Candidates evaluated on keeping America safe - political jihad expert, Walid Phares

Dr. Walid Phares (an academic, author and analyst at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies) prioritizes the choice American voters face in this treatise published in American Thinker, "Vote for National Survival:

Evaluating the Candidates on Freedoms, and Educating the Public:

For the first time since the end of the Cold War, there seems to be a concern about a scrupulous respect for freedom of the press and of expression in some "ideological" quarters of a potential Obama Administration. Although I do believe that the Senator from Illinois has kept a strong record on the necessity of a balanced debate regarding the nation's fundamental issues, and although Senator Biden has been a proponent of free speech, there are signs that radical groups could use Government positions to harass media that would be critical of an Obama Administration on national security grounds.

What's more is the dangerous possibility that (short of a counter Jihadi doctrine) elements of Wahhabi and Khomeinist advocacy circles would take advantage of a "new direction" to strike at the counterterrorism community in the private sector, targeting the advances made for the last seven years in educating Americans about the threat. Such a development would be a red line for the nation's defense. To be direct about it, already under the Bush Administration, the Wahhabi and Khomeinist lobbies have wreaked havoc throughout the bureaucracy, blocking major reforms needed to educate civil servants and citizens to learn about the threats looming over the country and its next generations.

Under a McCain Administration there are no guarantees that the "Jihad-o-phile lobby" will recede, but chances are much higher for new counterterrorism education to make a breakthrough than under an Obama Administration.

Under the latter, Muslim reformers in America won't have an equal chance with the Jihadi pressure groups to have their message received by their communities. Middle East dissidents will have their stories marginalized in the public sector so that it won't perturb the deals to "be cut with the regimes in the region." All that is predictable and projectable, hence the options are really limited if not set in terms of choice.

The Choice:

On the one hand, Senator Obama has a character to be admired and has skills to make other politicians jealous. He would make America look very good. Had we not been in a confrontation with the Jihadist forces worldwide, I would have gladly voted for him. Strange as it may be for many of my colleagues, his alleged "socialism" doesn't intimidate me, nor does his "radical liberalism." America's society will only absorb what it can digest.

On the other hand, Senator McCain is a national hero and a product of real American traditions. I would have liked for him to have been elected in 2000 so that he would have been the Commander in Chief on September 11 (with all respect due to President Bush). There are other men and women who are also qualified to lead this nation in these politically and economically trying times such as Senator Clinton, Governor Romney and others. But our political process has selected McCain and Obama and one of them has to become the President.

"Primo vivere" says the Roman adage. You've got to survive first and you've got to be free too. I have learned this the hard way. Hence in this 2008 Presidential election, I will vote on national security, that is national survival. All other issues are linked to our ability as a nation to make it through these very critical years.

After having reviewed the two platforms from that perspective, and short of discovering what can change my analysis in the next few days, I wish Senator Obama good luck and, as a registered independent, I will vote for Senator McCain for the President of the United States.

"Don't Let the Polls Affect Your Vote. They were wrong in 2000 and 2004." Wall St. Journal Opinion

Polls can reveal underlying or emerging trends and help campaigns decide where to focus.

The danger is that commentators use them to declare a race over before the votes are in. This can demoralize the underdog's supporters, depressing turnout.

Some polls are sponsored by reputable news organizations, others by publicity-eager universities or polling firms on the make. None have the scientific precision we imagine.

Polls have proliferated this year in part because it is much easier for journalists to devote the limited space in their papers or on TV to the horse-race aspect of the election rather than its substance.

The last national poll that showed Mr. McCain ahead came out Sept. 25 and the 232 polls since then have all shown Mr. Obama leading. Only one time in the past 14 presidential elections has a candidate won the popular vote and the Electoral College after trailing in the Gallup Poll the week before the election: Ronald Reagan in 1980. Read full article


Hate-crime down, except towards Jews; Expert exposes anti-semitic tenets in Islam, assimilated by Obama & the Left via agents like Khalidi

Hate crimes directed against a person's religion decreased in 2007, except against Jewish people according to the FBI's 2007 Hate Crimes Statistics reported in USA Today.

In 2006, the FBI reported 1,597 hate crimes motivated by a religious bias. That figure dropped to 1,477 in 2007, according to the report.

Of the religiously based hate crimes, attacks against Jews rose from 64% in 2006 to 68% in 2007. Anti-Muslim hate crimes, meanwhile, decreased from 12% in 2006 to 9% in 2007.

"Antisemitism, like some other principles within Islam, injects bias among certain cultures," asserts Brown Univ. expert Dr. Andrew Bostom.

Hate crimes against Catholics accounted for 4% of the reported hate crimes motivated by religious biases — down from 5% in 2006. Four percent of the hate crimes were motivated by anti-Protestant biases, and 9% were against other religions.

Of the reported hate crimes motivated by religious bias, 26% occurred in or near residences or homes; 18% occurred in churches, synagogues or temples; and 12% occurred in schools or colleges.

How would Obama's softness-on-Islamism reckon America with the God of Israel?

Critic Hanoch W. Weber wrote about the possibility of divine intervention in politics against the Jewish guardianship of Israel in Israel Insider: "So you think God does not exist"

The first rule of Western journalism, at least for the past century, has been never to explain any phenomenon by reference to divine intervention. Largely as a result of the increasing secularization of Western society, that rule has been strictly adhered to, so that today no "self-respecting" major newspaper, radio or TV station would dare abrogate the no-God rule.

However, it is particularly difficult for most Israelis -- especially in the past year and a half -- to ignore the great signs that the Lord has brought unto His people in His land. Despite the Israeli media's insistence on "God-free" reporting, the people seem more and more skeptical of its claim -- that God is not part of history and that His hand is not guiding and affecting events. Thus, the intentional ignoring and ignorance on the part of the media as to the real essence of the big events occurring in Israel, is a major cause of the disconnection and alienation between the Israeli media and the Israeli people.
Read full article


Lewis Black discusses the media's election coverage with Anderson Cooper at Time Warner's Politics 2008

Lewis Black speaks to Anderson Cooper before a live, media-industry symposium audience at TW/Digital Hollywood's "Politics 2008" conference in NYC, October 15, 2008


What lessons will voters integrate from today's 25th Anniversary of radical Islam's attack on US Marine Peacekeepers in Beirut?

23 October 2008 NEW YORK- Robert C. McFarlane, the national security adviser from 1983 to 1985 under President Ronald Reagan, wrote this Op-Ed, published today in the N.Y. Times.

Today is the 25th anniversary of that bombing, which killed 241 Americans who were part of a multinational peacekeeping force (a simultaneous attack on the French base killed 58 paratroopers).

The attack was planned over several months at Hezbollah’s training camp in the Bekaa Valley in central Lebanon. Once American intelligence confirmed who was responsible and where the attack had been planned, President Reagan approved a joint French-American air assault on the camp — only to have the mission aborted just before launching by the secretary of defense, Caspar Weinberger. Four months later, all the marines were withdrawn, capping one of the most tragic and costly policy defeats in the brief modern history of American counterterrorism operations.

One could draw several conclusions from this episode. To me the most telling was the one reached by Middle Eastern terrorists, that the United States had neither the will nor the means to respond effectively to a terrorist attack, a conclusion seemingly borne out by our fecklessness toward terrorist attacks in the 1990s: in 1993 on the World Trade Center; on Air Force troops at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996; on our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998; on the destroyer Cole in 2000.

There was no effective response from the United States to any of these. It was not until the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that our country decided to go to war against radical Islam.

A second conclusion concerns the age-old maxim never to deploy a force without giving it a clear military mission. In 1983, the Marine battalion positioned at the Beirut Airport was assigned the mission of “presence”; that is, to lend moral support to the fragile Lebanese government. Secretary of State Shultz and I urged the president to give the marines their traditional role — to deploy, at the invitation of the Lebanese government, into the mountains alongside the newly established Lebanese Army in an effort to secure the evacuation of Syrian and Israeli forces from Lebanon.

Secretary Weinberger disagreed. He felt strongly that American interests in the Middle East lay primarily in the region’s oil, and that to assure access to that oil we ought never to undertake military operations that might result in Muslim casualties and put at risk Muslim goodwill.

Cabinet officers often disagree, and rigorous debate and refinement often lead to better policy. What is intolerable, however, is irresolution. In this case the president allowed the refusal by his secretary of defense to carry out a direct order to go by without comment — an event which could have seemed to Mr. Weinberger only a vindication of his judgment.

Faced with the persistent refusal of his secretary of defense to countenance a more active role for the marines, The President withdrew the marines, sending the terrorists a powerful signal of paralysis within our government and missing an early opportunity to counter the Islamist terrorist threat in its infancy.

Since 9/11 we have learned a lot about the threat from radical Islam and how to defeat it. Our commitment to Iraq is now being vindicated and, if sustained, will enable us to establish an example of pluralism in a Muslim state with a flourishing economy.

First, however, we must win in Afghanistan — truly the decisive battleground in this global struggle. Never has there been a greater need for experience and judgment in the White House. Unless our next president understands the complexity of the challenge as well as what it will take to succeed, and can lead his cabinet and our country in resolute execution of that strategy, we will lose this war.

Saturday, September 08, 2007 (AP) WASHINGTON via FoxNews.com — Iran must pay $2.65 billion to the families of the 241 U.S. service members killed in the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, a federal judge declared Friday in a ruling that left survivors and families shedding tears of joy.

U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth described his ruling as the largest-ever such judgment by an American court against another country. "These individuals, whose hearts and souls were forever broken, waited patiently for nearly a quarter century for justice to be done," he said.

Iran has been blamed for supporting the militant group Hezbollah, which carried out the homicide bombing in Beirut. It was the worst terrorist act against U.S. targets until the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

Hundreds of people crowded into a federal courtroom to hear Friday's ruling. Parents have grown old since their children were killed. Siblings have grown into middle-age. Children have married and started families of their own.

Weeping spectators stood and erupted in applause and hugs as Lamberth left the bench.

The ruling allows nearly 1,000 family members and a handful of survivors to try to collect Iranian assets from various sources around the world. Finding and seizing that money will be difficult, however, and the families are backing a law in Congress that would make it easier for terrorism victims and their families to do so.

BBC - This World: Iran's Nuclear Secrets

As Iran defies the world by restarting its nuclear programme, Paul Kenyon travels to the Islamic Republic with UN nuclear inspectors, and gains exclusive, behind-the-scene access to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Iranian negotiators talk candidly about why they deceived the world over their nuclear programme for 18 years.

The diplomatic to-ing and fro-ing covered in the programme was filmed in the first six months of 2005.

But it takes on a new complexion now we know that Iran later abandoned the diplomacy and chose to start enriching uranium again.

Iran's Nuclear Secrets was broadcast on Tuesday, 23 August, 2005 on BBC Two.


Iran officials encourage pre-emptive attack against Israel

Senior Tehran officials are recommending a preemptive strike against Israel to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear reactors, a senior Islamic Republic official told foreign diplomats two weeks ago in London.
The official, Dr. Seyed G. Safavi, said recent threats by Israeli authorities strengthened this position, but that as of yet, a preemptive strike has not been integrated into Iranian policy.

Safavi is head of the Research Institute of Strategic Studies in Tehran, and an adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The institute is directly affiliated with Khamenei's office and with the Revolutionary Guards, and advises both on foreign policy issues.

Safavi is also the brother of Yahya Rahim Safavi, who was the head of the Revolutionary Guards until a year ago and now is an adviser to Khamenei, and holds significant influence on security matters in the Iranian government.

An Israeli political official said senior Jerusalem officials were shown Safavi's remarks, which are considered highly sensitive. The source said the briefing in London dealt with a number of issues, primarily a potential Israeli attack on an Iranian reactor.

Safavi said a small, experienced group of officials is lobbying for a preemptive strike against Israel. "The recent Israeli declarations and harsh rhetoric on a strike against Iran put ammunition in these individuals' hands," he said.

Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz said in June that Israel would be forced to strike the Iranian nuclear reactor if Tehran continues to pursue its uranium enrichment program.

Safavi said Tehran recently drafted a new policy for responding to an Israeli or American attack on its nuclear facilities. While the previous policy called for attacks against Israel and American interests in the Middle East and beyond, the new policy is to target Israel alone.

He added that many Revolutionary Guard leaders want to respond to a U.S. attack on Iranian soil by striking Israel, as they believe Israel would be partner to any U.S. action.

Safavi said that Iran's nuclear program is intended for peaceful purposes only, and that Khamenei recently released a fatwa against the use of weapons of mass destruction, though the contents of that religious ruling have not yet been publicized.

Regarding dialogue with the United States and the West, Safavi said Iran's decision would be influenced by the results of the U.S. presidential elections next month, as well as by the Iranian presidential elections in June and the economic situation in the Islamic Republic.

Safavi also said that a victory by U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama would pave the way for dialogue with Washington, while a John McCain presidency would bolster Iran's extreme right, which opposes dialogue. If conditions are favorable following the U.S. election, he said, Iran could draw back from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's declaration that "the nuclear case is closed," and put it back on the agenda.

Safavi said he believed that U.S. sanctions on Iran have run their course, and that there would be no point in strengthening them. Tehran would therefore demand "firm and significant" U.S. measures in return for stopping uranium enrichment. He also said Ahmadinejad is not guaranteed victory in the June 2009 elections, particularly given the dire economic situation in Iran. Still, Iranian experts believe his only real competition is former president Mohammad Khatami, who has not yet joined the race.

Safavi said the inflation rate in Iran is similar to that before the 1979 Islamic Revolution, but that unrest among civilians today is not as strong. This is because the current government uses oil revenues to help the poor, he said. Written
by Barak Ravid in Ha Aretz


Joe Biden: Elect Obama for an international crisis against America

On the very same day that Colin Powell's endorsement supposedly calmed the nerves of those worried about Obama's foreign policy inexperience, running mate Joe Biden makes the counter-argument.

ABC News' Matthew Jaffe Reports: Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., on Sunday guaranteed that if elected, Sen. Barack Obama., D-Ill., will be tested by an international crisis within his first six months in power and he will need supporters to stand by him as he makes tough, and possibly unpopular, decisions.

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday.

"It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."  Audio follows:

“I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate,” Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. “And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you - not financially to help him - we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.”

"We do not have the military capacity, nor have we ever, quite frankly, in the last 20 years, to dictate outcomes," he cautioned. "It's so much more important than that. It's so much more complicated than that. And Barack gets it."

After speaking for just over a quarter of an hour, Biden noticed the media presence in the back of the small ballroom.

"I probably shouldn't have said all this because it dawned on me that the press is here," he joked.  (ABC News' Political Radar via Little Green Footballs)

And where would the avalanche of confrontations come from, asks Ralph Peters in the New York Post?

* Al Qaeda. Pandering to his extreme base, Obama has projected an image of being soft on terror. Toss in his promise to abandon Iraq, and you can be sure that al Qaeda will pull out all the stops to kill as many Americans as possible - in Iraq, Afghanistan and, if they can, here at home - hoping that America will throw away the victories our troops bought with their blood.

* Pakistan. As this nuclear-armed country of 170 million anti-American Muslims grows more fragile by the day, the save-the-Taliban elements in the Pakistani intelligence services and body politic will avoid taking serious action against "their" terrorists (while theatrically annoying Taliban elements they can't control). The Pakistanis think Obama would lose Afghanistan - and they believe they can reap the subsequent whirlwind.

* Iran. Got nukes? If the Iranians are as far along with their nuclear program as some reports insist, expect a mushroom cloud above an Iranian test range next year. Even without nukes, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would try the new administration's temper in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf.

* Israel. In the Middle East, Obama's election would be read as the end of staunch US support for Israel. Backed by Syria and Iran, Hezbollah would provoke another, far-bloodier war with Israel. Lebanon would disintegrate.

* Saudi Arabia. Post-9/11 attention to poisonous Saudi proselytizing forced the kingdom to be more discreet in fomenting terrorism and religious hatred abroad. Convinced that Obama will be more "tolerant" toward militant Islam, the Saudis would redouble their funding of bigotry and butchery-for-Allah - in the US, too.

* Russia. Got Ukraine? Not for long, slabiye Amerikantsi. Russia's new czar, Vladimir Putin, intends to gobble Ukraine next year, assured that NATO will be divided and the US can be derided. Aided by the treasonous Kiev politico Yulia Timoshenko - a patriot when it suited her ambition, but now a Russian collaborator - the Kremlin is set to reclaim the most important state it still regards as its property. Overall, 2009 may see the starkest repression of freedom since Stalin seized Eastern Europe.

* Georgia. Our Georgian allies should dust off their Russian dictionaries.

* Venezuela. Hugo Chavez will intensify the rape of his country's hemorrhaging democracy and, despite any drop in oil revenue, he'll do all he can to export his megalomaniacal version of gun-barrel socialism. He'll seek a hug-for-the-cameras meet with President Obama as early as possible.

* Bolivia. Chavez client President Evo Morales could order his military to seize control of his country's dissident eastern provinces, whose citizens resist his repression, extortion and semi-literate Leninism. President Obama would do nothing as yet another democracy toppled and bled.

* North Korea. North Korea will expect a much more generous deal from the West for annulling its pursuit of nuclear weapons. And it will regard an Obama administration as a green light to cheat.

* NATO. The brave young democracies of Central and Eastern Europe will be gravely discouraged, while the appeasers in Western Europe will again have the upper hand. Putin will be allowed to do what he wants.

* The Kurds. An Obama administration will abandon our only true allies between Tel Aviv and Tokyo.

* Democracy activists. Around the world, regressive regimes will intensify their suppression - and outright murder - of dissidents who risk their lives for freedom and justice. An Obama administration will say all the right things, but do nothing.

* Women's rights. If you can't vote in US elections, sister, you're screwed. Being stoned to death or buried alive is just a cultural thing.

* Journalists. American journalists who've done everything they can to elect Barack Obama can watch as regimes around the world imprison, torture and murder their foreign colleagues, confident that the US has entered an era of impotence. The crocodile tears in newsrooms will provide drought relief to the entire southeastern US.

Sen. John McCain's campaign has allowed a great man to be maligned as a mere successor to George W. Bush. The truth is that an Obama administration would be a second Carter presidency - only far worse.

Think Bush weakened America? Just wait.

Ralph Peters' latest book is "Looking for Trouble: Adventures in a Broken World."


Is mainstream media running interference for Obama against new-media news-breakers?

In the final Presidential debate, Sen. John McCain was non-specific in calling for exposure of Sen. Barack Obama's history with and relation to the actions of ACORN, which is alleged to have coerced bankers to issue mortgages to underqualified, credit-risky, minorities. The defaulted loans are fundamental to the US investment banking disaster. Today, AP confirms the FBI is investigating ACORN for suspicion of voter-registration fraud.
A second senior law enforcement official says the FBI was looking at results of recent raids on ACORN offices in several states for any evidence of a coordinated national scam.
Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because Justice Department regulations forbid discussing ongoing investigations particularly so close to an election.
ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, says it has registered 1.3 million young people, minorities and poor and working-class voters — most of whom tend to be Democrats.

There are concerns about the nature of Sen. Obama's qualifications, ideologies, influences, and financial supporters which the mainstream media has avoided reporting about- which have been spotlighted in the new-media and the blogosphere.

Barack Obama poses with Kenyan relatives. Blogger "All the Latest News" writes: "The major reason that Obama will not release his birth certificate is that his father’s race is not listed as “black” but as “Arabic” which is how many Kenyan passports from the 1960s were issued."
Yesterday, CNN published a story challenging the trustworthiness of non-mainstream news-sources as rumor-mills: "Candidates hit back hard, fast against online attacks."

CNN reporter Richard Allen Greene designates 'fact'-checking websites as the final arbiters of online truth from fraud. But as the article points-out, former Pennsylvania Attorney General Phillip J. Berg (currently challenging Obama's naturalization qualification in the courts) who has vetted the the 'fact-checkers'?
The Obama rumors have spurred action both for and against the Illinois senator -- including a suit filed in Pennsylvania arguing that he is not eligible to be president because he is not a "natural-born U.S. citizen," and a Web site at isobamamuslim.com that contains a single word: "No."

Philip J. Berg illustrates how hard it is to quash rumors once they spread.

The Philadelphia-area lawyer, who filed the suit against Obama's candidacy, is aware that the Web site FactCheck.org has examined Obama's Hawaii birth certificate and ruled it kosher.

But he doesn't believe it.

"FactCheck.org is owned by Annenberg of Chicago, where Obama sat on the board," the lawyer said, dismissing the Web site's verdict.

FactCheck.org describes itself as a "nonpartisan, nonprofit 'consumer advocate' for voters." It is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.
Today, online newspaper, WorldNetDaily, reports a second suit challenging Obama's inclusion on the ballot in the State of Washington: "Man demands state verify birth records or remove senator from ballots."

There are other legitmate criticisms and investigations of Sen. Obama which the media intentionally ignores or chooses to downplay due to their own political biases, claims Melanie Phillips, in her column in Britain's The Spectator, this installment entitled, "Pinch Yourself."

The contrast between, on the one hand, the huge amount of material about Obama’s radical associations that has been published in on-line journals and in a few brave newspapers, and on the other the refusal by big media to address it and to vilify those who do, becomes more astounding by the day.

The Obamaniacs are spinning the relationship between Obama and William Ayers, former of Weather Undergound Terrorism Inc, as of no consequence because this was supposedly a chance acquaintance and because the educational project they worked on, the Annenberg Challenge, was a worthy one.

Stanley Kurtz now nails that canard by showing how, through the Annenberg Challenge, Obama and Ayers channelled funds to extremist anti-American Afrocentric ‘educational’ programmes which were a carbon-copy of the world view of Pastor Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s black racist mentor who, under pressure, Obama was forced to repudiate. These programmes promoted, amongst other radical ideas, the ‘rites of passage’ philosophy which attempted to create a ‘virtually separate and intensely anti-American black social world’ in order to ‘counter the potentially detrimental effects of a Euro-centrically oriented society.’

One such teacher taught that, ‘The submission to Western civilization and its most outstanding offspring, American civilization, is, in reality, surrender to white supremacy.’

Kurtz concludes:
However he may seek to deny it, all evidence points to the fact that, from his position as board chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Barack Obama knowingly and persistently funded an educational project that shared the extremist and anti-American philosophy of Jeremiah Wright.
No surprise there, since back in June Kurtz pointed to evidence that Obama shared the black racism of the Trinity United Church of Christ. In this article Obama was reported as rejecting ‘integrationist assimilation’ and wanting to channel black rage more effectively into political organisation.

Kurtz dug out a chapter in a 1990 book called "After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois" in which Obama sketched out how radical black churches could be harnessed to help radicalise the black population. As Kurtz wrote:
So it would appear that Obama’s own writings solve the mystery of why he stayed at Trinity for 20 years. Obama’s long-held and decidedly audacious hope has been to spread Wright’s radical spirit by linking it to a viable, left-leaning political program, with Obama himself at the center. The revolutionizing power of a politically-awakened black church is not some side issue, or merely a personal matter, but has been the signature theme of Obama’s grand political strategy.
You have to pinch yourself – a Marxisant radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshipped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of becoming President of the United States. And apparently it’s considered impolite to say so.


Talk-radio's "The Great Debate" in LA: Stephanie Miller for the Left, and Dennis Prager for the Right

Talk-radio's Left meets the Right in Los Angeles following the Obama - McCain televised debate. 1-hour of spirited debate between Prager and Miller taped before a live audience of their fans in Glendale, California. October 7, 2008.

The paramount criterion for selecting your next president

Eye on the UN's Anne Bayefsky feels that one criteria trumps all the others in selecting a new, free-world leader:
Since the time of Hitler, civilization has never been so close to the brink of total catastrophe. This American election will decide whether civilization as we know it will survive. As much as economic questions are currently front and center, with blame to go all round, this is not an election primarily about corporate greed, or individuals living beyond their means, or government neglect of economic oversight. Nor is it about whether we should have gone into Iraq where, like it or not, American boots on the ground have begun to create an emerging democracy. This election is about whether there will be a nuclear holocaust.

When you cast your ballot this election, make no mistake: you are voting for or against a nuclear holocaust. Not because Barack Obama wants such a horror, but because he will not prevent it. He will still be talking when the point of no return in Iran’s nuclear program is reached. And the balance of power in the world will — with terrible consequences — have changed forever. (Pictured, Iran Pres. Ahmadinejad inspects nuclear energy plant with Military Chiefs).
Read the article in National Review.

Prime Minister John Howard (Australia) visits results of nations' failure to thwart anti-Semitism - at Museum of Tolerance in US

Australia's former PM John Howard (with wife, Janette) recognized the consequences of appeasing tyrants as they tour the Simon Wiesenthal Center's Museum of Tolerance with Rabbi Abe Cooper & its director, Liebe Geft.

Prime Minister Howard writes of his experience from the Museum in its guestbook, "A moving and evocative museum. The lessons of Munich should never be forgotten. The right choices for nations are often hard and unpopular." John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia 1996-2007


"The Unfought War on Islamism" by Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, narrator of "The Third Jihad"

American’s educational system has seemed unwilling to enlighten our children to the nature, history, and implications of the war that has been declared on us and on free people in general by Islamist theocratic totalitarians.

At best, the subject is entirely avoided in America’s classrooms; at worst, it is ascribed to causes that facts prove are untrue — such as poverty or American foreign policy.

We have come the seventh anniversary of 9/11, and sadly, our educational system is still in a collective paralysis over “the Islamist threat.” No issue better encapsulates the long overdue battle of ideas domestically and globally against the Islamists than the woeful coverage our schools give 9/11 and the theology of political Islam.

In short, “political Islam” is a belief that Muslims have both a duty and obligation to promote the public application of their interpretation of sharia, and where possible, establish Islamic states. Terrorists do this by any means necessary; non-violent Islamists do it through patient advocacy and slow societal change.

Many have said that the primary solution to this conflict lies within the Muslim consciousness. This is true. The only antidote to the cultivation and corruption of theocratic pre-modern Islam is a liberal post-modern Islam.


"Obsession" sequel, "The Third Jihad" exposes Islamist imperialism in America; Premieres today in L.A. & New York

"The Third Jihad," new documentary film from the team which produced, "Obsession- The Movie," opens in limited theatrical release in select U.S. cities this week.

The production company, Clarion Fund explains that The Third Jihad aims to achieve the following two goals:

1. Educate viewers about the dangerous activities and frightening goals of radical Islamists, and their potential threat to the lives and values of millions of Americans.

2. Motivate viewers to become ambassadors for freedom and democracy by taking a stance against the activities and perpetrators of radical Islamic activities, spreading knowledge and lobbying political figures to eradicate such terrorist activities.

The Third Jihad is a documentary whose goal is to alert, educate and mobilize Americans about the danger radical Islam poses to the United States and to Western civilization as a whole. The film spotlights radical Islam's war against liberal ideas, its violent, anti-democratic agenda as well as its systematic human and civil rights abuses against women, blacks, homosexuals, Christians and moderate Muslims.

The Third Jihad focuses on radical Islam's campaign to dominate America and the West, and the ramifications of such a reality on our day to day lives. It underscores the importance of the American people joining together against radical Islam, that if not defeated, will continue to threaten our lives and values until they are destroyed completely.

The Third Jihad differs from Obsession by exposing the domestic social and political agenda of the international Islamist movement to subvert Western culture.

How is radical Islam operating inside the West? Is a subversive "cultural jihad" underway? How does radical Islam plan to bring America to its knees? What is the endgame? 

The film is narrated by Dr. Zudhi Jasser, a moderate Muslim concerned about the spread of radical Islam in America. Dr. Zuhdi Jasser is scheduled to appear to discuss the issue on radio's Dennis Prager Show on Tuesday, 7th  October at 12: 20pm ET, on Fox News Channel's Hannity and Colmes on Wednesday evening, and on Salem Radio's Michael Medved Show on Friday.

Los Angeles and New York screenings run Monday and Tuesday, Oct 6-7th, while South Floridians can see it on Sunday in Boca Raton, finishing-up in Sacramento on Monday.

Watch DemoCast.TV beginning Tuesday, 14th October to view a :30 minute concatenation of the movie.


'A tolerant West should assume a zero- tolerance policy against Islamic supremacism,' Aussie PM John Howard visiting U.S. Museum of Tolerance

Lessons-learned: Liberal Europe's trusting that appeasing Nazi Germany by ceding the Sudentenland would keep them safe from Nazi imperialism - ought to be applied today in strategies towards Islamism,' advises Aussie former-Prime Minister John Howard, who spoke 26 September at L.A.'s Museum of Tolerance.

"They have infinite patience, as well as infinite hostility," he said. "Never surrender when you're confronted with evil. We have to maintain a vigilance, we have to persevere."

The folly of Western liberalism to hope appeasing aggressors to avoid war (gleaned from Neville Chamberlain's Munich Agreement to concede Czechoslovakia's Sudentenland to Herr Hitler) actually results in more painful, costly war later. This should guide Western policies toward modern Islamism, Mr. Howard believes.

Mr. Howard claims that the West shouldn't appease, but adopt and maintain a vigilant, cultural and military resistance against tyrannical and imperialist Islamism. He is introduced by Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Associate Dean at Simon Wiesenthal Center). Museum of Tolerance's Director, Liebe Geft, toured PM Howard around the Museum, a testament that Western Europe's naive tolerance of supremacist Nazism cost Europe the world's largest loss of life in human history, World War II and the Holocaust.


"An American Carol" (the film that 'liberal Hollywood' red-lit) finally wide-released

Despite their successful track-record for originating Hollywood hits, David Zucker, Myrna Sokoloff, and Lewis Friedman, the Jewish writers of An American Carol, were rejected for production and distribution deals in ('Jewish-controlled?') Hollywood for their conservative parody of The Left.

The trio had to write, finance, and produce the nationalistic comedy all themselves. An American Carol was rejected by all American distributors until Vivendi, a French-owned company, agreed to deal.

The final hurdle- to try to get impartial reviews from a conventionally liberally-biased world of film critics. Today, they got one from the widely syndicated Associated Press' Derrik J. Lang:
'An American Carol' lampoons the left

Opening Friday, "An American Carol" mixes the narrative of Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" with Fox News fodder. Leslie Nielsen narrates the tale about Scoorge-ish director Malone stumbling through political-tinted fantasy sequences. A slap-happy General George S. Patton (played by Kelsey Grammer) serves as Malone's patriotic ghost of politics past.

It's a movie genre you don't hear much about in Hollywood: the right-wing comedy. For that matter, it's not much of a genre at all.

But it's exactly what conservative producer-director-screenwriter David Zucker created with "An American Carol." The gag-filled liberal lampoon stars Kevin Farley, brother of the late Chris Farley, as a scruffy Michael Moore clone named Michael Malone, an infamous documentary filmmaker leading a slapstick campaign to abolish the Fourth of July.

"I didn't tell anyone, not even my brother John, I had this part," said Farley, sitting in a conference room chair across from Zucker at Vivendi Entertainment, the film's distributor. "We wanted to keep it close to the vest. Meanwhile, I'm growing a beard and getting fatter. I had just gone through a divorce, and my brother was like, 'You need help!'"

Keeping mum is something both Farley and Zucker said they're accustomed to: In left-leaning Hollywood, conservative political inclinations aren't popular. In fact, when they first met about the role — Zucker said Larry the Cable Guy and Frank Caliendo were also considered — Farley wasn't sure if the veteran director knew he was a Republican.

"I think I've always been on the right side of things," said Farley. "I had a dad that was an influence on me. He was part of the Young Republicans at Georgetown University. He then ran for several public offices in Madison, Wisconsin, which is a bastion of left-wing politics. I grew up in the middle of that, so I'm used to being a fish out of water."

Zucker, who has made over $20,000 in contributions to Democrats over the years, turned to the right later in life.

"It happened gradually for me," said Zucker, director of the original "Airplane!" and "The Naked Gun" films. "After 9-11, I saw the reactions of both parties. The Democrats were saying, 'How is this our fault? How are we to blame for this?' And the Republicans were saying, 'This is pure evil, and we need to fight this now.' It made me rethink things."

Zucker acknowledges the release of "An American Carol" is timed to the election, when politics is a hot topic, but he doubts the spoof, which features cameos from the likes of Bill O'Reilly, James Woods, Jon Voight and — believe it — Paris Hilton, has the power to influence voters. His intention is to inspire laughs, not change political perspectives.

"I'm always looking for new targets," said Zucker. "In this town, you're only as good as your last target. First, it was disaster movies with 'Airplane!' Then, it was 'Dirty Harry' with 'The Naked Gun.' And then it was horror movies that were silly with the 'Scary Movie' films. Here, we're finally taking on the excesses of the far left in politics."

Opening Friday, "An American Carol" mixes the narrative of Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" with Fox News fodder. Leslie Nielsen narrates the tale about Scoorge-ish director Malone stumbling through political-tinted fantasy sequences. A slap-happy General George S. Patton (played by Kelsey Grammer) serves as Malone's patriotic ghost of politics past.

Because the movie was filmed months ago, audiences won't see timely jabs about the election, although a mention of the Democratic presidental nominee almost made the cut. In what Zucker said might be the film's most controversial scene, Malone travels to a world where President Abraham Lincoln didn't fight the Civil War and slavery was never abolished.

In the version of the film screened for this story, Gary Coleman camoed in said scene as a car-washing plantation slave who calls out to an off-camera colleague named Barack. When asked about the reference, Zucker, who co-wrote the film with Myrna Sokoloff and Lewis Friedman, revealed it will be left on the cutting room floor.

"It was the one thing I didn't think I could defend," said Zucker. "It's because of certain things that I know about Barack Obama. I would have left it in if he had really believed war was not the answer, but I've read that he said he was only against the Iraq war and he supports the Afghanistan war, unlike Michael Moore, who says he's against all wars."

Moore is hardly alone in the film's crosshairs. "An American Carol" roasts jihadists, Rosie O'Donnell, college professors, Neville Chamberlain, Adolf Hitler, President Jimmy Carter and chanting protesters. One over-the-top sequence finds Malone alongside a judge (Dennis Hopper) fending off a horde of undead American Civil Liberties Union lawyers.

"The intent is not to make people angry," said Zucker. "To get laughs, you have to deal with outrage. You can't be mild in comedy. In movies where I've been mild, they haven't been successful. You can be mild on television, but to get people out of their houses and into a movie theater, you have to do something they haven't seen before."

"The Monster Among Us" - documents the alarming rise of anti-Semitism in Europe

The Monster Among Us, is Media Projects’ latest film about the alarming rise of anti-Semitism in Europe. The film includes excerpts from almost 200 hours of footage shot in Germany, Hungary, France, England, Holland and Belgium. (NJ Jewish News)View trailer:

Anti-Semitism has surfaced on university campuses, in the media, on the streets, on the Internet, at political demonstrations and in seemingly innocent social situations.

The Monster Among Us examines this wave of anti-Semitism against European Jews and their institutions, mainly from the point of view of those who have directly experienced the violence or live every day with the threat.

In recent conversations with American Jews as well as non-Jews, it’s surprising by how many are un-informed about the problem. Some have heard about the violence in France, but most are totally unaware of what’s happening in the rest of Europe.

2008-2009 Scheduled Screenings:

October 30th: Jewish Community Center, Dallas, TX

November 12th: The European Parliament, Brussels, Belgium

November 16th: Boca Raton Synagogue, Boca Raton, FL

November 23rd: Congregation Beth Israel Corpus Christi, TX

December 7th: Jewish Community Center, Tucson, AZ

February 12th: University of Memphis, Memphis, TN

March 14th-23rd: Hartford Jewish Film Festival, Hartford, CT