is still the preserve of the Republican Party. There is a reason that Senator Robert Byrd (WV), a one-time member of the KKK was considered the Democratic conscience of the Senate until his death in 2010. There’s a reason segregationists like George Wallace were Democrats. The Democratic Party never flip-flopped with the Republican Party. It just hid its racism beneath a veneer of reverse racism.</p>
<p>But this is how Hollywood – and Spielberg in particular &#8212; does history.</p>
<p>A film like <em>Saving Private Ryan</em> puts an antiwar gloss on the most pro-human rights war in the history of humanity. When the character Sgt. Horvath explains, “Someday we might look back on this and decide that saving Private Ryan was the one decent thing we were able to pull out of this whole godawful, shitty mess,” that’s a pathetic statement given that this conflict was about defeating the worst threat to humanity and humane values ever unleashed.</p>
<p>A films like <em>Amistad</em>, which revolves around a slave revolt aboard a Spanish ship and the subsequent trial in the United States &#8212; portray white abolitionists as selfish folks out for themselves. As Gary Rosen pointed out in <em>Commentary</em>, “Lewis Tappan was the prime defender of the Africans from start to finish,” but he’s played as a “closet racist”; Roger Baldwin had “abolitionist sympathies,” but is portrayed as a money grubbing lawyer. The point, says Rosen: “the denigration of Christianity, especially of the white, Protestant variety.</p>
<p>In <em>The Color Purple</em>, Spielberg portrays Africa as a grand sort of multicultural place, while the United States is steeped in darkness. In <em>Munich</em>, the real bad guys are terrorist hunters rather than terrorists – and Israel is so scarred by terrorist hunting that Israelis must move to the United States and abandon their country for absolution.</p>
<p>In the Spielberg world, America is the target; only “progressive” forces, reflecting the pacifist, multicultural tendencies of the filmmaker, can cure America of its ills. In order to achieve this rewriting of American history, Spielberg, ironically enough, ignores the gory, ugly, beautiful tapestry of the history of the United States page by page – a true story that <em>would</em> bring to light unique and fascinating elements of human nature.</p>
<p>In other words, Spielberg’s history is too one dimensional as well as too leftist. It is the story of “progress” toward today’s Democratic Party. John Quincy Adams from <em>Amistad</em> would be a Clinton voter; Lincoln would be a fan of Obama; by the end of <em>Munich</em> the protagonist would want to sign up for a tour with the Gaza Flotilla.</p>
<p>It is sad that there are so many great American stories worth telling – including Lincoln’s – and that they are perverted by those on the left more interested in a political agenda than in simply letting the truth speak for itself.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/ben-shapiro/the-lefts-lincoln/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>63</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Obama Doctrine Exposed</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/the-obama-doctrine-exposed/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-obama-doctrine-exposed</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/the-obama-doctrine-exposed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Oct 2012 04:50:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arab Spring]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[doctrine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hitler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Munich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taliban]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=147249</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Romney sheds light on a president's disastrous foreign policy.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/A-former-Taliban-soldier-001.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-147307" title="A-former-Taliban-soldier--001" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/A-former-Taliban-soldier-001.gif" alt="" width="375" height="239" /></a>On Monday, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney took President Obama to task for his administration&#8217;s disastrous handling of American foreign policy, which has had catastrophic consequences &#8212; most recently in the form of the heinous attacks against our embassies in Libya and Egypt. To understand what happened in Benghazi or in Cairo requires more than poking around the rubble, wiping off some of the ashes and pronouncing the whole thing a tragedy. The German invasion of Poland wasn’t the tragedy; the Munich Agreement was. Similarly the tragedy wasn’t the consulate and embassy attacks, but the foreign policy that caused them to happen.</p>
<p>The underlying philosophy Romney pointed to, the Obama Doctrine, has often been described as appeasement, but that’s a vague and general criticism. The Munich Agreement was appeasement, but the Obama Doctrine goes beyond anything as simple as appeasing as a single nation’s territorial ambitions.</p>
<p>The Obama Doctrine sought to resolve the War on Terror by dividing Islamists into two camps: the moderate political Islamists and the extremist violent Islamists. These categorizations were wholly artificial and everyone from Obama on down knew how artificial the differences between the so-called extremists and moderates were.</p>
<p>In Libya, the Muslim Brotherhood had transitioned the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group from the status of violent extremists allied with Al Qaeda to political Islamists committed to political reforms. That did not actually make the LIFG, which exploited its newfound moderate status and the freedom that came with it to go on fighting Gaddafi as part of the civil war, non-violent. The difference between the Al Qaeda-affiliated LIFG and the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated LIFG was a few pieces of paper.</p>
<p>But the gruesome absurdity of the whole thing was laid out plainly for all to see in Afghanistan. The plan for Afghanistan was not to defeat the Taliban, though that was how it was sold to the American people, it was to divide the Taliban into moderates willing to engage in a democratic political process and extremists who would be defeated and isolated.</p>
<p>The Afghanistan surge, which cost nearly 1,500 American lives, was a brute force mechanism for engineering a divide that was supposed to result in the military defeat of the Taliban and their transformation into a political party. The Taliban would be free to lock up Afghan girls again, so long as they did it after winning a democratic election.</p>
<p>The Muslim Brotherhood was called in to oversee negotiations between the United States and the Taliban, as it had between Gaddafi and the LIFG, but unlike the LIFG, the Taliban showed no interest in following the Muslim Brotherhood’s devious route to political power.</p>
<p>The difference between Afghanistan and the Arab Spring countries is that those countries had strong governments capable of suppressing Islamist groups and forcing them to resort to the political process to accomplish what they could not manage through violence. However Obama’s withdrawal timetable made it clear to the Taliban that all they had to do to win in Afghanistan was wait him out.</p>
<p>&#8220;Our enemies are little worms. I saw them at Munich,&#8221; Hitler told his generals. The Taliban commanders have likely shared a similar opinion of Obama’s coterie of amateur peacemakers and of the great man himself.</p>
<p>1,500 American soldiers died in Afghanistan to improve Obama’s leverage in his failed bid to transform the Taliban into a political party. It is hard to think of any aspect of his foreign policy more hideously repulsive than this simple fact.</p>
<p>The greatest error of the Obama Doctrine lay in assuming that the political path and the military path represented a fundamental and irreconcilable parting of the ways between moderates and extremists, when they were actually just two approaches for seizing power. Hitler used the political process to come to power, but then went back to the same old tactics to stay in power and to expand his power base.</p>
<p>The Obama Doctrine depended on moving as many Islamists as possible from the military camp to the political camp, assuming that they could not then go back or would not want to. But just as there was no barrier preventing violent Islamists from turning political, there was no barrier preventing political Islamists from turning violent. A totalitarian ideology need not turn its back on violence to participate in the political process.</p>
<p>The Muslim Brotherhood’s credo, “Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations” made its ends clear without specifying how they had to be achieved. The political revolution or the suicide bombing were two means to the same end.</p>
<p>Obama attempted to use the Muslim Brotherhood to achieve his objective of ending the War on Terror by isolating the violent Islamists and bringing them over into the ranks of the political Islamists. But the rise of Salafist violence in countries taken over by political Islamists has rekindled the War on Terror. North Africa is burning and the Islamists are the ones holding the torch.</p>
<p>The attacks of September 11, 2012, showed that not only had Al Qaeda not been defeated, but that the Islamist takeovers of Benghazi, Tunisia and Egypt had actually given it more freedom to operate. The overthrows of Gaddafi and Mubarak had left the security of the Benghazi consulate and the Cairo embassy in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. And the Muslim Brotherhood has always been at war with the United States.</p>
<p>Obama had taken credit for the Arab Spring and the defeat of Al Qaeda, but the attacks were a reminder that Al Qaeda was not defeated and that the governments of the Arab Spring now had him at their mercy. The plan to divide the Muslim Brotherhood from the other Salafists had failed. Instead it had put the Muslim Brotherhood into the position of being the brokers of the Salafist violence, offering their protection against the “extremists” even while letting them do their worst.</p>
<p>In North Africa, the Obama Doctrine put the Muslim Brotherhood in power, and despite their current “moderate” political status, it will take a coup, a revolt or a war to get them out again. In Afghanistan, the Obama Doctrine squandered 1,500 lives to create a moderate Taliban while losing the war. In the Middle East it has destroyed every peace process that Israel has engaged in. All of these are the overlooked tragedies that will lead to true bloodshed.</p>
<p>Like Chamberlain, Obama’s appeasement has given an aggressive supremacist ideology a confidence boost and a deep foothold in vital strategic territories, while dismantling and demoralizing allies. The Islamist program has moved ahead a generation, far faster than its leaders ever dared to anticipate. Osama Bin Laden is dead, but his phase of terrorist attacks is outdated now that Islamist parties and militias control entire countries that are far richer and better armed than Afghanistan.</p>
<p>The Obama Doctrine has been implemented and its net result has been to accelerate an inevitable war by a generation, and as the two-thousandth soldier killed in Afghanistan returns home in a flag-draped coffin, that victim of Obama’s cynical politics of appeasement is one of a number that may one day fall into the millions.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/the-obama-doctrine-exposed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>40</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Moment of Silence for Slain Israeli Olympians</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/giulio-meotti/no-moment-of-silence-for-slain-israeli-olympians/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=no-moment-of-silence-for-slain-israeli-olympians</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/giulio-meotti/no-moment-of-silence-for-slain-israeli-olympians/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2012 04:10:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Giulio Meotti]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[1972]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[killing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Munich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Olympics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[terrorists]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=137218</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Forty years later, the Olympic games will again be stained with disgrace. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/1972MunichOlympicMassacre.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-137244" title="1972MunichOlympicMassacre" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/1972MunichOlympicMassacre.gif" alt="" width="375" height="233" /></a>The International Olympic Committee will not hold an official minute of silence at the London Games for the 11 Israeli athletes butchered by the Palestinian terrorists at the 1972 Munich Olympics.</p>
<p>It was the worst terrorist attack in sports history, but the Olympic cupola capitulated to the Arabs&#8217; terroristic ransom and has forsaken Israel, again.</p>
<p>The brave widows of two of the Israeli victims have campaigned to hold a commemoration, either through a moment of silence or a short mention in the Committee president’s opening remarks. Along with 89,000 other people, I signed their petition, but it was ineffective.</p>
<p>The widows and the people of Israel deserved a minute of silence, if only to ease the emotional pain. But the Committee choose infamy, disgrace and capitulation to jihadism.</p>
<p>“We want the Olympic Committee, with all 10,000 young athletes in front of them, to say, ‘Let us not forget what happened in Munich’”, said Ankie Spitzer, whose husband, Andre, was one of the Israeli athletes who had come in peace, to participate in the 20th Olympiad, not just to any country, but to Munich, the city that spawned Adolf Hitler, a mere 20 miles south of Dachau. When they left Germany, 11 were dead, 17 remained out of 28 &#8211; just about the same 40 percent.</p>
<p>There’s nothing like the Olympic Games to bring out collective feelings of peace and fair competition, and the memory of the Israelis had a chance of becoming a reality in London.</p>
<p>The massacre of the Israeli team is not just a tragedy for the Jewish State or even for the Olympics, but for the entire world. The building that housed the Israeli athletes was located less than 10 miles from the Dachau concentration camp. They were the first Jews killed in Germany for being Jewish since 1945. The Games lost their meaning that day, and by refusing to hold a memorial for the Israelis, the committee killed the games (and the memory of the eleven Israelis) for the second time. Since then, their murders have vanished from international memory.</p>
<p>If one is to identify a beginning of the slaughtering of Israeli civilians, one must return to 31 Connollystrasse in the Olympic Village of Munich. The apartment building today bears little resemblance to a place forever linked with the darkest hours in European post-Holocaust history.</p>
<p>The political objectives of the Games of 1972 were to bury the memory of the infamous 1936 Nazi Olympics, and to celebrate “the new Germany” as a member of the family of nations. The objective was evident in the color of the Games. Red and black, the colors of  Communist and Nazi totalitarianism, were nowhere to be seen at Munich. In their place, the colors used were of “a may morning in Bavaria.” Friendly colors: grass green, sky blue, cloudlike silver and touches of &#8220;flowery orange.”</p>
<p>&#8220;Harbiya! Terroristen! Haverim, lehu maher!&#8221; The cry rang out in Hebrew at 4:30 a.m., Sept. 5, 1972, as Yossef Gutfreund, the Israeli wrestling coach, slammed against the door of Apartment 1, 31 Connollystrasse. &#8216;&#8221;Arabs! Terrorists! Comrades, get out fast!&#8221; For twenty seconds Gutfreund struggled, trying to buy time, one man against eight Arabs. Later the police would find the hinges twisted on the door.</p>
<p>Some Israelis slipped through a back door, but nine were seized and tied to furniture. The terrorists demanded 200 Palestinians jailed in Israel be freed.</p>
<p>The response of the Olympic organizers to the sullying of their games with violence was a series of shameful capitulations to terrorism.</p>
<p>On the day of the attack, the games at first continued, despite the knowledge that two Israelis were dead and nine remained hostage.</p>
<p>When the full tragedy became known, the games were halted for only part of one day. The German government, together with the Committee, rallied under the slogan “the Games must go on.” The shameful decision not to bring everything to a halt was morally bankrupt, and gave a green light for future massacres of innocent Jews.</p>
<p>What could have been more repugnant than the massacre of innocent athletes carried out at the Olympic Games? But the attack became a great media event that stressed the “occupation” of Palestine, and not a terrorist attack against the Jewish people on German soil after the Holocaust. The cowboy hats and the kefiyyehs of the Arab kidnappers, along with their long hair similar to libertarian university students, diverted attention from a simple reality: a band of Islamic terrorists slaughtered, one by one, eleven Jews.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/giulio-meotti/no-moment-of-silence-for-slain-israeli-olympians/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>18</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Harry Potter and the Vanishing Jihad</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-kilpatrick/harry-potter-and-the-vanishing-jihad/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=harry-potter-and-the-vanishing-jihad</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-kilpatrick/harry-potter-and-the-vanishing-jihad/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 May 2010 04:02:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[William Kilpatrick]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corridors of power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[course]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[courts and tribunals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[david gaubatz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Denial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[England]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Geert Wilders']]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Harry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Harry Potter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[harry potter and the order of the phoenix]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hermione]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[J.K. Rowling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jihad islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[London]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Magic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mark Steyn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[military circles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ministry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mortgage meltdown]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ms. Rowling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Muhammad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Munich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[muslim brotherhood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Sperry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Phoenix]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Professor Umbridge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Radical Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[school]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[story]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[threat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voldemort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wizard]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=60457</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Has J.K. Rowling sent us a coded message?]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/harry.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-60460" title="harry" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/harry.jpg" alt="" width="375" height="462" /></a></p>
<p>The threat from Islam seems to be growing. For example, the last twelve months saw the largest number ever of attempted and successful terrorist attacks on American soil. Meanwhile, books such as Paul Sperry’s <em>Infiltration,</em> and Sperry and David Gaubatz’s <em>Muslim Mafia </em>warn that Muslim Brotherhood agents have penetrated deep into the corridors of power and influence.</p>
<p>Yet official America is still in denial. The words “jihad,” “Islam,” “Islamic terrorism” and just plain “terrorism” are off-limits in polite government and military circles. Attorney General Eric Holder couldn’t even bring himself to use the term “radical Islam” when questioned on the subject the other day. At the same time, the mainstream media continue to deny that Islamic beliefs are the main factor in terrorist attacks. Thus, several reporters portrayed Faisal Shazhad, the Times  Square bomber, as just another case of mortgage meltdown. Meanwhile, Comedy Central prudently decided that He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Depicted will not be depicted. And amazingly, the people who point to the increasing threat from Islam are still written-off as “alarmists.” Sometimes, as in the cases of Mark Steyn, Geert Wilders, and others, the “alarmists” are hauled before courts and tribunals to answer for their alarmism.</p>
<p>Every once in a while, for sanity’s sake, you need to take a break from such grim reports. So today I’m recommending you pull yourself away from the bad news on the blog sites, and escape into the world of fantasy. Take a breather. Ease up on yourself. For example, you could immerse yourself for a few days in one of the “Harry Potter” series. Forget about the jihad. Instead, transport yourself to the magical world of Hogwarts.</p>
<p>You could, for instance, pick up book five of the series, <em>Harry Potter and the Order of the </em><em>Phoenix</em><em>. </em>It’s almost as long as <em>War and Peace</em>, so it will provide many hours of diversion. Moreover, it’s a well-written, cleverly plotted book with plenty of mystery, humor, sharply drawn characters, and inventive gadgets. As with the other books in the series, the plot revolves around the struggle between Harry and his nemesis, Voldemort—who is referred to throughout as “He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.” Hah, hah! Clever literary device, that. You know we’re safely in the realm of fantasy when people can’t even bring themselves to name the threat which faces them.</p>
<p>The story starts out with Harry being summoned before a court hearing at the Ministry of Magic. The charge?—unauthorized use of his wand in Muggle territory. Harry used his wand to repel an attack by creatures now in the employ of Voldemort—in effect, a terrorist attack. But since no one at the Ministry of Magic will believe that Voldemort has returned, they insist that Harry has made up the story. The Ministry, in short, is in denial about the threat from Voldemort. It’s also in denial about the extent of the infiltration of the Ministry by Voldemort’s agents.</p>
<p>Harry is (just barely) acquitted of the charge against him, but he remains the target of a media smear campaign that portrays him as an alarmist. <em>The Daily Prophet,</em> the most influential of the Wizarding community’s newspapers, never misses a chance to discredit Harry for warning about non-existent dangers. At the same time, its editors repeatedly ignore or deny rumors about Voldemort’s re-emergence.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, a climate of political correctness has settled over the school. The new headmistress, Professor Umbridge (in reality, a Ministry plant), teaches a course in “Defense against the Dark Arts” which effectively leaves her students defenseless. The newly revised course is purely theoretical and provides no actual practice of defensive spells. From now on, Professor Umbridge informs them, the class will learn about defensive skills “in a secure, risk-free way.” When Harry and Hermione complain that they will be left unprepared to deal with the dark forces, Professor Umbridge counters that they have nothing to fear: “…you have been informed that a certain Dark wizard is at large again. This is a lie…the Ministry of Magic guarantees that you are not in danger from any Dark wizard.”</p>
<p>Alas, as you can see, <em>Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix </em>isn’t going to provide much relief from jihad anxiety. Substitute Muhammad or Islam for He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, the Obama administration for the Ministry of Magic, Geert Wilders or Mark Steyn for Harry, and you’ve got the main story of our times—one that also involves re-emergent dark forces, stealth infiltrations, denial, and neutered school curriculums. For <em>The Daily Prophet</em> you could substitute <em>The New York Times</em> or the <em>Times</em> of London, and for Professor Umbridge you could substitute all those teachers and professors who, by whitewashing Islam, leave their students unprepared for the reality they will one day face.</p>
<p>Is J.K. Rowling’s fifth book actually a roman-a-clef?—that is, a novel describing real life under the cover of fiction. Is she sending us a hidden message in the style of <em>The Da Vinci Code</em>? Rowling lives in England, after all, and she must surely have noticed that cultural jihad is far advanced there. One report says that the Muslim population of England is growing at a ten times faster rate than the native population. And the growing population is becoming more aggressive. When Geert Wilders visited England after initially being banned by the UK government, some of the Muslim protesters called for his head—literally. In reply to this kind of belligerence, official England has responded more or less like Chamberlain at Munich. “Jihad” and “Islamic terrorism” were long ago dropped from the Establishment lexicon. The schools have deleted the Holocaust and the Crusades from the curriculum out of deference to Muslims. And the Archbishop of Canterbury (who, fittingly, looks like a wizard out of central casting) has resigned himself to the establishment of some forms of Sharia law.</p>
<p>Was Rowling making a veiled comment on the surrender of her society to Islam by a craven elite? It’s difficult to say, of course. Maybe she had something more conventional in mind—perhaps, the failure of the Establishment to warn sufficiently about the dangers of global warming. Or maybe the scene with Professor Umbridge was meant to allude to the failure of British schools to provide the kind of practical sex education that would prepare students to defend against sinister strains of STD’s.</p>
<p>But if she was alluding to the threat from Islam, you can see why it had to be veiled. <em>Wikipedia</em> informs us that the reasons an author might choose a roman-a-clef format include:</p>
<ul>
<li>Writing      about controversial topics and/or reporting inside information on scandals      without giving rise to charges of libel.</li>
<li>Avoiding      self-incrimination or incrimination of others that could be used as      evidence in civil, criminal or disciplinary proceedings.</li>
</ul>
<p>Good reasons to be careful what you say—especially in England where it is quite difficult to defend against libel charges, and where “hate crime” laws are often interpreted so as to make criticism of Islam a criminal matter.</p>
<p>Imagine if Ms. Rowling had written a short opinion piece expressing her fears about the stealth Islamization of England. You can bet that before you could say “Expecto Patronum” she’d be brought up, like Harry, before some court on charges of defamation or hate speech. Or better make that “unauthorized hate speech.” If you want to write something hateful about Jews or Christians or Geert Wilders, no one will bother you. But in today’s England, just as in Harry Potter’s parallel England, you really can be arrested for warning about a danger that no one wants to admit.</p>
<p>Young people, they say, are the hope of the future. But not if they don’t wake up and begin to understand the present. When the Potter books first appeared years ago, it was reported that librarians and teachers were delighted. Young people were reading again! Ah, yes, the joy of reading. But part of the enjoyment in reading certain stories lies in making the connections to real life. What if there is never any moment of recognition—never any point where one sees the connection between what one reads and the world one lives in?</p>
<p>Young people may delve into imaginative fiction, but they live in a very unimaginative world—one that more or less forbids them to make any connections other than the officially approved ones. You can read <em>The Crucible</em> and have class discussions about McCarthyism, just don’t talk about contemporary witch hunts conducted by the politically correct. You can read <em>The Lord of the Rings</em>, but just remember that it’s an allegory about the threat of atomic weapons, and the destruction of the environment. Professor Tolkien never meant to say that certain traditions and cultures were superior to other traditions and cultures.</p>
<p>There are some important lessons to be learned from <em>Harry Potter and</em> <em>the Order of the Phoenix</em>. And it would be nice to think that legions of young people are taking them to heart. But today’s youngsters (as well as the not so young) have been conditioned to believe what the Wizarding community has been conditioned to believe: that there is no danger, no dark forces mustering, no need to worry about deception and infiltration. And, although our leaders and teachers talk incessantly about “change,” they have somehow managed to convince us that nothing momentous or world changing could ever really happen in our times. Very few seem prepared to even imagine the kind of epic change that Islamization would bring. And very few are prepared for the kind of epic struggle that may be needed to halt it. So thanks to J.K. Rowling, whether she intended it or not, for reminding us that epic struggles sometime occur in real life as well as in fantasies.</p>
<p><strong>William Kilpatrick’s articles have appeared in <em>FrontPage Magazine, First Things, Catholic World Report, National Catholic Register, Jihad Watch, World</em>, and <em>Investor’s Business Daily.</em></strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-kilpatrick/harry-potter-and-the-vanishing-jihad/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>22</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama’s Unexceptional Nation</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/alan-w-dowd/obama%e2%80%99s-unexceptional-nation/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obama%25e2%2580%2599s-unexceptional-nation</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/alan-w-dowd/obama%e2%80%99s-unexceptional-nation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Apr 2010 04:15:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Alan W. Dowd]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ambiguity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arthur Schlesinger Jr.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ben Rhodes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Deputy National]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dialogue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enemy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hiroshima]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ike]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iraqi counterpart]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jackson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[korea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Moscow]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Munich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nicolas Sarkozy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[North Korea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear diplomacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear non proliferation treaty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear posture review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear test ban]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear test ban treaty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear weapon state]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear weapons states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[offer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Robert Gates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secretary of State James Baker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[test ban treaty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Treaty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=58140</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Never has a U.S. president been so idealistic about the world but so cynical about America’s role in it.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/2_61_100507_Obama.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-58142" title="2_61_100507_Obama" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/2_61_100507_Obama.jpg" alt="" width="320" height="240" /></a></p>
<p>America has had presidents who were realists and idealists and realistic, even cynical, about the world yet idealistic about America’s mission in the world, but Barack Obama is unique among this fraternity. For arguably the first time in 220 years, we have a president who is idealistic about the world but cynical about America’s role in it. Obama’s recent flurry of nuclear diplomacy and declarations is just the latest example.</p>
<p>First, his administration carried out a Nuclear Posture Review (<a href="http://www.defense.gov/NPR/docs/NPR%20FACT%20SHEET%20April%202010.pdf">NPR</a>) that, among other things, pledges that the United States:</p>
<ul>
<li>“will not conduct nuclear testing, and will seek      ratification and entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban      Treaty,”</li>
<li>“will not develop new nuclear warheads,” and</li>
<li>“will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons      against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the Nuclear      Non-Proliferation Treaty and in compliance with their nuclear      nonproliferation obligations.”</li>
</ul>
<p>Obama’s NPR also removes the protection afforded by what Defense Secretary Robert <a href="http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4599">Gates</a> calls “calculated ambiguity.” “If a non-nuclear-weapon state is in compliance with the nonproliferation treaty and its obligations,” Gates explains, “the U.S. pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against it.” Instead, such an enemy “would face the prospect of a devastating conventional military response”—even if that enemy “were to use chemical or biological weapons against the United   States or its allies or partners.”</p>
<p>“Calculated ambiguity” has kept America’s enemies on notice and off balance for decades—and, not coincidentally, kept America and American forces safe from nuclear, biological or chemical attack. Recall Secretary of State James Baker’s implied threat to his Iraqi counterpart regarding how the U.S. would respond to Iraq’s use of chemical or biological weapons. Or consider Eisenhower’s counsel:</p>
<blockquote><p>“One of America’s great tacticians, Stonewall Jackson, said ‘Always surprise, mystify and mislead the enemy.’”</p></blockquote>
<p>Ike had quite a surprise in store for North  Korea’s patron and protector in China. As historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote years after Ike’s presidency, “Eisenhower began by invoking the nuclear threat to end the fighting in Korea,” letting the Chinese know that, in Eisenhower’s own words, he “would not be constrained about crossing the Yalu or using nuclear weapons.”</p>
<p>Fifty-seven years later, we have a president eager to constrain American power—and willing to surrender the strategic deterrent advantage of ambiguity—in hopes that thugs, dictators and outlaws can be reasoned with.</p>
<p>And yet there appear to be no constraints on the bad guys. North   Korea, for instance, tested a nuclear weapon and long-range missiles during Obama’s first year in office, just as it had during the Bush administration. Likewise, when evidence of a secret Iranian nuclear-fuel manufacturing plant came to light in September 2009, there was no punishment or sanction. French president Nicolas <a href="http://ambafrance-us.org/spip.php?article1432">Sarkozy</a> was so furious that he detailed for the UN Security Council everything the UN Security Council has allowed Iran to get away with:</p>
<blockquote><p>“Since 2005, Iran has violated five Security Council resolutions…An offer of dialogue was made in 2005, an offer of dialogue was made in 2006, an offer of dialogue was made in 2007, an offer of dialogue was made in 2008, and another one was made in 2009…What did the international community gain from these offers of dialogue? Nothing. More enriched uranium, more centrifuges.”</p></blockquote>
<p>Finally, after signing a deal with Russia to cut America’s arsenal of nuclear warheads by 30 percent—thankfully in exchange for reciprocal cuts on Moscow’s part—Obama convened a summit in Washington “dedicated to nuclear security and the threat of nuclear terrorism,” in the words of Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes. Obama’s goal is “to secure all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world within four years.”</p>
<p>That’s a worthwhile objective. Of course, two of the gravest nuclear threats we face—Iran and North Korea—were not at Obama’s nuclear summit. In fact, they weren’t <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1265332/Barack-Obama-tells-nuclear-summit-terrorists-greatest-threat.html">invited</a>. Given that both are known terrorist states, given that Iran is racing to build a nuke, and given that North Korea already has nukes, it seems likely that this shameless pair would be prime candidates for nuclear terrorism.</p>
<p>But perhaps it’s good that they weren’t at Obama’s conference. After all, international summits and conferences are only as dependable as the parties participating in them. Again, Ike’s words are instructive. Always dubious of what he called “the conference method” to foreign policy, he noted that</p>
<blockquote><p>“We have had a lot of talks and some of them have produced very disappointing results…The pact of Munich was a more fell blow to humanity than the atomic bomb at Hiroshima.”</p></blockquote>
<p>It is doubtful that Obama—the product of a postmodern, relativistic era that views American power as something to constrain and America’s role in the world as something to apologize for—would agree with that.</p>
<p>In this regard, it pays to recall that Obama himself concedes, with a shrug, “I believe in American exceptionalism…just as the Brits believe in British exceptionalism, and the Greeks in Greek exceptionalism.” In other words, every nation is exceptional, which means no nation is exceptional.</p>
<p>Now, contrast that with Woodrow Wilson’s idealism and liberal internationalism. Sure, Wilson envisioned a gauzy, global federalism that made—and still makes—American nationalists uncomfortable. But Wilson’s idealism was couched in a strong belief in American exceptionalism. It was America’s duty, Wilson argued, to make the world “safe for democracy&#8230;to vindicate the principles of peace and justice.”</p>
<p>Our current president simply doesn’t believe that. As Johns Hopkins scholar Foaud Ajami has observed, there is an “ambivalence at the heart of the Obama diplomacy about freedom.”</p>
<p>And there is a sad relativism about America’s place and purpose in the world at the heart of this president’s foreign policy. It pays to recall that under the Obama administration, for the first time ever, the United States will conduct a human rights review of itself, hand it over to the UN Human Rights Council, and then “submit itself to a process in which America’s record might be judged by some of the world’s worst human rights abusers,” as <a href="http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/12/state_department_preparing_human_rights_report_on_the_united_states">Foreign Policy</a> magazine reports.</p>
<p>In a similar vein, the United States is edging closer to the International Criminal Court. “That we are not a signatory,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said of the ICC, “is a great regret.” UN Ambassador Susan Rice has called the ICC “an important and credible instrument.”</p>
<p>By the way, among those currently under indictment and/or investigation by the ICC are warlords in Uganda, genocidal generals in Sudan, and, apparently, U.S. troops trying to rebuild Afghanistan: According to a <em>Wall Street Journal</em> <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704013004574519253095440312.html">report</a>, the ICC is conducting a “preliminary examination into whether NATO troops, including American soldiers, fighting the Taliban may have to be put in the dock.”</p>
<p>That’s the inevitable destination of a foreign policy that is idealistic about the world but cynical about America’s role in it.</p>
<p><em>Alan W. Dowd writes on defense and security issues.</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/alan-w-dowd/obama%e2%80%99s-unexceptional-nation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>27</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tolerance for Terror</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/jamie-glazov/tolerance-for-terror/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=tolerance-for-terror</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/jamie-glazov/tolerance-for-terror/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 05:08:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jamie Glazov]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appropriate response]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[auschwitz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cairo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Christian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cultural relativism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[difference]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[due recognition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[egypt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[equivalency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[extremist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fatwa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fort Hood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gas chambers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hasan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high time]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[howard rotberg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[idea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ideology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intelligentsia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[islamists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jewish professor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Rawls]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Karl Popper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lebanon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Libya]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Major Hasan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mantua]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mary Robinson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[moral equivalency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[morality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[morocco]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[movie]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Munich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Muslim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Naomi Klein]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear Weapons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[outlooks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[paternal grandparents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political Correctness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Radical Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rashid Khalidi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[relativism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[respect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[retribution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reverend Wright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rotberg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saudi Arabia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[second generation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[slave laborer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Spielberg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Syria]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tolerance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tolerant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tolerism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tolerist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tolerists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[totalitarian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tunisia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.N. Durban]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vengeance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Venice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[View]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[William Ayers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=47754</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why the Obama administration resists the appropriate response to the threats to our freedoms and lives.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-47758" title="Obama 2008" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/obaman1.jpg" alt="Obama 2008" width="450" height="335" /></p>
<p>Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Howard Rotberg, an author of several books who has just released his latest book, <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Tolerism-Ideology-Revealed-Howard-Rotberg/dp/0973406526">Tolerism: The Ideology Revealed</a></em> (Mantua Books). He blogs at <a href="http://secondgenerationradical.blogmatrix.com/" target="_blank">secondgenerationradical.blogmatrix.com</a>. He has previously been interviewed by Frontpage (<a href="http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=30923" target="_blank">Fatwa on a Book</a>) about the fate of his 2003 novel about a Jewish professor’s worry about Iran developing nuclear weapons and the professor’s problems with political correctness.</p>
<p><strong>FP: </strong>Howard Rotberg, welcome to Frontpage Interview.</p>
<p><strong>Rotberg:</strong> Thank you for having me</p>
<p>What inspired you to write this book?</p>
<p><strong>Rotberg:</strong> Basically, I began to understand that, in a world that was treating Islamist terrorism with tolerance and submission, as opposed to a due recognition of the war declared upon us, much of our “intelligentsia” was prisoner of a certain ideology that inhibited an appropriate response to the threats to our freedoms and lives.</p>
<p>As a result of my novel, <em>The Second Catastrophe,</em> being, essentially, banned in Canada because of the objections of some 18 year old Islamists, I was becoming aware that the very people who proclaimed their tolerance were in fact the least tolerant of all when it came to listening to, and debating, contrary opinions. In other words, political correctness, moral and cultural relativism and moral equivalency were combining to create a certain ideology in the West. I decided it was high time to write about the values and ideologies that have handcuffed much of our media and academic elites from critiquing the fascistic aspects of Radical Islam, and elevating the alleged “right’ not to be offended over the human rights of all victims of Islamist rage, including their own people.</p>
<p><strong>FP:</strong> Tell us a bit about your background that has influenced you in your thoughts and outlooks.</p>
<p><strong>Rotberg:</strong> My paternal grandparents and aunt were murdered in the gas chambers of Auschwitz and my father barely survived as a slave laborer there. As a member of the “Second Generation,” I was becoming alarmed at how “tolerance” was being called the most important value in the West. My background as a lawyer and as an observant Jew taught me that the most important value is justice, not tolerance. I knew that had the West “tolerated” Hitler, I would not be here. And I wondered why the West was so intent on tolerating Radical Islam and submitting to values inimical to liberal freedoms, feminism, separation of church and state, human rights and all the other great values that so many Americans and Canadians had struggled so hard to attain. As I looked out on political culture in the age of Obama, I sensed a very serious ideological problem.</p>
<p><strong>FP:</strong> What is the difference between tolerance and Tolerism?</p>
<p><strong>Rotberg:</strong> Over the years, such philosophers as Karl Popper and John Rawls had struggled with the idea of toleration and what limits must be placed on the tolerance of the <em>intolerant</em>, who, without such limitations could destroy the tolerant and the ways of tolerance. As the Second World War becomes a distant memory, we have noticed an alarming development: Instead of warnings about appeasement of Evil, we are told by the post-religious that there is no good and evil, only “competing narratives” which in a world of cultural relativism, means that western distinguished historians are given no more respect than mere polemicists, and that liberalism in Israel is given no higher respect than the totalitarian propaganda machines of its neighbours. The causes of Tolerism, then, are political correctness, cultural and moral relativism and moral equivalency.</p>
<p>Tolerism, the ideology, involves not just a tolerance of what should be <em>intolerable</em>, and the failure to set reasonable limits on tolerance, but an <em>in</em>tolerance of opposing viewpoints within liberal democracies, and an element of self-hatred, cultural masochism, and delusions about the difference between social tolerance and political tolerance. Those who seek justice are mocked with the allegation that we are seeking “vengeance,” as Spielberg did with his dastardly re-writing of history in the movie <em>Munich</em><em> </em>to show that Israel, and, impliedly, the Bush administration, were all about retribution and vengeance instead of the supposedly enlightened trait of tolerance. Tolerism, then, is the ideology of those who have attempted to cast off the Judeo-Christian ethics of justice and morality, and the sanctity of human life and fundamental liberties, and instead seek to undermine the great liberal democracies by their unwillingness to accept that tolerance has limits and that justice is far more important.</p>
<p><strong>FP: </strong>How do Tolerists view the United   States and its place in the world?  Is Obama a Tolerist?</p>
<p><strong>Rotberg:</strong> Obama gave the highest civilian honor, the Medal of Freedom, to the horrible Mary Robinson, who presided over the U.N. Durban conference where the illiberals brought into the mainstream the absurd view that the Israelis are the new Nazis and the Palestinians are the new Jews. Obama’s equivalency of American tolerance and justice with that of Muslim countries in his first major foreign policy speech at Cairo was so absurd that it showed that he is not just “tolerant” but a proponent of the new ideology of “Tolerism” – which implies not just a sympathy for opposing views but an “indulgence,” that is a treatment of those views with <em>excessive</em> <em>leniency</em>. The idea that America is comparable to Saudi Arabia is surely laughable, except that if the American President believes that, the Founding Fathers must be turning over in their graves. And therefore one can see the relevance of Obama’s past associations with Reverend Wright, William Ayers, <a title="Bernadine Dohrn" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernadine_Dohrn" target="_blank">Bernadine Dohrn</a>, and Rashid Khalidi.</p>
<p>There is no better proof that Obama is a Tolerist than examining his responses to the Fort Hood Massacre. By continuously referring to the Islamist Major Hasan (whose emails, statements and entire life-view was that of a terrorist Islamist) as an “extremist,” Obama creates a vile moral equivalency. For example, I might be regarded by some an “extremist” because some of my views are extreme relative to the mainstream, but I would not care to share that terminological status with the likes of Hasan. America must wake up; its soldiers must carry guns, and its President must understand who is the enemy, before America descends into a British-like fantasy world of submission and tolerance of a parallel Sharia universe, where universities actively promote radicalization of Muslim students.</p>
<p><strong>FP: </strong>What is the connection between Tolerism and anti-Semitism?</p>
<p><strong>Rotberg:</strong> There are several: Firstly, to the extent that Tolerism contains a large dose of self-hatred, or the hatred of America and Israel standing for all that is good – liberal freedoms and human rights- a large number of Tolerists (think Naomi Klein here) begin to hate America and the Jewish state equally. These haters of all that is good relate well to Radical Islam which is the repository of unbridled hate for all things Jewish and American. While historically, up until the 1940s, Islam accepted Jews as dhimmis, Radical Islam has never accepted Jews in the Middle  East, which is, according to them, Dar-Al-Islam, once and forever Muslim territory, notwithstanding the continual presence of Jews for 3500 years.</p>
<p>Secondly, Tolerism posits a type of moral and cultural relativism that resents states like America and Israel striving for the morality and justice advocated in the Bible. As well, if Islamic totalitarian theocracies or Palestinian death cults are as morally valid as any other position, then the Jewish narrative must by its nature be extremist and hence suspect.  This is why there is such little regard paid in the topic of “refugees” for the nearly one million Jews who were expelled from Arab countries in the 1940s, and were taken in and resettled by Israel. The United Nations then can create a separate organization for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) and be utterly silent about the Jewish refugees from Iraq, Libya, Syria, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia and Lebanon.</p>
<p>Thirdly, I referred to Spielberg’s travesty of a movie, Munich, which portrays the Jew-nation of Israel as vengeful and intent on retribution, compared to the supposed Christian virtues of tolerance and mercy. This is a theme that is best explored in Shakespeare’s <em>The Merchant of Venice</em>, where a proper reading of this classic shows a man so marginalized and abused by society that he ends up, <em>as a result of this marginalization,</em> vengefully obsessed with retributive justice, which of course is denied to him, because the very Court proceeding has been corrupted by Portia impersonating the Judge.  An improper reading, such as was done by the Englishman Michael Radford in the most recent movie version of <em>The Merchant of Venice</em>, makes the Jew Shylock the archetype for the supposedly vengeful Jews and Americans exacting a negative form of Justice against the poor, oppressed terrorists or the Iraqi terror state. The fact that the worst terrorists have university educations and come from above average income families is irrelevant to the anti-Semitic fantasy that the intolerant Americans and Israelis are the new Nazis and supposedly deserve the terrorism inflicted on them. It is all anti-Semitic in nature.</p>
<p><strong>FP: </strong>How do we find the limits of tolerance?</p>
<p><strong>Rotberg: </strong>Starting with the great philosophers of Toleration, we would have to accept, like Karl Popper that “if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed and tolerance with them … We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”</p>
<p>But just as important, we have to begin to discuss how Tolerism and its associated ideologies are behind many of the delusions about the nature of the war that has begun against us, and the nature of the enemy.  We must learn that Terrorism is successful precisely because it creates what I call a “Cultural Stockholm Syndrome” or a cultural response similar to the “Patty Hearst Syndrome” where we begin to indentify with our terrorist oppressors and begin to accept small benefits from them as part of a submission to their will and values.  The idea that the West can defeat terrorism by more tolerance of the evil perpetrators of murder directed at civilians, is, quite frankly, preposterous.</p>
<p>In the book, I explore a variety of ways to find a suitable limitation for tolerance, and I refer to writings of such heroic writers as David Solway, David Horowitz, Charles Krauthammer, Daniel Greenfield, Vijay Kumar, and even moderate Muslims like Tarek Fatah (who has called for a clear statement by Islamic theologians that Jihad must henceforth be only construed as an individual inner struggle for spirituality rather than be construed as an outer-directed violent struggle against Jews, Christians and Hindus). I hope that my book induces further discussion of what are the limits of tolerance.</p>
<p><strong>FP: </strong>Howard Rotberg, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.</p>
<p>To order Howard Rotberg’s new book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Tolerism-Ideology-Revealed-Howard-Rotberg/dp/0973406526">click here</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/jamie-glazov/tolerance-for-terror/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian Authority President</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/john-perazzo/mahmoud-abbas-palestinian-authority-president/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=mahmoud-abbas-palestinian-authority-president</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/john-perazzo/mahmoud-abbas-palestinian-authority-president/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:19:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[John Perazzo]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[DTN Profiles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abbas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Abu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Architect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[black september]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Click]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enthusiastic applause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fatah]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[founding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jewish organizations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jewish state]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jordan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lebanon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legitimacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Liberation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[live broadcast]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mahmoud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mahmoud abbas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mastermind]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mohammed Daoud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Munich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[number]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[olympic athletes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Organization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oslo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oslo peace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oudeh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pacifist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Palestine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[palestine liberation organization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[palestinian politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[palestinian youth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[part]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Peace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PLO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pragmatist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[profile]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Qatar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[socialist republic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state of israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tunisia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[White]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Yasser Arafat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[youth parliament]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Zionist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Zionist Republic]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=46908</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[  Click here to view the full Mahmoud Abbas profile. Excerpts from the Mahmoud Abbas profile: In the mid-1950s Abbas became involved in underground Palestinian politics, and joined a number of exiled Palestinians in Qatar. While there, he recruited numerous people who would become key figures in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and was one of the [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-46910" title="Mahmoud-Abbas_4" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Mahmoud-Abbas_45.jpg" alt="Mahmoud-Abbas_4" width="430" height="268" /></p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=801"><strong>Click here</strong></a><strong> to view the full Mahmoud Abbas profile.</strong></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; widows: 2; orphans: 2;"><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><strong><em>Excerpts from the Mahmoud Abbas profile:</em></strong></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; widows: 2; orphans: 2;"><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">In the mid-1950s Abbas became involved in underground Palestinian politics, and joined a number of exiled Palestinians in Qatar. While there, he recruited numerous people who would become key figures in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and was one of the founding members of Fatah in 1957.</span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; widows: 2; orphans: 2;"><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Through the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, Abbas travelled with </span></span></span></span></span><a href="file:///individualProfile.asp%3Findid=650"><span style="color: #800000;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Yasser Arafat </span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">and the rest of the PA leadership-in-exile to Jordan, Lebanon, and Tunisia. Widely regarded as a pragmatist, Abbas is credited with initiating secretive contacts with leftist and pacifist Jewish organizations during the 1970s and 80s, and is considered by many to have been a major architect of the 1993 Oslo peace accords (evidenced in part by the fact that he traveled with Arafat to the White House to sign the accords).</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; widows: 2; orphans: 2;"><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Mohammed Daoud Oudeh, mastermind of the </span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Massacre" target="_new"><span style="color: #800000;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Munich Massacre</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> of eleven Israeli Olympic athletes in 1972, </span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32292" target="_blank"><span style="color: #800000;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">alleges</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> that his deadly operation (spearheaded by </span></span></span></span></span><a href="file:///individualProfile.asp%3Findid=1194"><span style="color: #800000;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Abu Nidal</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">and carried out under the name &#8220;</span></span></span></span></span><a href="file:///groupProfile.asp%3Fgrpid=7251"><span style="color: #800000;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Black September</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">&#8220;) was funded by Abbas&#8230;.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; widows: 2; orphans: 2;"><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">On April 27, 2009, Abbas addressed the Palestinian Youth Parliament. In the course of his speech, he candidly rejected the legitimacy of Israel&#8217;s identity as a Jewish state, drawing enthusiastic applause from his audience. He </span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPsOe9yRqTU"><span style="color: #800000;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">said</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">:</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; widows: 2; orphans: 2;"><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">&#8220;The &#8216;Jewish state.&#8217; What is a &#8216;Jewish state?&#8217; We call it, the &#8216;State of Israel&#8217;. You can call yourselves whatever you want. You can call yourselves whatever you want. But I will not accept it. And I say this on a live broadcast. It&#8217;s not my job to define it, to provide a definition for the state and what it contains. You can call yourselves the Zionist Republic, the Hebrew, the National, the Socialist [Republic] call it whatever you like. I don&#8217;t care.&#8221; (Click </span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPsOe9yRqTU"><span style="color: #800000;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">here</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> to see a video of Abbas delivering this quote.)</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; widows: 2; orphans: 2;"><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><strong>To view the full Mahmoud Abbas profile, <a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=801">click here.</a></strong></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/john-perazzo/mahmoud-abbas-palestinian-authority-president/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hillary Goes Weak-Kneed on Iran</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/dick-morris/hillary-goes-weak-kneed-on-iran/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=hillary-goes-weak-kneed-on-iran</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/dick-morris/hillary-goes-weak-kneed-on-iran/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2010 05:12:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dick Morris]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abysmal record]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aggression]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bosnia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bosnia war]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[comment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cutoff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cutting off]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dictator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dictator slobodan milosevic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[doing business in the united states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Don]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economic sanctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[flow]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gasoline]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[husband]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Illinois]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[illinois republican]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[imposition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[impotence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iranian leaders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iranians]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jugular]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kind]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leadership]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liberalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mark kirk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Munich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear program]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OIL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oil products]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[program]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rep. Mark Kirk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sanctions against iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Senate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senate seat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Serbia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Serbian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Slobodan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[slobodan milosevic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[squishy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[step]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tehran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[threat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vulnerable point]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=46625</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The impotence of sanctions not going for the jugular is obvious.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-46630" title="hillary-clinton-46_1201962c" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/hillary-clinton-46_1201962c.gif" alt="hillary-clinton-46_1201962c" width="450" height="282" /></p>
<p>A squishy, misguided, weak-kneed liberalism has emerged in Hillary Clinton&#8217;s comments about the kind of sanctions that would work best in halting Iran&#8217;s nuclear program. Rather than take the one step that would really be effective — cutting off the flow of refined gasoline to Iran — she instead insists that we need to target the Iranian leadership with sanctions.</p>
<p>Her husband wisely rejected the same kind of advice in deciding on the sanctions to impose on Serbia during the Bosnia war, opting for broad-based economic sanctions to deter aggression. The sanctions were incredibly effective, and the mere threat of their re-imposition in 1996 was enough to bring Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic to his knees.</p>
<p>But now Hillary says sanctions must target Iran&#8217;s Revolutionary Guard &#8220;without contributing to the suffering of the ordinary (Iranians), who deserve better than what they currently are receiving.&#8221;</p>
<p>But the impotence of sanctions that do not go for the jugular is obvious, and the abysmal record of targeted sanctions aimed at Iranian leaders is enough to discredit the entire process. However, sanctions can be effective — immediately — if they strike at a nation&#8217;s most vulnerable point.</p>
<p>The House of Representatives approved a resolution at the end of December that imposed sanctions against Iran, banning any company from doing business in the United States if it supplied oil products to Iran. Co-sponsored and pushed by Illinois Republican Rep. Mark Kirk (who deserves support in his bid for a Senate seat), the measure has real teeth and is now pending before the Senate.</p>
<p>Hillary&#8217;s comment about avoiding sanctions that &#8220;contribute to the suffering&#8221; of the people of Iran can only be interpreted as a push-back against the sanctions that have passed the House.</p>
<p>This kind of weakness, on which criminal regimes like Iran&#8217;s thrive, is just the kind of impotence that liberal governments display.</p>
<p>From Munich to today, leaders have found it difficult to wage war against those who threaten world peace or even to impose serious sanctions against them. The argument is always the same: It will hurt ordinary people.</p>
<p>Well, so will atomic bombs.</p>
<p>Unless we inflict enough damage on Iran to force it to stop its weapons program, we are leaving Israel exposed and vulnerable to almost certain destruction.</p>
<p>Iran, despite having the second-largest deposits of oil in the world, lacks refining capacity and must import 40 percent of its gasoline. The threat of a cutoff is the ultimate weapon, short of force, to be used in compelling Iran to abide by the resolutions of the international community and refrain from producing nuclear weapons.</p>
<p>Hillary&#8217;s comment can only have brought a sigh of relief to the lips of the Iranian mullahs. It sends the clear signal that the Obama administration lacks the toughness to impose real sanctions and its disapproval can be safely disregarded in Tehran.</p>
<p>If gasoline imports were curtailed, the &#8220;ordinary&#8221; Iranians would blame their own government. They know that Iran has been isolated from the world by its own government, and surveys show this cutoff rankles the population mightily. They are very worried about getting the cold shoulder from the rest of the world and worry about the consequences for their already blighted and fragile economy.</p>
<p>A gasoline shortage can only stoke the fires of rebellion so brilliantly flaring forth on Iranian streets and can only bolster the courage of those who brave gunfire and police clubs to express their demands for liberty.</p>
<p>Hillary: Don&#8217;t go squishy on us now!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/dick-morris/hillary-goes-weak-kneed-on-iran/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Learning From Winston Churchill &#8211; by Tony Blankley</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/tony-blankley/learning-from-winston-churchill-by-tony-blankley/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=learning-from-winston-churchill-by-tony-blankley</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/tony-blankley/learning-from-winston-churchill-by-tony-blankley/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jan 2010 06:07:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tony Blankley]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeasement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[author]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[author points]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[authoritative book]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Berlin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[book]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Britain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[british]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[british empire]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[british prime minister]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Christmas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[christmas holiday]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consequential]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[couple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Czechoslovakia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Faber]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dissent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[domestic politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Duff Cooper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[germany]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[grandson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[guidance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[handful]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Harold Macmillan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hitler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Holiday]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[institutional leadership]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leadership]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leadership class]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[man]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Munich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[munich 1938]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Johnson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Peace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[policy decision]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politician]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prime Minister Harold Macmillan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[story]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[strategic thinking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[striking demonstration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[utter silence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wage war]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[war policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Winston Churchill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[year]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=45145</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The life of the great statesman instructs how to dissent with honor and boldness.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-45146" title="churchillDM0302_468x542" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/churchillDM0302_468x542.jpg" alt="churchillDM0302_468x542" width="328" height="379" /></p>
<p>Over the Christmas holiday, I read a couple of books that, at least for me, may provide some guidance in the upcoming tumultuous and probably consequential year. The first book was <em>Munich, 1938</em> by David Faber (grandson of former British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan), by far the most authoritative book on that world-changing event.</p>
<p>Beyond the obvious policy point that appeasement is generally bad, the value of the book is in its dissection of how the experienced leadership class of the then-leading power — the British Empire — was able to think, talk and deceive itself to a catastrophically bad policy decision. The author reveals in minute example how domestic politics, leaks and counter leaks to major newspapers shaped — and misshaped — both vital foreign policy judgment and how the world construed and misconstrued British strategic thinking.</p>
<p>The author also reveals in fresh details the well-known story of how Winston Churchill, Duff Cooper and a handful of others — in and out of government — dissented from the policy.</p>
<p>The other half of the story of <em>Munich, 1938</em> was events in Germany, where, unlike in Britain, the problem was a war policy advocated by Hitler that was opposed by most of the institutional leadership (including many of the very top generals) and by the general public, which feared another war. (As Hitler paraded his armored columns through Berlin in preparation for entering Czechoslovakia, according to a witness, &#8220;(T)he people of Berlin ducked into subways, refused to look on, and the handful that did stood at the curb in utter silence. It was the most striking demonstration against the war I&#8217;ve ever seen.&#8221; Hitler watched it from a window and, in furious contempt of the German people, complained that &#8220;With such people I cannot wage war.&#8221; Of course he did, in part because of what the author points out was Hitler&#8217;s &#8220;exceptional insight into the tendency of men torn between conscience and self-interest to welcome what made it easier to opt for the latter.&#8221;)</p>
<p>The second book is a new short biography of Winston Churchill by the prolific English writer Paul Johnson. It has the advantage of being probably the last Churchill biography that will be written by an author who personally knew the great man — and is filled with personal tidbits that bring further color to the well-known story of Churchill&#8217;s life.</p>
<p>At a mere 166 pages, the book, among other things, encapsulates how to dissent on the great policies of war and peace by a politician who is both personally ambitious and honorable.</p>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="15" align="right">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>It also brings to life how such a man fights on in the face of overwhelming public opposition and elite scorn. These are lessons we need to learn and practice here in America in 2010.</p>
<p>The author identifies five Churchillian attributes that guided his eventual success: 1) He aimed high, but never cadged or demeaned himself to gain office or objectives, 2) there was no substitute for hard work — even though he was brilliant, 3) Churchill &#8220;never allowed mistakes, disasters — personal or national — accidents, illnesses, unpopularity, and criticism to get him down. His powers of recuperation, both in physical illness and in psychological responses to abject failure, were astounding,&#8221; 4) Churchill wasted extraordinarily small amounts of energy on hatred, recrimination, malice, revenge grudges, rumor mongering or vendettas. Energy expended on hate was energy lost to productive activity, and 5) he always had something other than politics to give joy to his life.</p>
<p>My old boss Newt Gingrich used to say that he studied history as a practical guide for a working politician and political activist. And it is with that in mind that I offer the foregoing.</p>
<p>2010 is going to be a tough year. We are going to have huge struggles over terrorism, war, shockingly large new deficits and public debt policies, crushing tax proposals on energy, income, health care and many other human activities. We have every right to dissent, and to do so vigorously even on such matters as terrorism policy.</p>
<p>Contrary to White House and Democratic Party complaints in the last few days, there is nothing partisan or improper about sharply criticizing such administration policy. As a loyal conservative Republican, I nonetheless wrote an entire book in 2005 criticizing Bush&#8217;s anti-terrorism policy and operations. As did many other conservative Republicans dissent. At a much, much grander level, Winston Churchill in the 1930s powerfully dissented from a policy of appeasement that Britain&#8217;s leaders at the time were convinced were vital to secure the peace. Dissenting with honesty, ferocity and courage is one of Churchill&#8217;s lessons to us today.</p>
<p>And, whether fighting as an underdog in a political struggle or trying to keep things together as a breadwinner in this second hard economic winter, Churchill&#8217;s last words in his last speech in Parliament as prime minister in 1955 are sturdy guides to conduct: &#8220;Meanwhile, never flinch, never weary, never despair.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/tony-blankley/learning-from-winston-churchill-by-tony-blankley/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 1657/1756 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 13:35:05 by W3 Total Cache -->