Blame America


 

NY Post

There they go again — bashing America on the world stage.

Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner reports that in recent talks with China, US officials put America’s human-rights record on a par with Beijing’s.

“Part of a mature [US-Chinese] relationship is that you have an open discussion, where you not only raise the other guy’s problems, but you raise your own, and you have a discussion about it, about your own [problems],” Posner said.

“We did plenty of that.”

Moreover, he said, “experts from the US side” talked about America’s “treatment of Muslim Americans in an immigration context.”

They even ripped Arizona’s new immigration law “as a troubling trend in our society.” Bragged Posner: “We brought it up early and often.”

No doubt they did.

It’s hard to know where to begin here.

Perhaps with the way China deals with its Muslim population — the Uighurs?

Last year, Chinese riot police killed hundreds of them.

America, by contrast, freely admitsMuslim immigrants (Pakistani-born Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad comes to mind) — and the White House can’t bring itself to use the term “Islamist terrorist” even as Islamist terrorists are doubling down on their efforts to kill Americans in the streets.

More misguided moral equivalence?

Posner notwithstanding, Arizona is merely trying to enforce a federal law meant to track lawbreakers who sneak across US borders — by requiring immigrants to carry papers.

China, of course, ships North Korean refugees found on their side of that bleak border back to Pyongyang — where certain, agonizing death awaits them.

There are no valid comparisons here.

China is one of the most flagrant violators of human rights on the planet, and for the Obama administration even to hint that America is on the same plane is despicable.

Once more, for emphasis.

Despicable.

Posner shames America.

image

CFP

Saturday April 17th

Hood River, OR. – Move America Forward has been contacted by local police in Hood River and informed that a woman named Susan Crowley went to the Hood River police today and pleaded with them to arrest Debbie Lee immediately, for inciting a riot. Susan Crowley who is a member of ‘Columbia River For Peace’ the group organizing that anti-military ‘conference’ is described on their website as a former attorney and the person who initiated the protest against Insitu.

“I’m not the one they have to worry about,” said Debbie Lee, the mother of a hero, Marc Alan Lee the first Navy SEAL to be killed in the war in Iraq. “There has never been any sort of violence initiated by our side at a rally I’ve spoken at or organized by Move America Forward,” she continued, “Cindy, on the other hand, has been arrested more than a dozen times, she’s been banned from the White House and whole cities, I’ve never been arrested. I think Cindy is afraid of a little dissenting opinion and she has to be afraid that our crowd of patriots is going to be a lot bigger than her little crowd of antagonists.”

MAF, which is the nation’s largest grassroots military support group, is holding a huge rally in Hood River, Oregon today to support the troops and oppose the anti-war leftists who are attacking our troop’s missions and the Insitu company which provides drone UAVs for our troops and is a major employer in Hood River.

The police did not indicate that they had any intentions of arresting Debbie.

This Ain’t No Tea Party

By AIM

-Amid recent mainstream media concern over “angry” tea partiers, Roger Aronoff, a media analyst and documentary producer with Accuracy in Media, observed a leftist anti-war rally to see how it compared to the conservative tea parties. The “peace” demonstrators, including four-time presidential candidate Ralph Nader, angrily denounced Bush and Cheney as war criminals, criticized Obama, called the United States an empire, bashed Israel and proudly burned an American flag.

Aronoff had one question for the mainstream media: “Where’s the outrage?”

“Did you see any reporting about the hate-speech and flag burning? I guess MSNBC was too busy that day,” wrote Aronoff at Accuracy in Media’s blog.

He noted that The Washington Post covered the rally, but left out the more extreme elements and never mentioned that President Obama was a target of the protestors.

Aronoff previously defended the tea party movement against allegations of racism by MSNBC “Countdown” host Keith Olbermann. He notes that the tea parties include a broad cross section of America, but if you look at the MSNBC website, you see nothing but white faces.

Aronoff produced a video documenting the demonstration, called “This Ain’t No Tea Party.” It has been featured on FOX News Channel’s The O’Reilly Factor and Fox and Friends, and at Hot Air, The Daily Caller, The FOX Nation, BlogWonks, and The Western Journalism Center.

Reuters: Lawyer David Remes, the New York Times’s authority on Gitmo and the Justice Department

By Thomas Joscelyn

John Schwartz of the New York Times has published a piece on the reaction of some conservatives to an ad by Keep America Safe asking for the DOJ to identify government lawyers who previously represented or advocated on behalf of terrorists. The Times, of course, was eager to highlight dissent within conservatives’ ranks over the controversial advertisement.
 
The conservative critics argue that the lawyers’ work on behalf of detainees is a strictly noble pursuit. They point to John Adams’ representation of British soldiers after the Boston massacre as evidence that the lawyers are simply the heirs of a longstanding and honorable legal process. The comparison is absurd for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that Adams did not represent America’s enemies during an actual war, as the lawyers in question have.
 
But the Times article also ends with this:

David Remes, a lawyer who represents 18 detainees, said in a telephone interview from Guantánamo that the deeper point of the attack on the lawyers was political.

The goal, Mr. Remes suggested, “was to make the Obama administration and the Justice Department even more gun-shy than they are on Guantánamo issues.”

What do the conservative lawyers think of David Remes?
 
He is no John Adams.
 
What the Times does not say is that Remes used to work for Attorney General Eric Holder’s old law firm, Covington & Burling. Remes left the firm after an infamous pants-dropping incident in Yemen in 2008.
 

Keep in mind that Yemen is currently home to one of the strongest al Qaeda affiliates in the world — and has been a major recruiting hub for al Qaeda for two decades. That’s why so many Yemenis ended up at Guantanamo in the first place (they comprise more than 40 percent of the current population). To this day, Osama bin Laden maintains deep and troubling ties within the country.
 
According to the Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog (LB), here is how Remes explained why he dropped his pants (emphasis added):
 

“At the press conference in Yemen — this is a society where the rule of morality is so strict — I wanted to drive home the degree of humiliation that these searches cause by illustrating a typical body search,” Remes told the LB. “The physical abuse they can stand. The verbal abuse they can stand. But when the military punishes Muslim men by shaving off their beard, or by forcing them to disrobe — for a Muslim man that is a thousand times more cutting than a Westerner can imagine. . .I wish people paid as much attention to the suffering and torment in Guantanamo as they paid to the way I sought to dramatize it.”

 
In other words, on behalf of his Yemeni clients, Remes wanted to demonstrate how anti-Muslim the American military is at Guantanamo. He said this during a time of war, in one of the growing fronts of that war. This does not advance America’s interests or legal process. It harms her image further in the Muslim world. Yet, some lawyers will undoubtedly justify this as a service to Remes’ clients.
 
Would John Adams have dropped his pants inside Britain during the Revolutionary War in order to smear American forces and gain sympathy for his clients? No, that was not how the revolutionary John Adams behaved.
 
To drive home the point, Remes gave an interview to the Yemen Post that same month, during which he said (emphasis added):

They said that in addition to the bad conditions they face every day, they now go through constant physical body searches. They are searched before they enter every room. The search involves pulling down their trousers and having guard’s hands enter inside their underwear, and that is a terrible violation of the personal dignity of these men in particular, and because of their religious beliefs they feel strongly offended and increases their misery. Another complain (sic) that they told me was the punishment of forced nudity they were forced to go through. This clearly violates the Geneva Convention. This is all humiliation. In addition, it seems that this humiliation is done for the sake of humiliation. It is not physical torture only, but physiological torture as well. 

 
Again, Remes portrayed American military personnel at Gitmo as being anti-Muslim. In reality, Gitmo has long been compliant with the Geneva Convention. The idea that the American military is humiliating Muslims just for the “sake of humiliation” is a disgusting smear.
 
During another interview with the Yemen Observer in July 2008, Remes played the blame Bush game and said America has a “neocolonial mentality.” He said shaving detainees’ beards was a tactic comparable to those “practiced by the Nazis against Jews in the 1930’s.”
 
Again, this type of inflammatory rhetoric does not serve some noble legal process. It adds to the well of anti-Americanism that exists in Yemen and throughout the Muslim world.
 
In the same Yemen Observer interview, Remes described his clients as innocents who are wrongly detained. “Crimes against the US would consist of September 11, the attacks on US Embassies and the attacks to the USS Cole. One of my clients is Abdul-Slam al-Hailah. Is he a terrorist? He is a prominent businessman from Sana’a, very influential, very much respected, and well-connected,” Remes said.
 
The name of the detainee Remes referred to can also be rendered as Abdul al Salam al Hilal. To answer Remes’ question: Yes, there is every indication that al Hilal is a terrorist – and an important one at that.
 
Steve Hayes and I previously profiled him for The Weekly Standard. According to documents produced at Gitmo, U.S. intelligence authorities concluded that while al Hilal worked for the Yemeni government’s political security organization (PSO) he used his well-placed position to move al Qaeda terrorists around and get some freed from jail.
 
In the summer of 2000, al Hilal visited the Islamic Cultural Institute in Milan, which was used by al Qaeda to recruit and facilitate the movement of terrorists around the globe. The Italians monitored the institute for some time and shut it down (at least for a time) after the September 11 attacks. The Italians wiretapped the institute, and found al Hilal saying:

Well, I am studying airplanes! If it is God’s will, I hope to bring you a window or a piece of a plane next time I see you. .  .  . We are focusing on the air alone. .  .  . It is something terrifying, something that moves from south to north and from east to west: the man who devised the program is a lunatic, but he is a genius. It will leave them stunned. .  .  . We can fight any force using candles and planes. They will not be able to halt us, not even with their heaviest weapons. We just have to strike at them, and hold our heads high. Remember, the danger at the airports. If it comes off, it will be reported in all the world’s papers. The Americans have come into Europe to weaken us, but our target is now the sky.

 
This was well in advance of the September 11 attacks. That quote, as well other evidence and allegations pertaining to al Hilal’s case, is freely available on the Times’ web site. It is easy to see why U.S. intelligence officials concluded that the Milan wiretaps, including the one cited above, “link the alleged Milan al Qaeda cell to the 11 September 2001 massacres in the United States.”
 
But the Times isn’t interested in that story — or how Remes has slandered American troops and pretended that bad men are innocent Muslims detained by the “neocolonial” American empire.
 
The paper is only interested in the conservatives’ infighting and the conservatives cited aren’t really interested in the actual facts of what the lawyers they defend have been doing all these years.
 
John Adams would be ashamed.

By  Matthew Continetti

What’s the clearest sign the Obama agenda is in trouble? That’s easy: the string of jeremiads in the pages of the New York Times, Washington Post, and other outlets of fashionable opinion. Unable to tout the administration’s successes, and worried about Republican ascendancy, liberals have assigned responsibility for the mess they’re in neither to their program nor to their methods but to larger, structural faults in American politics and society. Beginning with you.

You aren’t too bright, for one thing. After all, opines Jacob Weisberg in Newsweek, the “biggest culprit” behind “our political paralysis” is the “childishness, ignorance, and growing incoherence of the public at large.” You simply do not know what’s good for you. “On many issues these days,” writes the Washington Post’s Steven Pearlstein, “the American people are badly confused.” “The people may have spoken,” writes the New -Yorker’s James Surowiecki. “It’s just not clear that they’re making any sense.” In a blog post titled “Too Dumb to Thrive,” Time magazine’s Joe Klein cuts to the chase: “It is very difficult to thrive in an increasingly competitive world if you’re a nation of dodos.”

The problem, as Weisberg sees it, is that America “simultaneously demands and rejects action on unemployment, deficits, health care, and other problems.” Note the myopia. For Weisberg, the only conceivable “action” on any issue is limited to the policy preferences of liberal Democrats. No other options spring to mind.

This is nonsense. Just because the public says the economy is important does not necessarily mean it has to support a stimulus measure that has added massively to the debt without much benefit. Just because the public is concerned with rising health care costs does not mean that it has to support a bill that could alter existing health care arrangements and increase costs in the long-term. Steven Pearlstein writes that Americans “want to do something about global warming.” No they don’t. Global warming came dead last in a recent Pew survey of public priorities.

The reason health care, cap and trade, and the other blocks of Obama’s New Foundation are unpopular isn’t public ignorance. It’s that the public sees them as counterproductive—and in many cases beside the point. The people’s representatives have responded to a variety of signals, from falling poll numbers, to town hall protests, to GOP victories in -Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. Which is precisely how democracy is supposed to function.

And that’s the problem, says Kurt Andersen in New York magazine. “American democracy has gotten way too democratic.” The “thoughtful, educated, well-off, well-regarded gentlemen” who designed our Constitution “wanted a government run by an American elite like themselves.” But the “populist impulse” abroad in the land today has scared legislators into obeying the people’s demands.

It was not always thus. “In the old days,” Andersen laments, “the elite media really did control the national political discourse” and “presidents and congressional leaders could pretty well manage the policy conversations” without the public trying to butt in. But there’s no going back now; “maybe our republic’s constitutional operating system simply can’t scale up to deal satisfactorily with a heterogenous population of 310 million.”

This liberal uneasiness with democracy is not new. In 2003, in The Future of Freedom, Fareed Zakaria made the case against too much public involvement in government. In 2008, in Hot, Flat, and Crowded, Thomas Friedman dreamed of America becoming “China for a day” so that he could impose his environmental agenda on a truculent populace. In a 2009 New York Times column, Friedman wrote that a dictatorship, “when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today,” has “great advantages” over democratic systems. In the Atlantic Monthly, James Fallows writes that “whatever is wrong with today’s Communist leadership [in Beijing], it is widely seen as pulling the country nearer to its full potential rather than pushing it away.” Nevertheless, the Democrats probably aren’t going to run on “Communist China Does It Better.” 

What makes the liberal jeremiads confusing is that they work at cross purposes. On one hand, you’ve got the attacks on the people’s intelligence and representative government. On the other, you’ve got the attacks on American institutions for not being representative enough. Which is it? Are the people the problem, or is their government? According to Fallows, it’s the latter: “Our government is old and broken and dysfunctional, and may even be beyond repair.”

The culprit is the Senate, which gives equal say to states with small populations and requires 60 votes to pass legislation. Fallows says these minority rights have turned the Senate “into a deep freeze and a dead weight.” “America is not yet lost,” Paul Krugman writes in the New York Times, “but the Senate is working on it.” In a Huffington Post blog, Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, writes that special interests are “using the filibuster to stop legislation that would benefit the little guy,” whether the little guy likes it or not.

You can make a persuasive argument that the filibuster has been deployed too frequently in recent years, especially when it has prevented presidents, Republican and Democrat, from staffing their administrations. Nevertheless, the Senate and the filibuster are there for good reasons: to defuse momentary passions that could have unintended and harmful consequences for the country.

The system is designed to ensure broad consensus before Congress enacts major reforms. Such consensus existed during the New Deal and Great Society. And there was consensus behind certain elements of Reagan’s and Bush’s and Clinton’s programs, as well. That was not the case when George W. Bush attempted to overhaul Social Security, however. The public agreed with Bush that there was a problem, but it did not like his solution. It has had the same reaction to Obama’s proposals.

The liberal program is in disarray because liberals have failed to establish general agreement. They have found that simple majorities do not automatically translate into programmatic success. And when they are met with public opposition and institutional resistance, they do what comes naturally. They blame Americans first.

By Oliver North

Regardless of station in life, faith or philosophy, unfulfilled expectations are the greatest cause of anger, frustration and discontent on the planet. That’s true whether those expectations arise in the interaction of husbands and wives, parents and children, teachers and students, employers and employees, businesses and customers, leaders and the led or politicians and their constituents. President Barack Obama apparently doesn’t grasp this fundamental truth of human nature.

Resolving the "friction" of unfulfilled expectations requires a straightforward recognition of personal responsibility for commitments — perceived or real — that have not been satisfied and a determination by the parties involved to do better in the future. My experience with this process with my wife, children and colleagues usually begins with an acknowledgment of mistakes or errors I have made and includes the words "I’m sorry" or a similar phrase.

When Mr. Obama was campaigning for president, he promised "hope" and "change." The majority of the American electorate believed these nebulous ideas would make life better for us and our children. We now know better.

Current poll numbers — the lowest for any president at this point in office — reflect the unfulfilled expectations of millions who voted for him. Yet the president’s first State of the Union address indicates he still doesn’t get it.

Absent from Mr. Obama’s lengthy lecture to the assembled masses last Wednesday night was any recognition of personal failure or error or even the hint of an apology. Instead, he ascribes blame to his predecessors, his political opponents and even the Supreme Court for all our problems. Apparently, apologies still are reserved for our nation generally — and are delivered in front of "blame America first" audiences overseas.

Worse, the president’s efforts to deflect responsibility for his party’s political reversals, our current economic travail, national security threats and foreign policy setbacks lead him to be disingenuous at best and downright deceptive at worst. Thankfully, not everyone gathered in the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday night was willing to timidly "go along to get along."

When Mr. Obama accused the Supreme Court of reversing "a century of law … (to) open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections," Justice Samuel Alito could be seen mouthing the words "that’s not true." The justice is right, for the court has done nothing to remove long-standing prohibitions on foreign entities — be they individuals or corporations — against their contributing to our election campaigns.

Some argue our tolerance for dissembling on domestic political matters — limiting campaign contributions, legislation to create jobs, raising taxes, increasing government spending and debt, imposing government-run health care or increasing regulatory controls on free enterprise — is a long-standing tradition. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama carries the practice into issues of national security.

He boldly claimed he has provided "leadership" and "engagement that advances the common security and prosperity of all people." He also said, "Since the day I took office, we have renewed our focus on the terrorists who threaten our nation." Yet the administration’s belated support for pro-democracy movements in Honduras and Iran, abandoning of a U.S. missile defense shield in Europe, insistence on shipping terrorists from Guantanamo Bay to the U.S. while returning others to the battlefield, and treating terrorists — such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the chief 9/11 plotter; accused Fort Hood killer Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan; and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Christmas Day "underpants bomber" — as common criminals all make his assertions ring hollow.

The same applies to Mr. Obama’s call for Congress to "repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are." The commander in chief apparently wants us to ignore that it’s not love of country that’s the problem. Simply put, a warrior’s ethos is incompatible with illicit, same-sex eros in the ranks. It’s not "who they are"; it’s what they do.

This cynical effort at resurrecting a campaign promise to use our military for radical social engineering raises expectations in the Democratic "base" that their leader can somehow prevail in implementing their agenda. Yet like so many of Mr. Obama’s pledges, it is unlikely to happen absent a sea change in the American body politic.

The 1993 law — Section 654 of Title 10, U.S. Code — was mislabeled "don’t ask, don’t tell" by the media and the Clinton administration. In fact, a veto-proof majority in both houses of Congress found "no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces" and codified that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service," holding that active gays in the ranks would pose "an unacceptable risk to the armed forces’ high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."

Unless the O-Team can show irrefutable evidence that changing the law would somehow improve "military capability" in the midst of war, even this Pelosi-Reid Congress will have to reject such blatant pandering to the far-left fringe. That undoubtedly will anger some who have not yet learned how to avoid disappointment with Mr. Obama: Keep expectations low. He is sure to live down to them.

 THE WASHINGTON TIMES

America’s critics are claiming that the United States is using the pretext of earthquake relief to take over Haiti. The Haitians should be so lucky.

The United States responded to the humanitarian crisis in Haiti with America’s usual generosity and has devoted substantial military and civilian resources. But the relief effort is proving the Washington maxim that no good deed goes unpunished.

Ten thousand U.S. troops were deployed to secure distribution centers, protect aid shipments and – most importantly – get the airport up and working. Some Haitians reportedly said the presence of U.S. troops made them "fear for their sovereignty," but in one case where food aid was air-dropped, a mob-scene resulted and people were killed. Haitian sovereignty cannot be left to the care of machete-wielding gangs.

Tales of a U.S. "invasion" to seize Haiti began to spread as soon as American boots were on the ground. Bolivia’s socialist President Evo Morales called the U.S. relief effort "unjust, inhuman and opportunistic" and called for United Nations action to counter purported Yankee imperialism. Reports from Cuba, Ecuador, Guyana, Syria, Iran and elsewhere took an anti-American line. Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez went beyond the pale when he accused the United States of causing the Haitian earthquake with a secret weapon fired by Navy ships as a test for a future subterranean attack on Iran.

France’s minister for international cooperation, Alain Joyandet, was highly uncooperative when U.S. flight controllers at the makeshift Port-au-Prince airport diverted a French plane carrying medical supplies – one report indicating it was bumped to give a slot to a flight carrying Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Monsieur Joyandet complained the relief effort "is about helping Haiti, not occupying Haiti." He was quickly corrected by President Nicolas Sarkozy, who praised the U.S. effort. The humanitarian group Medecins sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders) protested when some of its flights were diverted, but French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, who founded the group in 1971, downplayed the squawk, saying, "People always want it to be their plane … that lands."

The Saudi-based Arab News editorialized that aid flowing through the airport has been "shamefully delayed," but the petrol-rich kingdom characteristically has contributed little more to the relief effort than telegrams offering condolences. Some delays occurred because the United States was waiting for the Haitian government to show some leadership. Haitian President Rene Preval was the invisible man of the crisis and didn’t emerge from his improvised headquarters near the airport for almost a week. Many of the people being ferried out of the country under French passports were Haitian bureaucrats with dual citizenship seeking sanctuary in more pleasant surroundings rather than making the effort to reconstruct their country. Clearly, they think it’s far better to relax in Paris while others do the heavy lifting.

The United States is doing its best to alleviate suffering in Haiti and to begin the process of reconstruction, along with assistance from other countries and non-government organizations. America is donating hundreds of millions of dollars to the relief effort, money that may make its way to the people who need it, or may be siphoned off by Haiti’s durable culture of corruption or by opportunists who emerge to profit from human suffering. America brings resources to the effort that other countries simply cannot match, particularly airlift, sealift and communications capabilities. Many of our troops sent to Haiti had been enjoying time back with their families after being deployed to combat zones overseas, and many are facing another deployment within the year.

The United States deserves credit for this humanitarian effort, not blame for imagined invasions and secret earthquake weapons. The Obama administration could make a useful point by cutting foreign aid going to the countries that are criticizing America’s efforts and sending it to Haiti instead. Let’s see how well some of the ingrates can get by without getting their cut of "Gringo imperialism."

By: Theodore Kettle

The European Union delegation that will break more than a year of punitive isolation imposed on Iran by Western legislatures and visit Tehran this month, defying a joint appeal from Democrats and Republicans in Congress, is headed by a notorious opponent of U.S. efforts to wage the war on terror.

The German Green Party European Parliament member Barbara Lochbihler, a former social worker, served as secretary general of the German section of Amnesty International for the last decade.

Interviewed by Der Spiegel in May 2008, Lochbihler accused the United States of using “torture methods,” assisted by the collaboration of Western European nations.

“Under the guise of the battle against terror, the Bush Administration has perpetrated many human rights violations, calling them security measures,” Lochbihler charged.  “Many other governments have taken advantage of this and jumped on the bandwagon.”
Referring to the Bush administration’s extraordinary rendition program, which foiled numerous terror plots and saved hundreds of lives by transferring terrorist detainees to countries where they could be subjected to harsh interrogation, Lochbihler said, “Western European countries have supported the USA and CIA by allowing kidnapping flights to take place in Europe and its airspace.”

Lochbihler has rejected a request made in a Dec. 22 letter from 15 members of Congress to the European Union’s president that the proposed 11-member Euro parliament delegation to Iran she will head, and of which she is the main sponsor, be postponed.

“No delegation from a Western parliament has visited Iran in over a year, precisely to demonstrate to Iran that their behavior is unacceptable to the international community,” said the letter from Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., and 14 other House members, ranging from New York Democrat Eliot Engel to Indiana Republican Dan Burton.

“We believe that such a visit, especially at this critical juncture, is counterproductive and potentially damaging to the international community’s efforts to stop Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons,” the letter from Congress warned, noting that “Iran’s leaders have been relentlessly pursuing nuclear capabilities for several years, in violation of their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)” and that “As prime funders of Hamas and Hezbollah, they have threatened Western targets, sought to destabilize a critical region in the world, and dedicated themselves to the destruction of the State of Israel.”

Lochbihler is refusing to cancel the EU mission because she claims Iranian human rights activists have repeatedly “urged the delegation to travel and to underline the importance of the political developments within Iran on the European agenda.”  The European Parliament delegation is scheduled to visit Iran next week.
When it comes to human rights, Lochbihler is a fanatic who believes such considerations trump any and all protection measures against terrorism. 

In a 2004 article in a publication of the German Council on Foreign Relations, she argued: “Western democracies only injure themselves if they violate human rights in a short-sighted attempt to increase security.  Ultimately, security depends on the kind of legitimacy that derives from observance of the values that underlie democracies.  American legal conduct and physical treatment of prisoners in Guantánamo and in Iraqi prisons therefore raise serious questions – as do anti-terrorist legislation in Britain, suppression in China, and torture in the Middle East.”

The terrorist attacks on the United States eight years ago don’t seem to have impressed Lochbihler that the West must take extraordinary measures to protect against jihadist suicide bombers.  “What is new about the war on terrorism in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001,” she wrote in the same article, “is the way this approach has been elevated into a kind of global security doctrine that blatantly condones human-rights violations, rewarding them by letting them go unpunished.”

The Bavarian Green Party luminary also seems to want to explain away terrorist behavior: “Those men who were repeatedly designated as ‘terrorists’ and ‘murderers’ by high-ranking American officials are, for the most part, from countries in which severe human rights violations are routine,” according to the 2004 article.

And not surprisingly, the same article champions U.N. appeasement ideology over U.S. force.  “The Iraq war, conducted under the rubric of the war on terror, has shaken the United Nations to its foundations,” Lochbihler wrote. “The new doctrine formulated in the run-up to this war, whereby the U.S. explicitly threatens other U.N. member states with preventive strikes and wars, flagrantly violates the U.N. Charter, which obliges its members to ‘settle their international disputes by peaceful means’ and prohibits the ‘the threat or use of force’ as incompatible with the goals of the U.N.”

According to Lochbihler, “This policy and the renewed legitimation of war as an instrument of politics signify a de facto return to the law of the jungle in international relations.”

Even further, she believes racism and bigotry underlay much of the Bush administration’s war on terror policy. 

“The division of people into ‘us’ and ‘them’ and into good and evil, and the war rhetoric of ‘You are either with us or you are against us’ have created a climate in which xenophobia and latent racism can thrive,” her German CFR article charged.  “Increasing polarization between such population groups as Arabs and non-Arabs, or Muslims, Jews, and Christians, has been reinforced by those who have always feared the strong message of human rights applied universally and impartially.”

Lochbihler’s mission next week will not be the only recent gesture of appeasement towards the Islamist government in Iran by the European Union.  In August, 20 EU member state heads of mission based in Tehran attended Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s inauguration after his disputed re-election, after which 15 protesters were slaughtered in the streets by government forces. 

The Swedish EU presidency at the time justified the diplomats’ presence at the ceremony by citing a need to “keep diplomatic channels open.”

By Lloyd Marcus

As a black Rush Limbaugh fan still fuming from the lynching of Rush for false charges of racism by the liberal media led by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, I thought what can I do to end this tyranny of political correctness. For me, the Limbaugh Incident was "the straw that broke the camel’s back" as my mom used to say.

Then I thought, as a Christian should I go after Sharpton and Jackson? The words of Edmund Burke came to mind, "The only thing needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing!"

Final confirmation came when I opened my email. In response to my article supporting Rush someone wrote,"Lloyd Marcus you are a dumb a** Uncle Tom! Here is what Rush Limbaugh said…" Then, the ill informed emailer repeated the false Rush quotes spread by Sharpton and the shameless characterless liberal media.

Not only has Sharpton slandered a great American patriot, Rush Limbaugh, he and his liberal cohorts have severely damaged the psyche of black America for years. If researchers could document the damages, it could be interesting to file a class action lawsuit, Black America vs Liberal America.

And who died and made Sharpton and Jackson the official spokespersons for black America? The fact that the media consults these guys to speak for black America is racist. Are we a tribe? Are they our chiefs?

Like all Americans, blacks are diverse in their thinking. It is absurd and offensive that the media assigns spokespersons for us. Who are the spokespersons for white America?

Sharpton attacked Rush with lies. I will simply tell the documented truth about Rev. Al Sharpton and why this sleazy man would not be a credible spokesperson for a Used Car Lot much less black America.

Ladies and gentleman, I give you exhibit "A" Tawana Brawley.

In New York, 1987, Tawana Brawley, a black 15 year old was found smeared with feces, lying in a garbage bag, her clothing torn and burned and with various slurs and epithets written on her body in charcoal. Brawley accused six white men, including police officers and a public official, of kidnapping and repeatedly raping her. Civil rights activist Al Sharpton played a major role in publicizing and campaigning on behalf of Brawley’s case. It was all a hoax. The case did not pass the smell test of the grand jury. A grand jury later indicted Brawley’s mother Glenda Brawley for her involvement in the hoax.

Still, Sharpton and associates accused the Dutchess County prosecutor, Steven Pagones, of racism and of being one of the perpetrators of the alleged abduction and rape.

Pagones successfully sued Sharpton and Brawley’s attorneys for slander. They were ordered to pay $345,000 in damages.
Many say Sharpton knew Brawley lied. I have not found solid evidence to prove this. However, in a 2007 interview, Sharpton said he still thinks the Brawley case should have gone to trial. He said that despite there being no evidence of a crime.

Folks, white cops allegedly smearing a black teenage girl with feces. Can you imagine the intense racial hatred fueled by this evil lie? But Sharpton did not care. It was all about his racism, fame, extortion, political power and "gettin’ paid".

To keep this article brief as possible, I will not go into all of Sharpton’s racist statements, divisiveness and exploitation of race relations. Unlike the false Limbaugh quotes, Sharpton’s crimes are easily found and documented. For example, check out the Crown Heights crisis. Talk about racist anti-Jewish smears. 

Race profiteers. For years Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have earned a great living and enjoyed celebrity by betraying their own people. When you are still attempting to convince blacks they are victims in the greatest land of opportunity on the planet, the president is black and the richest woman in the country is also black, it is an insidious betrayal.

So Al, you’re out of here! There’s a new sheriff in town. Media, if you insist on "getting the black perspective", how about giving us black folks a little credit by loosening your paradigm that we are all victims. Show some respect. Speak to a few conservative, self sufficient and successful entrepreneurial blacks, we do exist; rather than running to interview your typical liberal, whiners, eternal victims, racists and poverty pimps.

It still amazes me how every time a reporter interviews me and discovers I am a black man who loves America, does not resent white people and do not consider myself a victim, they give me that look. They give me a blank stare which I read as, "This man is an idiot or what planet is he from". They act like I need serious help. As Rush says, "the media has templates". Behavior outside of their template they cannot understand. Thus, according to the media’s template, as a black man, I am supposed to view America through Al Sharpton’s point of view.

With the Obama administration’s unprecedented exploitation of race at every turn, the last thing America needs is dinosaur race profiteers such as Sharpton and Jackson fueling the flames of racial hatred further dividing us.

Lloyd Marcus, (black) Unhyphenated American!

 Stephen F. Hayes

Why would Colorado Public Television broadcast two 9/11 Truth propaganda videos? Good question. Colorado Public Television has enjoyed a fundraising boost after airing "9/11: Blueprint for Truth" and "9/11: Press for Truth." And they had help from 9/11 Truthers — volunteers from a 9/11 Truther group called 911 Visibility answered phones during a fund drive that took place while the shows aired. Not surprisingly, this success has the station considering re-airing the "documentaries."

« Previous PageNext Page »