Welcome! You are reading the archives. Click here to visit the Home page and see the latest articles.

April 30, 2007

Democratic Debate Showed Dem Candidates Unprepared to Deal with Another 9-11

In last week's debate, Democrats inadvertently revealed just how unprepared they are to deal with another 9-11. They were asked how they'd respond to it, and amazingly, appeared not to have even considered the subject.

MODERATOR: Senator Obama, if, God forbid a thousand times, while we were gathered here tonight, we learned that two American cities have been hit simultaneously by terrorists and we further learned, beyond the shadow of a doubt it had been the work of Al Qaida, how would you change the U.S. military stance overseas as a result?

Obama was so unprepared that, when asked how he would change the U.S. military stance overseas, he has to tapdance and answer a question he wasn't asked:

OBAMA: Well, the first thing we'd have to do is make sure that we've got an effective emergency response, something that this administration failed to do when we had a hurricane in New Orleans. And I think that we have to review how we operate in the event of not only a natural disaster, but also a terrorist attack.

The premise of the question as stated by the moderator was we already knew "beyond the shadow of a doubt it had been the work of Al Qaida." Obama is still tapdancing - he has put no thought into this question at all:

The second thing is to make sure that we've got good intelligence, a., to find out that we don't have other threats and attacks potentially out there, and b., to find out, do we have any intelligence on who might have carried it out so that we can take potentially some action to dismantle that network.

He keeps tapdancing:

But what we can't do is then alienate the world community based on faulty intelligence, based on bluster and bombast. Instead, the next thing we would have to do, in addition to talking to the American people, is making sure that we are talking to the international community.

Because as already been stated, we're not going to defeat terrorists on our own. We've got to strengthen our intelligence relationships with them, and they've got to feel a stake in our security by recognizing that we have mutual security interests at stake.

"We're not going to defeat terrorists on our own." So he finally gets around to something like a response, and his response is to preemptively give up and say that the U.S. can't win on its own, without help. He has no plan for using the military to destroy the capability of our attackers to repeat the attack. This is just encouragement to the terrorists. It's pathetic.

Edwards was then asked the same question:

MODERATOR: Senator, thank you.

Senator Edwards, same question: God forbid, two simultaneous attacks tonight, we knew it was Al Qaida, what would you change about U.S. military stance overseas?

Edwards does the same tapdance - ignoring the premise that we knew it was Al Qaida.

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I would do is be certain I knew who was responsible, and I would act swiftly and strongly to hold them responsible for that.

And he's going to 'hold someone responsible'! That doesn't imply a military response.

The second thing I would do -- and, of course, some of these have been mentioned already -- is find out how did this happen without our intelligence operations finding out that it was in a planning stage; how did they get through what we all recognize is a fairly porous homeland security system that we have in this country that has not been built the way it needed to be built?

That's the second big action Edwards would take in response to another 9-11: he'd look for someone in the CIA to blame it on! Pathetic.

You know, did the weapons that created these two simultaneous strikes come through our ports? Were they in one of the containers that have not been checked? How did these weapons get here, and how do we stop it from happening again?

That's the third big action Edwards would take - trying to prevent the attack from happening the exact same way next time. In other words, he'd fight the game on defense other than offense. He's inviting the terrorists to try and try again to do more 9-11's to us, saying that in response he won't take the fight to them.

I believe -- and this goes to the question you asked earlier, just a few minutes ago -- global war on terror. I think there are dangerous people and dangerous leaders in the world that America must deal with and deal with strongly.

But we have more tools available to us than bombs.

There - he actually said it - he won't use bombs - he won't make a military response. He's throwing the door wide open to the terrorists, telling them to attack us all they want, and all Edwards will do in return is attack the CIA. Edwards is telling them they have nothing to fear from attacking us.

And America needs to use the tools that are available to them, so that these people who are sitting on the fence, the terrorists are trying to recruit the next generation get pushed to our side, not to the other side. We've had no long-term strategy. We need one and I will provide one as president.

Responding to another 9-11 by blaming the CIA is no strategy at all, long-term or short-term. 

Edwards is so concerned about these fence-sitters that he forswears using bombs on people who kill our citizens. Those fence-sitters would have no choice but to support those who attack us if they saw that someone like Edwards did nothing to destroy the capability of our attackers to repeat the attack.

Edward's position is pathetic - and would be dangerous to Americans.

Unlike Obama and Edwards, Clinton had at least thought about the subject:

MODERATOR: Senator Clinton, same question.

CLINTON: Well, again, having been a senator during 9/11, I understand very well the extraordinary horror of that kind of an attack and the impact that it has, far beyond those that are directly affected.

I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate.

If we are attacked, and we can determine who is behind that attack, and if there are nations that supported or gave material aid to those who attacked us, I believe we should quickly respond.

Now, that doesn't mean we go looking for other fights. You know, I supported President Bush when he went after Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

And then when he decided to divert attention to Iraq, it was not a decision that I would have made, had I been president, because we still haven't found bin Laden. So let's focus on those who have attacked us and do everything we can to destroy them.

Like getting Bin Laden would take care of the whole thing - like it's a Hollywood movie where, once you capture the top guy, everything's all better. But at least Hillary said she supported GWB's actions in Afghanistan and supports using the military to attack nations that support terrorists.

Obama and Edwards had nothing but policies that would make it safer for terrorists to attempt another 9-11. They show how unsafe the country would be with leadership such as theirs.

April 25, 2007

The Democratic Response to Giuliani, Confirms Giuliani’s View

Yesterday Giuiliani said the things Conservatives and Liberatarians have been hoping to hear a presidential candidate say.

"If any Republican is elected president - - and I think obviously I would be the best at this - - we will remain on offense and will anticipate what (the terrorists) will do and try to stop them before they do it," Giuliani said.

The former New York City mayor, currently leading in all national polls for the Republican nomination for president, said Tuesday night that America would ultimately defeat terrorism no matter which party gains the White House.

"But the question is how long will it take and how many casualties will we have?" Giuliani said. "If we are on defense (with a Democratic president,) we will have more losses and it will go on longer."

"I listen a little to the Democrats and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense," Giuliani continued. "We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense."

He added: "The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us."

Today the Democrats responded, and their response confirms Giuliani's views.

"Rudy Giuliani today has taken the politics of fear to a new low and I believe Americans are ready to reject those kind of politics," Obama, an Illinois senator, said in a statement.

Calling a policy of taking the fight to the enemy, mere "politics", is precisely to bury your head in the sand, confirming Giuliani's view that "The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us."

Obama calls Rudy's statement the politics of fear, when it is more aptly called the politics of courage - the courage to oppose our enemies - in the words of the great playwright, "to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them." Obama has conflated courage with fear. By calling Giuliani's policy of remaining on offense, "the politics of fear," Obama is confirming Giuliani's statement that Democrats will play the game on defense, and will not remain on offense.

Obama's statement continues (same link as above):

"The threat we face is real, and deserves better than to be the punch line of another political attack," he said.

Here Obama says that the policy of remaining on offense is a punch line, as if of a joke, confirming Giuliani's statement that the Dems do not take seriously the need to remain on offense. The joke is that the Democrats say they are serving our country's interests by going on defense and giving the terrorists a free hand to attack us. (And the joke has gone on long enough.)

Hillary's response also makes Giuliani's point (same link):

Clinton, a New York senator, said the last six years of the Bush administration have showed "political rhetoric won't do anything to quell those threats. And that America is ready for a change."

Clinton says Giuliani's policy of taking the fight to the enemy is mere "rhetoric" - just as Obama says it is mere "politics." GWB's policies have killed and captured thousands of terrorists. This is not "rhetoric," this is action, action that has brought the fight successfully to those who want to perpetrate more 9-11's on this country. But the Dems are so far from wanting to implement such action themselves, that they can only consider it as if it were "rhetoric."

Hillary's statement continues (same link) :

"We have to protect our country from terrorism -- it shouldn't be a Democratic fight or a Republican fight," she said in a statement.

Hillary uses the language of defense: "protect." Again she has confirmed Giuliani's statement that the Democrats would abandon the offensive game, would cease taking actions to oppose the enemy, and would play the game on defense, giving the enemy a free hand to mount more 9-11's.

And her statement that "it shouldn't be a Democratic fight or a Republican fight," implying that Democrats would like to cooperate with Republicans for our nation's safety, is hypocritical in light of Congressional Democrats' current efforts to end financing for our troops and force another Vietnam on the American people.

"Pelosi Won't Attend Petraeus Briefing." A shocking move on her part.  Instead she talked to him for 30 minutes on the phone. She's seeking to force another Vietnam on the American people, and she can't be bothered to meet with the commander of our forces on the ground in Iraq. It's abominable.

HOW DO YOU WASH YOUR HAIR IN SPACE? Wired Magazine has video from the International Space Station.

April 24, 2007

NGO Appeal to UN to Act Against Hamas’ Incitements to Commit Genocide

The UN Human Rights Council is exposing its own hypocrisy by refusing to act against Hamas' repeated incitements to commit genocide - even though such incitements are expressly against the UN Charter.

Two non-governmental organizations (NGOs) - The Association for World Education and the World Union for Progressive Judaism - issued the following statement yesterday. (No link - provided to this site by Mr. David G. Littman.) The text of the statement was prepared by Mr. Littman, representative of the WUPJ and the AWE to the UN in Geneva.

 
WORLD UNION FOR PROGRESSIVE JUDAISM

Did Hillary Make a Prejudiced Comment?

From Hillary's recent speech to a black audience in New York:

When I walk into the Oval Office in January 2009 I'm afraid I'm gonna lift up the rug and I'm gonna see so much stuff under there. What is it about us always having to clean up after people?

"What is it about us always having to clean up after people?" - that sounds like she's characterizing black people as people who are used to doing janitorial and housekeeping work.  It seems quite offensive.  If a Republican had said this, wouldn't there be immediate protests? 

April 23, 2007

Now Many *ARE* Questioning the Patriotism of Those Such as Harry Reid

From Investor's Business Daily (via Instapundit):

In aiding and comforting the enemy in wartime, Reid has betrayed the office he holds, shamed the Nevadans he represents and made the Democratic Party he leads synonymous with surrender. There is one way he can repair the damage he's done to the nation: step down.

From reader Mark at MichelleMalkin.com:

As a retired Marine officer, I am shocked at the blatant treasonous statement made by an elected "leader" of this country.

From the New York Post:

"This war is lost," he said. "[The troop] surge is not accomplishing anything."

And in the dark recesses of some damp cave, Osama bin Laden broke into a wide grin - even as Tehran's mullahs swapped high-fives.

Can't you just hear them: Hang tough, guys, it's only a matter of time here in Iraq - and then it's back to the Big Apple.

...He's even helping to ensure their loss - by refusing to provide them with sufficient funding to win. And by setting a deadline for their mission, which the enemy can simply wait out.

The line has been crossed. The defense: "Are you questioning my patriotism?" no longer applies, because in the case of Harry Reid, the answer is, yes, we are questioning his patriotism.

The right to dissent is an absolute necessity for our country.

But not all dissent is patriotic.

Roper Poll: Less than Half of Americans Consider MSM News to be “Mostly Fair”

Last month PBS released the results of a poll they sponsored, which was conducted by Roper. PBS puts the best spin they can on it, but the results are shocking:

Quoting PBS: "PBS remains the network with the most trusted news and public affairs programming, with 41% trusting its programs a great deal. CNN and Fox News trailed as second and third with 28% and 25%, respectively."

In other words: Less than one-third of Americans say that the news and public affairs programming of any MSM network is something they trust a great deal. The best-performing of them, CNN and Fox News, could show only scores of 28% and 25% respectively. (I believe PBS isn't generally considered part of mainstream media; but, if it is included, then we can say that the best-performing MSM organization, PBS, could only show a score of 41% -- less than half of the public).

Quoting PBS: "Forty-three percent of Americans rated the news coverage, investigations and discussions of major issues on PBS programs as mostly fair. NBC came in second at 37%."

In other words: Far less than half of Americans rate MSM news coverage, investigations and discussions of major issues as mostly fair. The highest-rated, NBC, scored only 37%.

Americans long ago began to catch on that MSM just backs up whatever the Democratic party line is. This is destroying the public trust in MSM and driving people elsewhere to find the truth. From the LA Times:

There's no reason for MSM to do this to itself. When MSM starts reporting the good news along with the bad (e.g. starts reporting the good news about the economy with the prominence its significance deserves), and starts seriously critiquing all the phony scandals concocted by the left (e.g. this phony attorney-firing scandal), instead of just providing a platform for them, public trust in MSM will rebound, and MSM readership and revenue will increase. 

The GWB Tax Cuts Worked - Dow Winning Streak Among Longest Ever - Yet Dems Want to Raise Taxes

As noted in these previous posts, the GWB tax cuts worked:

"Federal Deficit Declines Sharply, Down 25 Percent."

The GWB Tax Cuts Worked: Strong Growth in Jobs and Wages

The GWB Tax Cuts Worked: Tax Receipts Show Biggest Gain in 25 Years

The GWB Tax Cuts Worked: Tax Cuts Power Growth in Consumer Wealth *and* Cut Deficit

The GWB Tax Cuts Worked: More Great News on the Economy

The Tax Cuts Worked-Economic Expansion: Year Five

The GWB Tax Cuts Worked: Tax Cuts Power the Economy

The Bush Tax Cuts Have Resulted in Higher Tax Revenue

Lower Taxes Make the Economy Stronger

Lower Tax Rates Are Resulting In Higher Tax Revenue

A Myth Debunked: Bush Tax Cuts Did Not Favor the Rich

Tax Cuts Work: Government Forecasting Incorrectly Thought Tax Costs Would Reduce Tax Revenue

Today we see this new headline:

Dow gains in 15 of last 16 sessions

Winning streak is among longest in index's history

The Democratic response? They want to kill the tax cuts that are powering this fantastic economy:

2008 Democrats Propose a Ceiling on Bush Tax Cuts

WASHINGTON, April 20 - Grappling with one of the biggest domestic policy choices that will confront the next administration, the leading Democratic presidential candidates say they would raise a variety of taxes on affluent people but extend President Bush's tax cuts for middle- and lower-income families.

The tax cuts must be left in place, for the good of the economy, and of all Americans who profit from it via strong growth in jobs and wages, and extremely low unemployment. As quoted in one of the previous posts linked above:

The nation's unemployment rate ticked up one-tenth of a percent to 4.5 percent. The move isn't significant, but it is important to keep in mind that this level of unemployment is historically low by American standards. Most economist believe we're at "full employment" when the economy has about 5 percent of workers without a permanent position.

What's this mean for the economy? The better than expected job creation in November supports the idea that the economy is on relatively solid footing right now, despite a recent slowdown. Could we be seeing the much ballyhooed "soft landing" that Federal Reserve Board governors have been dreaming about? Maybe.

Also revealed in today's report were wages that are increasing at a pace not seen in years, as unemployment is relatively low. That means companies have to raise wages to attract and retain workers to sustain growth. That might be helping bolster "consumer comfort" — measured weekly by ABC News — which has been near multi-year highs in the past few weeks.

April 20, 2007

Can Dems’ 2008 Hopes Survive Branding Themselves as the Party of Surrender, Defeat, and Paralysis?

Last Tuesday Simon Cowell said on American Idol, of Sanjaya, that "the joke has gone on long enough," and of course, voting that day removed Sanjaya from the competition. (BTW, that guy should go into clothing design or costume design - he seems to have real talent for that.) 

Re: Harry Reid's proclamation that the Iraq war is "lost," something similar can be said of today's Democrats. It's a good joke, that they show how patriotic they are by undermining our President, pulling the rug out from under our troops, and trying to force another Vietnam on America. It's very funny. It's a good laugh. But it's gone on long enough.

April 19, 2007

The Behavior of the Korean Community Compared to the Muslim Community: A Glaring Distinction

There's a glaring distinction between the behavior of Koreans in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, carried out by a Korean - and the behavior of Muslims in the wake of any of the hundreds of killings in public places that have been carried out by Muslims.

The Koreans immediately responded with vigils and prayer services mourning the shootings.

 

From the LA Times:

When the spotlight settled on Seung-hui Cho on Tuesday, Korean Americans in Los Angeles wasted no time denouncing the crime, holding a candlelight vigil and prayer service — extending, in effect, a collective olive branch to a society they worried might judge them harshly.

From another LA Times article:

When Pyong Yong Min heard early Tuesday that the gunman suspected of carrying out the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history was a South Korean national, he wept.

"First, I cried for the families of the victims, then I cried for U.S.-Korea relations," said Min, president of the nonprofit Korean American Foundation of Los Angeles. "Then, I thought why must we — the Korean people, who have been such close allies of America for so long — have this burden on our hands?" For Min and many Korean Americans in Los Angeles — home to the largest Korean population outside Asia — the involvement of one of their own in the Virginia Tech massacre made the incident all the more painful.

"As if the killings weren't bad enough, it was one of our children who did it," said the Rev. John J. Park, president of the Council of Korean Churches in Southern California.

Park and more than dozen community leaders gathered at a hastily called meeting in Koreatown to offer condolences and to discuss what the Korean community should do in response to the tragedy. The leaders also expressed a sense of shame and responsibility because of their shared ethnicity with the gunman.

...At a prayer service Tuesday afternoon, the Rev. Dong Sun Lim, founding pastor of the Oriental Mission Church in Koreatown, was more blunt than the president. "All Koreans in South Korea — as well as here — must bow their heads and apologize to the people of America," Lim said.

...The afternoon service and candlelight vigil, held at the Korean American Federation of Los Angeles headquarters, drew about 80 people who prayed, read from Scripture and lighted candles in memory of the fallen students. "The victims are in the arms of God," Lim said.

"We don't know why this happened," he added. "Yesterday was the most shameful and tragic day in the 100-year history of Korean immigration to the United States. All we can do is pray."

From Newsweek:

Inside the United States, social-network users set up online forums with names like "Don't Hate Koreans Because of Cho Seung-Hui" and "Cho Seung-Hui Does NOT Represent Asians." Some spoke of launching a fund-raising drive for the families of those who died in the most deadly school shooting in U.S. history.

..."The Korean community as a whole is in shock," says John Cho, the Los Angeles-based assistant editor of the Korean Times (and no relation to the gunman).  "Something like this has never happened to us."

From NBC:

Washington Korean TV is sponsoring a vigil for the Korean community at the Fairfax County Government Center at 8 p.m. Tuesday.

The Korean community has behaved very honorably in response to this tragedy, and has done great credit to itself. 

But there has never yet been any similar outpouring from the Muslim community in America to events in America or around the world when Muslims kill in public places in the name of their religion.

There have been few, if any, comparable prayer vigils.

There have been few, if any, comparable prayer services.

There have been no fund-raising drives for the families of those who died.  

There have been no public statements from Muslim religious leaders that any such event was "the most shameful and tragic day in [our] history."

There have been no public calls from Muslim religious leaders that "All [Muslims] must bow their heads and apologize." 

This distinction provides compelling evidence that the Muslim community in America does not oppose, but tacitly supports, such murderous actions committed in the name of their religion.

Muslims who want to speak out against such murderous actions committed in the name of their religion must be sought out and encouraged. Muslims who do not want to speak out against such actions must be identified as radicals. From Daniel Pipes:

When I suggest that radical Muslims are the problem and that moderate Muslims are the solution, the nearly inevitable retort from most people is: "What moderate Muslims?"

"Where are the anti-Islamists' demonstrations against terror?" they ask me. "What are they doing to combat Islamists? What have they done to reassess Islamic law?"

My response: Moderate Muslims do exist. But, of course, they constitute a very small movement when compared to the Islamist onslaught. This means that the American government and other powerful institutions should give priority to locating, meeting with, funding, forwarding, empowering, and celebrating those brave Muslims who, at personal risk, stand up and confront the totalitarians.

April 17, 2007

Dems’ Political Brinksmanship Endangers the Lives of Our Troops - and Threatens Future of Dem Party

Dems love to say that they "support our troops," but their support isn't worth much, since it includes a threat to cut off the funds our troops need to do their job as safely as they can. The army is already having to make plans to deal with restricted funding:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army will defer spending and slow repair work on any equipment not needed for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan due to Congress' failure to approve $100 billion in extra war funding, the largest branch of the armed forces said on Monday.

The Pentagon also will ask Congress to allow the Defense Department to use $1.6 billion in funds meant for the Navy and Air Force to pay the Army's operating expenses, the Army said.

If funds are not approved by May, further spending restrictions will be made. That, the Army warned, could hurt its ability to take on a new fight.

Remember how the Dems used to complain that the troops didn't have sufficient armor? Now the Dems are trying to cut off funding for that armor.

Will any of our troops be killed because the funding they needed for equipment wasn't available?

The Dems are trying to put our troops in harm's way so as to force them to leave Iraq. The Dems are in this way directly helping those who are trying to kill our troops and destroy Democracy in Iraq so as to use Iraq as a new base of terrorist operations.

The Dems want to force another Vietnam on the country. But this time the country knows which party is pushing for that result. From an analysis piece in the Washington Post last February:

...yesterday's vote signaled peril for the Democratic congressional leadership as well. Despite deep Republican discontent with the course of the war, Democrats were unable to persuade more than 17 members of the president's party to register that dissatisfaction with their votes. If Democratic leaders could not build a broader bipartisan coalition for a symbolic vote, it may prove much harder to attract Republican support for proposals to limit Bush's options in Iraq.

Many Democratic strategists remain allergic to repeating the finale of the Vietnam War, when Congress voted to cut funds for the South Vietnamese government and the nation fell to the North in 1975. For years afterward, Democrats have struggled to shed the image of being soft on defense, which is why they were so eager to bring along more Republicans yesterday.

...Administration allies warned about the precedent beyond Bush as well. "If Congress proceeds to throttle the president's strategy, then it will seriously undercut the ability of future presidents to do what they need to do to protect the nation in a time of war," said James Phillips, a foreign policy scholar at the Heritage Foundation. "It's a mistake to think you can effectively run a war by committee."

Rarely have I been so offended by the actions of the Democratic party. As I previously posted in an article titled "Washington Post Compares Iraq to Vietnam - In Terms of Actions by Dems that Harmed Their Own Party":

The Dems must turn away from this path, that is so full of danger to our troops, to our nation, and to the Democratic party itself.

April 16, 2007

A moment of silence for Virginia Tech...

Association for World Education Appeals to UN to Repudiate Hamas’ Incitements to Commit Genocide

The Association for World Education issued the following statement today. (No link - provided to this site by Mr. David Littman, one of the authors of the document).

ASSOCIATION FOR WORLD EDUCATION

WORLD UNION FOR PROGRESSIVE JUDAISM

INTERNATIONAL HUMANIST AND ETHICAL UNION

Palais des Nations, Geneva, Monday, 16 April 2007 (11:00 a.m.)

 

Appeal to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour

To speak out unequivocally to the PA against any “direct and public incitement to commit genocide”(IIIc)

Madam, on 30 March 2007 – the last day of the fourth session of the Human Rights Council – Hamas spokesman Dr. Ismail Radwan ended his “prayers to Allah” in a sermon with these words, broadcast on the Palestinian Authority’s TV:

“The Hour [Resurrection] will not come until the Muslims will fight the Jews and the Muslims will kill them, and the rock and the tree will say: ‘Oh, Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, kill him!’” And he concluded, to a packed mosque audience, with a call for “Jihad-fighting worshippers”:
“We must remind our Arab and Muslim nation, its leaders and people, its scholars and students, remind them that Palestine and the Al Aqsa mosque will not be liberated through summits nor by international resolutions, but it will be liberated through the rifle. It will not be liberated through negotiations, but through the rifle, since this occupation knows no language but the language of force…O Allah, strengthen Islam and Muslims, and bring victory to your Jihad-fighting worshippers, in Palestine and everywhere… Allah take the oppressor Jews and Americans and their supporters!” (Cf. Charter, art. 13)

The relevant video of this sermon can be seen on the Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin (12 April 2007)
http://bp1.blogger.com/_Av6IV14Ta1A/...

Madam, we wish to draw your attention again to article III (c) of the Genocide Convention, which states clearly that: “Direct and public incitement to commit genocide” shall be punishable. Since 1989 we have frequently warned the Commission on Human Rights, the Sub-Commission on Human Rights, and for the past decade the HCHR, that the 1988 Charter of Hamas is genocidal.

As noted in written statement E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/NGO/41, HAMAS is committed to an eternal jihad against “the Jews” – until Allah's victory is implemented. The land of Palestine must be cleansed from their impurity and viciousness. Muslims are obliged to fight and kill the Jews wherever they find them.

The HAMAS Charter’s Article 7, in its conclusion, states: “HAMAS aspires to implement Allah's promise, whatever time it may take. The Prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: ‘The Hour [Day of Judgment] will not come until the Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: Oh Muslim! Oh Abdullah! [Slave of Allah], there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. This will not apply to the Gharqad tree, which is a Jewish tree.’”

This genocidal call is justified by a hadith, a controversial ‘saying’ attributed to the Prophet Muhammad and described by the authoritative 9^th century compilers al-Bukhari and Muslim – that since 1988 has become a commonplace belief among Islamists. On 12 April 2002, the PA-nominated Sheikh Ibrahim Madhi delivered a Friday sermon at Gaza City’s main Sheikh Ijlin Mosque, broadcast live on the PA’s TV. He quoted extensively from this hadith – even including the curious reference to the "Jewish" Gharqad tree, in preaching his specific genocide against “Jews” – and a global Jihad for all humanity.

“We believe in this hadith. We are convinced also that this hadith heralds the spread of Islam and its rule over all the lands (...) ‘from the ocean to the ocean ’.” Sheikh Madhi concluded: “Oh Allah, accept our martyrs in the highest heaven (...) Oh Allah, show the Jews a black day (...) Oh Allah, annihilate the Jews and their supporters (...) Oh Allah, raise the flag of Jihad across the land (...) Oh Allah, forgive our sins.” And, on 13 July 2003, a Palestinian academic, Dr. Hassan Khader, founder of the Al Quds Encyclopaedia, quoted this hadith during a lecture on the PA’s TV. (see PMW Bulletin, 14 July 2003)

Madam, we ask you, as High Commissioner of Human Rights, to speak out unequivocally to the Palestinian Government and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference against this incitement to commit genocide. It should be made clear that this culture of hate and death – a “direct and public incitement to commit genocide” – is condemned by the OHCHR and the international community.

René V.L. Wadlow / David G. Littman / Roy W. Brown (Representatives to the UN in Geneva)

Update 4-16-07: Mr. Littman has emailed me that he is the author of the document, and that it has been accepted by three NGO's: AWE, WUPJ, IHEU. The document has three signatories -  one for each NGO.

Mr. Littman also refers us to this important prior document, which he prepared in 2003.

Major Development in Iraqi Government: Sadr Ministers Resign

All 6 of the ministers loyal to al-Sadr have withdrawn from the Iraq cabinet, which contains 38 ministers in total. From the NY Times:

BAGHDAD, April 16 - Moktada al-Sadr, the Shiite cleric, withdrew six ministers loyal to him from the Iraqi cabinet today, in the first major shake-up of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki's government since it was installed a year ago.

Legislators working for Mr. Sadr said that Mr. Sadr was withdrawing his ministers from the 38-member cabinet because the Iraqi government had refused to set a timetable for pulling American troops out of the country.

These 6 ministers were all of al-Sadr's ministers in the cabinet. From a Media Line article published immediately prior to the resignations:

The Muqtada A-'Sadr Current holds six ministerial posts and 30 out of 275 seats in the parliament.

This is a significant development. For years Sadr's goal has been to substitute Sharia law for the current Democratic government of Iraq. From a 2004 Washington Post article:

...Sadr's goal was at least in part to hijack Shiite leadership and the nation's political process just as Iraqis are beginning to take control of it. His uprising challenges both religious moderates like Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani and secularists like Allawi. Sadr's vague but virulent platform seeks rigid Islamic governance. It capitalizes on opposition to U.S. troops.

MSM is trying to present this as a blow to the Iraq government. From the NY Times (same link as above):

The move is the first time Mr. Sadr has followed through with a threat to cut some of his ties with the government and with Mr. Maliki, a conservative Shiite whose grip on authority largely rests on Mr. Sadr's political support.

From AP: (same link):

The departure of the six ministers, while unlikely to topple Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government, deals a significant blow to the U.S.-backed leader, who relied on support from the Sadrists to gain office.

But to have had, in the Iraqi cabinet, such a large group that was dedicated to the destruction of Democracy, was inevitably dangerous to that government.

Both the NY Times article and the AP article present info contradicting the premise that the departure of the ministers was a blow to the government.

From the NY Times article:

Mr. Sadr's ministers are generally seen by Iraqi and American officials as at best incompetent, so replacing them could bring long-term benefits to the ministries.

From the AP article:

The White House said al-Sadr's decision to pull out his ministers does not mean that al-Maliki loses his majority.

"I'd remind you that Iraq's system of government is a parliamentary democracy and it's different from our system. So coalitions and those types of parliamentary democracies can come and go," said Dana Perino, a White House spokeswoman.

In fact, this drastic curtailment of al-Sadr's influence on the Iraqi government, is such a favorable development, that one wonders exactly how it came about. The Times speculates that al-Sadr purposely cut off his ability to control ministers in the Iraqi government:

The move by Mr. Sadr, who went underground at the start of the new Baghdad security plan in February, appeared to be an attempt by the young cleric to shore up his reputation as the leading opposition figure in Iraq's fragmented and acrimonious political landscape.

He wanted to "shore up his reputation as the leading opposition figure" by destroying his own ability to control government ministers? That seems unlikely.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >