The Far Left is in control of the Democratic Party. This must be heartening to the Islamists. Why wouldn’t it be when you consider the behavior of Democrats in recent months?
Who will ever forget the images of Americans with heads bowed, as an Imam with known Islamic terrorist ties, Hushum al-Husainy, gave the “prayer” at a Democratic Committee meeting?
In the name of God the most merciful, the most compasionate. We thank you, God, to bless us among your creations. We thank you, God, to make us as a great nation. We thank you God, to send us your messages through our father Abraham and Moses and Jesus and Mohammed. Through you, God, we unite. So guide us to the right path. The path of the people you bless, not the path of the people you doom. Help us God to liberate and fill this earth with justice and peace and love and equality. And help us to stop the war and violence, and oppression and occupation. Ameen.
Awe, isn’t that sweet?
And then yesterday the tug-of-war commenced in Congress, in the end sending the wrong message to the “bad guys” once again: Americans lack the resolve and the will to stop the Jihad. “Americans will squabble amongst themselves until we take them over with their own laws protecting us,” the Islamists must think. The Muslim Lobby is doing cartwheels down Washington Avenue.
In reaction, Michael Medved wrote this today:
The House of Representatives reserved three full days for debating a “non-binding resolution” expressing disapproval of the president’s troop surge in Iraq. As Capitol Hill veterans know, the phrase “non-binding resolution” is Washington-speak for a “complete waste of time.”
The new troops have already begun arriving in Baghdad and Anbar Province, and the political posturing of bloviating legislators will have little impact on their mission.
Revealingly, all 434 House members get the right to speak on the House floor (and on C-SPAN). It’s not for posterity–it’s for partisan posturing. The resolution is particularly important for the many Democrats who voted initially to authorize the Bush decision to go to war. This way, if things go badly in Iraq, they can cite their hollow vote “against the war.” If, on the other hand, the new strategy succeeds, the same congressmen can say they supported the war in the beginning.
Washington playing politics with the future of the United States; this is no surprise, but it still doesn’t make it acceptable. I call it cowardice and sedition. Some members of Congress are actually close to treason in their pursuits of political expediency at the cost of solid leadership. I have no idea what many of them are even doing in Congress. They certainly have fewer and fewer excuses for allowing the War with Islam to go unannounced to the American people. Just because they won’t admit to it, or won’t support an effort to remove Islam from American shores before we follow in the crawl marks of Europe, doesn’t mean that the war isn’t upon us and that we shouldn’t be reacting in a unified manner to the threat. What it constitutes is absolute negligence on the part of our duly elected representatives and a breaking of their solemn oaths of office! We need to start talking about more severe term limits, but I’ll save that rant for another day.
Then this morning there comes the following article across my desk, from attorney Michael Steinberg writing a guest essay at the Democrat & Chronicle, and what we call this is classic appeasement of the enemy and denial of reality:
I’m not comfortable defending Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, considering his government’s persecution of homosexuals, his insensitivity to historical fact and his failure to help Iran’s poor. However, the Speaking Out essay “Iranian head is following Hitler’s lead” (Feb. 6) contains statements that that must be corrected:
1. Ahmadinejad has not “promised, in writing” to commit genocide. He’s argued for a referendum to decide the future of the Palestinian territories and the State of Israel, with Palestinian refugees in other countries voting, too.
Although it’s often said that Ahmadinejad threatened to wipe Israel off the map, most Farsi-speaking experts translated his words as “the regime that occupies Jerusalem will vanish from the pages of history.” This is not a threat but a hope for future change. When Ahmadinejad calls Israel “the Zionist regime” he is, in fact, making it clear that his beef is with the Jewish state instead of with the Jewish people.
And Hitler was going to stop at Poland, too.
2. Ahmadinejad has never spoken of “my jihad,” and what “jihad” means to Muslims is not what Hitler meant by “Kampf.” Hitler’s title betrays his delusions of greatness and the obstacles he claimed to overcome. “Jihad,” on the other hand, is struggling to realize God’s will in oneself and in the world.
I guess “struggling to realize God’s will” equates to flying planes filled with innocent people into buildings filled with innocent people with the intent to kill over 50,000 more innocent Americans. What an interesting term “jihad” is. We can’t understand the Quran either because we don’t read Arabic. That’s what Muslims tell us Americans, so please shut your eyes, plug your ears and cut out your tongues and you’ll become what the Muslim Lobbyists (and apparently many members of the Democratic Party) truly want from the American people: blind, deaf and dumb constituents.
3. The essay’s claim that “Iran is racing to develop nuclear weapons” is an accusation disguised as fact. Iran insists that its program is peaceful, and it advocates a nuclear-free Middle East. The United Nations’ own agency found no evidence that Iran has a secret nuclear program. But the essayist’s warning that it would take “one shoulder-fired nuclear rocket to destroy most of Israel” and another to wipe out the 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq is sheer fantasy. No single bomb could destroy Israel’s 8,630 square miles.
We’re supposed to sacrifice the safety of the Free World to the whims of the largest exporter of terrorism, a known killer of Americans and a state that is in my estimation, already at war with the United States, Iran, because its intent is to use nuclear energy for “peaceful purposes”? No evidence? What the hell are those dead American soldiers in Iraq to sophisticated bombs, if they aren’t evidence as to the intent of Iran!?!
4. It’s absurd to compare Ahmadinejad, subject to a clerical veto and a lame duck, now that his party lost mid-term elections, with Hitler, a totalitarian dictator. And it’s misleading and offensive to compare the defenseless Jews of 1939 with today’s State of Israel, a major regional power with some 200 nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them anywhere in the Middle East.
Israel didn’t start the three wars that sought to wipe it from existence, the Arab Muslims did. I think I’ll cut the Jews some slack for possessing the means to defend themselves. A nation that produces more Nobel Prize winners in a year than the entire span of Muslim states has in its history is not a nation I’m too fearful will abuse nuclear technology. However, if it comes down to fighting for their very existence, I say use the bombs, Israel. In fact, I’d say the same thing to American generals on the ground in the Middle East right now: if it comes down to it, and it would save millions of American lives, use the bigger bombs, the biggest bombs and yes, even the nuclear bombs, if that’s the only way. And Medina should be target number one if the jihadists launch another major attack upon American soil, with Mecca to follow if that isn’t enough. And considering that the Japanese didn’t surrender after the first bomb, I somehow think that even two nuclear bombs won’t be enough to stop the jihad, but I hope I never have to see that theory proven true or not.
5. Iran is hardly being appeased. President Bush’s “warnings” are increasingly strident, and as we pour arms into the region, the Democrats also talk tough. Iran, of course, responds in kind. Many experts, including three former U.S. generals, have cautioned that this spiral of threat and counterthreat can easily lead to war � one with disastrous consequences for the region and the world.
Yes, none of what you just wrote is appeasement. Right.
Though we should never let the Holocaust be forgotten, we shouldn’t use it to demonize others. Iran has never launched an aggressive war. It poses no threat. It’s disturbing that an essayist would use the memory of the innocent dead to push us toward an unnecessary conflict that would end in more innocents killed.
Sometimes I just let the idiocy of others speak for itself. That last paragraph is a perfect example.
Carol Platt Liebau, another attorney, has this to say:
With their vote on Friday for a non-binding resolution condemning the President�s troop surge, the Democrats have finally formalized their position: They have thrown their political fortunes squarely behind an American defeat in Iraq. Of course, the vote was shameful, given General Petraeus� admonition that such a resolution would do nothing but dispirit our soldiers and embolden our enemies. But it was also dangerous � because it means that, in order to realize their primary goal of maintaining and expanding their political power, Democrats now have a real and concrete stake in ensuring that America fails in Iraq.
And Carol is exactly right. The Democrats now have a vested interest in the failure of the United States in Iraq, which also means they have a vested interest in appeasement of the Muslims here in the U.S.A., which means that the situation is not going to get better for us, that we are not going to learn a damn thing from Eurabia, and that if the Democrats (and indeed some Republicans) have their way, we will vote them straight into the White House with Barack Obama as a playing card and we can kiss our National Sovereignty and Security goodbye! We might as well all start behaving like Muslims now and get our turbans and burkahs tailor-fitted. I want to look good for the Caliph.
Podcasts Archive
The only hope I have is that more and more people seem to be realizing the truth about Islam, at least according to what I read on the ‘net. Of course, not what I see on the big 3 newscasts. In the beginning, there were very few, even on the net.
It gets very frustrating that we are not allowed to call the enemy by its name. And there’s probably nothing ‘we the people’ can do anyway, as our “fearless leaders” persist in sticking their head in the sand. Judging by the immigration problem, we are powerless to force our political leaders to do anything.
Keep up the good work Foehammer! I read here regularly.
Thank you, Sara. I am greatly encouraged by all my return-readers. Don’t worry, I only intend to turn up the heat on the Anvil.
The US lacks any semblence of useful political parties anymore. The Democrat party as it was once known died in the 1960’s. It has increasingly come under the control of far left loonies who have no program other than to rebuild the nation in its own distorted image of utopia regardless of methods and consequences. I call it the Anarchist party. The Republicans have increasingly strayed away from the principles of Lincoln’s era. It resembles the Democrat party of the 1930’s, when government made its first big push into people’s lives with socialism. I call it the Lite Democrat party. Both parties are two sides of the same coin-politicians who are more interested in gaining and keeping power than advancing national interest and defending the nation. The quality of politicians today is at an all time low-there is not a stateseman in the bunch. This is why Islamania has made inroads in the US and acts with inceasing boldness.