WHAT DO YOU DO WITH FOLKS WHO DO NOT WANT TO BE AMERICANS?

Multiculturalism and the Case of the Unwanted Hello

by David J. Rusin • Jun 30, 2009 at 11:58 pm

http://www.islamist-watch.org/blog/2009/06/multiculturalism-and-the-case-of-the-unwanted-hello

The Islamist campaign to undermine and ultimately supplant Western norms is waged on some of the most mundane battlefields. For example, a recent essay by Matthew Coutts describes a fascinating and instructive clash that arose in a residential hallway:

When the landlady of my Toronto apartment building said an outraged neighbor had filed a complaint about me over an apparently inappropriate hallway interaction with his wife, my mind raced through the countless conversations I've had with fellow tenants, none of which seemed a possible source of offense.

It turns out, it wasn't a salacious transaction that had caused the complaint, but rather a neighborly and — to me — entirely forgettable greeting, little more than a brief "good morning" as I passed my neighbors on the way to work.

Still, it was enough of an affront for the man — once a doctor somewhere in the Middle East, my landlady clarified — to feel I had broken a cultural taboo. The incident started an awkward feud which has involved warnings not to repeat my indiscretion and one face-to-face shouting match, which included allusions to my impending death.

This episode illuminates several aspects of radical Islam's growing foothold in the West, such as the treatment of women as property and the eagerness to surrender to Islamist demands. (Coutts writes that his landlady advised him to "turn my back to the couple as they pass, never make eye contact, and never hold the elevator for them, no matter what.")

The collision between Coutts' "prairie upbringing" and his neighbors' "Muslim upbringing" also highlights a broader but closely related struggle over whether it is the individual or the group that should serve as the central building block of society. Coutts embodies the former view; by instinct, he sees the woman in the hallway as just another human being worthy of acknowledgment, no different than anyone else. In contrast, to Islamists and many of their multicultural allies, the author's first steps should have been to ascertain the race, religion, etc. of the couple and then modify his behavior according to presumed sensitivities.

This mindset is a recipe for discord, however, as it has a way of swelling localized disputes into wider, intergroup friction. Furthermore, few have the energy to keep track of the myriad, often contradictory rules that, we are told, must govern our interactions with the various groups we might encounter in the hallways of our lives. Indeed, Coutts just as easily could have raised Islamist hackles if he had started off by ignoring the woman; after all, CAIR lists "exclusion of Muslims from mainstream political or social process" as evidence of Islamophobia — and no "social process" is more mainstream than greeting one's neighbors.

In the end, Coutts decided to keep saying hello to others, determined not to let an Islamist's objections change the way he deals with the world. Western leaders could learn a lot from him.

SEE AND HEAR

http://www.horowitzfreedomcenter.org/

http://www.pjtv.com/video/Middle_East_Update/Obama%3A_Soft_on_Iran%2C_Tough_on_Israel________________________________________________________________/2060/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ3T2Y2QksE&feature=related


http://www.israelunitycoalition.org/video/

http://wejew.com/media/4740/Senator_Robert_Menendez_Champions_Jewish_Rights_to_Israel/

http://www.pjtv.com/video/Pajamas_TV/Passing_Gas%3A_The_Cap_%26_Trade_Debacle/2089/

THE NEXT BATTLEGROUND

EDITORIAL: THE NEW BATTLEGROUND. UNLESS FACULTIES ARE MORE DIVERSIFIED, WE WILL INCULCATE OUR YOUTH WITH HATE FOR AMERICA, ISRAEL AND CAPITALISM. IT IS PREVALENT EVEN NOW.

Confirmed: 'Palestinian' prof who terrorized students gets tenure at Columbia
Back in April, I reported that Columbia University would 'neither confirm nor deny' that Joseph Massad, a 'Palestinian' professor who was found to have terrorized students who disagreed with him, had been granted tenure by the university. Now, with the students gone for the summer and unable to protest, it has been confirmed that the story broken in April is true. Massad has been granted tenure. And the manner in which it was done smells rotten to the core.

In 2007, months after Massad completed his latest book, a committee rejected his tenure application. Tenure candidates rarely get a second shot at Columbia, but Dirks intervened and pushed for a second committee, sources say.

Oddly, the professor who led the first review of Massad refused to serve again. Even odder, the administration justified the do-over by claiming that Massad had switched his field of specialty from political science to cultural studies.

After the second committee approved Massad, President Lee Bollinger and Provost Alan Brinkley took extraordinary measures to protect the secrecy of Massad's tenure case and guard against an outcry from Jewish alumni and donors.

The last step in the process was the trustees. The administration refused to share with the trustees any list of who was on the two tenure committees. The board was also kept in the dark as to why Massad failed the first review. Bollinger and Brinkley also refused to discuss in detail why Massad was permitted another shot.

Instead, the administration -- apparently more interested in managing public relations than dealing with the substance of the underlying problem -- simply provided the trustees with a set of talking points with "helpful facts" about the university's Jewish student center.

When I tried contacting trustee Esta Stecher, a senior administration official alerted the board about my inquiries and reminded the trustees that the university doesn't comment on tenure cases.

In the end, Columbia's board of trustees approved Massad's tenure appointment before ever getting answers.

Which raises the question: Just what does a trustee do? Are they merely fund-raisers? Do they view the title as a ceremonial honor? What's the point?

As for Bollinger, one wonders how he allowed his faculty to undermine his authority and the university's reputation.

The promotion of Massad isn't a victory for academic freedom but a cheapening of it. The freedom extended to a Columbia faculty member isn't the same as the rights of a soapbox crank. Protecting free inquiry and valuing scholarship are not mutually exclusive goals, but together define the university ideal.

Unfortunately, academic freedom is long since gone from many campuses around the world. It's been replaced by political correctness. After watching the news out of Tehran for the last couple of weeks, I'm starting to think that there may be more academic freedom on the campuses that spawned the revolution than there is on the campus of my alma mater. How sad.

By the way, Massad doesn't just hate Jews and Israelis:

In a recent work, "Desiring Arabs," Massad claimed to expose yet another plot against the Muslim world -- the "Gay International." He describes how a vast conspiracy of gay activists descended on Arab countries and endangered the lives of "practitioners of same-sex contact" by transforming them into "subjects who identify as 'homosexual' and 'gay.' "

Nor is Massad fond of the women's rights movement, or "colonial feminism," as he calls it. He bristles at the attention paid to the Muslim practice of honor killings, which he likens to "crimes of passion," accusing women's groups of ignoring "rampant Western misogyny."

MAX BLUMENTHAL: WHO BELIEVES HE IS A JEW?

Copy of unknown response to HP

From the blog that brought you a breathless "Gazans have no food" story underneath a picture of a fully-stocked Gazan kitchen, this gem:

The antisemites finally have their "Israel is just like the killer Iranian regime" post. Max Blumenthal at The Huffington Post equates the Iranian regime thugs who killed protester Neda Agha-Soltan to the Israelis: "When the mainstream American press chose to broadcast the graphic video -- as moving as the footage is, it is difficult to watch -- it made a commendable decision that nonetheless highlighted its hypocritical attitude towards Palestinians who resist Israeli occupation on a daily basis, and who often meet the same fate as Neda."

No it's true. If there's one thing missing from national and international press coverage of Israel, it's images of suffering Palestinians.

Also: Gazans aren't resisting occupation because Gaza isn't occupied, Israeli treatment of West Bank Palestinians is such that civilians are begging the IDF to return to areas they turned over to the PA, and comparing an innocent, peaceful girl to murderous, kidnapping Palestinian soldiers is beneath contempt. But otherwise: a very well-reasoned and carefully crafted story that demonstrates exactly why the left disdains Israel.

Tough to understand why some people think that HuffPo is an anti-Semitic cesspool where the moderators have to turn off comments because too many readers cheer after Israeli teenagers are massacred by genocidal terrorists.

References:
* Breathless HuffPo Headline About Gazans Eating Grass Contradicted By Rest Of Headline, Linked Picture, Reality (Plus: Anti-Semitic Comments Ensue Anyway) [MR]
* Leading Dem Blog Huffington Post Equates Iranian Thugs Who Killed Neda to Jews [Gateway Pundit]
* What Keith Dayton hath wrought [Israel Matzav]
* 'Huffington Post spreading anti-Semitic hate' Report finds site being used for propaganda, wild conspiracies [WND]
* Huffington Turns Off Comments on Jerusalem Attack [LGF]

We are all Hondurans

BY: JIM BEER
Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2009, 10:04 PM

If there was any doubt up till now, I am now officially embarassed to call Obama my President. Hondurans rally to protect their democracy and their liberty, and who does our President stand with? Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. While he dithered and dallied for a week and still hasn't brought himself to back those in Iran risking and laying down their lives for freedom, he lost no time rushing to support this thug Zelaya, along with the so-called "international community."

Anyone who is pro-Israel has to be pro-Honduran. At long last, Israel has (good) company in the exclusive club of international pariah states of which, up until now, it was the lone member. (By the way, has anyone seen anythng about Israel's response to the Honduras situation? I would hope that there would be strong support, but I can't find anything).

Ousting a Chávez Wannabe
We should support the removal of Manuel Zelaya.

By John R. Thomson

Beware the coup d’état. They often cause more problems than they solve and are never totally peaceful; indeed, they typically trigger bloodshed either during or after the event.

So what should be our view of Sunday’s ouster of Honduran president Manuel Zelaya? We should support it.

The automatic response condemning President Zelaya’s removal by many political leaders in the region reveals the appalling degree to which they have ceased defending democracy. As Roberto Micheletti, chosen by the Honduran Congress to complete Zelaya’s term, observed, “What was done here was a democratic act. Our constitution continues to be relevant, our democracy continues to live.”

This was not the usual whitewash coming from the usual coup leader. Interim president Micheletti was president of the Honduran Congress and is a member, as was Zelaya, of the ruling Liberal party. Micheletti, the Congress, and the Supreme Court are all committed to national elections scheduled for November 29. Those who know Roberto Micheletti confirm that he has no intention of staying in power beyond the end of the current presidential term.

As retired career diplomat George Landau — the former U.S. ambassador to Chile, Paraguay, and Venezuela — observes, “This was not a military coup. The military blocked an attempted civilian coup by Manuel Zelaya, as he defied Honduras’s Supreme Court, its Congress, and his own political party. Instead of calling for his reinstatement in office, we should congratulate the Honduran government on removing the president peacefully.

“So far, Washington and most of the world have missed what is happening in Tegucigalpa. This was a power play by Hugo Chávez and his ALBA colleagues. [‘ALBA’ is a leftist bloc led by Venezuela. Zelaya made Honduras a member in 2008.] We are faced with a battle between democracy and leftist autocrats who have manipulated themselves into permanent power in their countries and want to add Honduras to the list.”

What happened in Honduras was not a standard coup. The Supreme Court ordered the army to remove Zelaya from office. The Congress, albeit after his detention and exile, voted unanimously for his removal and confirmed his constitutionally mandated successor to fill the remainder of his term in office.

Prior to his exile, Zelaya had insisted on a referendum to allow for his reelection in direct violation of the Honduran constitution. In other words, he set out to perpetuate himself in office. Roger Noriega, a former Bush administration official and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, puts it clearly: “Zelaya brushed aside every other institution of the state in insisting on a referendum that would benefit his selfish interests.”

Shredding constitutional prohibitions to presidential reelection has become a popular political ploy in several Latin American countries in recent years. To date, leftist regimes in Bolivia, Ecuador, and Venezuela have scrapped constitutional presidential term limits, each time using extralegal ploys to do so. Most recently, Washington’s best friend in the region, Álvaro Uribe of Colombia, has sought a constitutional change to extend his presidency for a third term, but so far he is working within the law.

Supporters call such moves vital for their nation’s peace and well-being; opponents say they reflect presidential hubris and greed. Call the penchant to scrap presidential term limits what you will: The efforts have clearly negated each and every country’s constitution.

In the case of Honduras, President Zelaya stood alone among political, legal, economic, media, and military leaders. Backed by a noisy rabble and funded by Venezuela’s ever-meddling autocrat, Hugo Chávez, Zelaya’s campaign was seen as a way to reverse the defeat of the pro-Chávez candidate in Panama’s recent presidential election.

The ballots for Sunday’s suspended referendum were actually prepared in Venezuela. On Saturday, Zelaya made an abortive effort to storm and steal the ballots from the Honduran military base where they were stored.

President Obama’s statement that Manuel Zelaya “remains the president of Honduras” is his latest foreign-policy gaffe. So far, the U.S. position, reiterated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, is largely the same as that of such governments as Argentina, Cuba, Ecuador, and Venezuela — none of them supporters of democracy and the rule of law.


It is unfortunately understandable that the Organization of American States (OAS) should roundly condemn Zelaya’s removal from office. Under the leadership of Secretary General José Miguel Insulza, the OAS has moved steadily toward embracing the autocratic Left. In its recent annual meeting, held (perhaps prophetically) in Tegucigalpa, the Honduran capital, Insulza and Zelaya collaborated to end the organization’s suspension of Cuba, despite that country’s blatant disregard of basic OAS charter support for democracy and human rights.

That United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon should stand in support of Zelaya and call for an emergency meeting of the General Assembly underscores once again how feckless the world body has become.

Not one informed Honduran — including members of the media — has opposed Manuel Zelaya’s removal from office. While many regretted the need to do so, all said the move was both legal and necessary, a position supported by Honduran attorney general Luis Alberto Rubí, who had threatened to prosecute Zelaya if he actually held some form of referendum.

American John Park, the former Anglican archdeacon of Honduras and a resident of the Central American country for more than 17 years, summarized the situation succinctly: “What has happened can be called democracy in action. It was not a military coup, but just as a U.S. court may order the arrest of a citizen, the Honduran army acted on the orders of the Supreme Court to arrest a citizen who . . . was flouting the law and the constitution.”

Manuel Zelaya’s attempt to perpetuate himself in power was a naked bid to join the ranks of leftist Latin autocrats. Despite his claims to the contrary, he sought to undermine his country’s constitution in a manner made notorious by his mentor and financier Hugo Chávez. Just as cynical and hypocritical has been reaction of “world leaders,” most notably senior Obama administration figures.

From Caracas, Roberto Bottome, the founder of Veneconomia — which for 30 years has been the country’s leading economic, political, and social analytical group — observed, “The knee-jerkers who have called for Zelaya to be restored as president of Honduras could have taken the time to find out what was really happening. Perhaps, just perhaps, they might have reacted differently once they learned it was Zelaya who was violating his country’s law and the constitution while all Honduran institutions, including the Supreme Court and Congress, had acted in strict observance of those laws and that Constitution.

“Zelaya defied the laws and constitution of his country. He was barred by the constitution — and the Courts — from holding a referendum on any subject in the six months prior to an election. Even so, he pressed ahead with his proposal for a referendum on a constitutional convention that would have allowed him to succeed himself as president.”

Let’s hope that someone at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or the State Department will recognize that Manuel Zelaya’s return to office would be an endorsement of chicanery, not a victory for democracy, and that Zelaya’s reinstallation as president would be seen as a major victory for Chávez and his cohorts.

ONCE THE KURDS CARVE UP IRAQ WHO IS NEXT? (Expect a new ME war)

Kurdish leaders are drunk with power

by Michael Rubin
Daily Star (Beirut)
July 1, 2009

http://www.meforum.org/2172/kurdish-leaders-drunk-with-power

On June 12, Iranians voted for a president. While the Islamic Republic may not be a democracy, its leadership has always looked to the polls to bestow popular legitimacy. Ayatollah Ahmad Janati, chairman of the Guardian Council, for example, said just two days before the election: "The enemies have always tried to question the legitimacy of the regime by trying to reduce public participation in elections ... The people must blind the eyes of the enemies by vast participation in elections." Iran's desire for elections, however, does not extend to accepting their results. Outraged, millions took to the streets across the country, some chanting "Death to the Dictator."

Iranians, however, may not be the only ones to take to the streets to protest election fraud this summer. On July 25, Iraqi Kurds will vote in long-delayed regional elections. For the first time, the major political figures - Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) leader Massoud Barzani and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) leader, and Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani - face serious local opposition.

In the wake of Kuwait's liberation in 1991, Iraqi Kurds rose up against Saddam Hussein's tyrannical rule. Rather than allow Saddam's helicopter gunships to massacre the civilian population, the United States, France, Turkey and Great Britain created a safe-haven in northern Iraq. The following winter, Saddam withdrew Iraqi officials from what would become Iraqi Kurdistan, believing he could starve the Kurds into submission. It did not work. The Kurds organized elections. Almost a million people voted. Barzani edged out Talabani, 45 to 44 percent, with smaller parties splitting the remainder. Power sharing was not always smooth: Both leaders like to command; both became addicted to power. So long as Saddam remained a threat, Kurds tolerated abuses. Since Saddam's fall, however, impatience at the failure to reform has grown.

While the Kurdistan Regional Government could once describe itself as a democratic beacon in the region, today such depictions lack credibility. Seventeen years after its first election, Iraqi Kurdistan is at best as democratic as Egypt or Iran, and worst akin to Syria or Tunisia. Corruption is rife. Barzani uses the government budget as a family slush fund, for example donating hundreds of millions of dollars from public coffers to allow a relative to win a 2007 bid to operate an Iraq-wide cell phone company. Few profitable businesses - oil, finance, industry or trade - can operate without either silent partnership with or outright payment to the Barzani or Talabani families.

Nepotism is also rife. Barzani, for example, appointed his son to head the region's intelligence service, the dreaded Parastin, which Amnesty International has accused of torture. While free media have become an engine for democracy in the rest of Iraq, the Kurdish security services threaten, harass, and in some cases even kill independent journalists.

The people of Iraqi Kurdistan say they have had enough. Noshirwan Mustafa, Talabani's one-time deputy, has joined the former KDP secretary general to form a rival election list. Two prominent Islamic parties have joined with secular counterparts to create an additional reform list. Both challenging lists are polling well.

Barzani and Talabani are worried. Rather than allow open election lists as in the rest of Iraq, the Kurdish leaders insist that party lists be closed, a way of preventing voter repulsion at examples of nepotism or those known to be abusive of power. As the rival lists, the Change List and the Service and Reform List, have gained traction, the Kurdish security forces have threatened and roughed up opposition candidates. Party officials have told apolitical bureaucrats that they will lose their jobs if they do not support Barzani and Talabani. There is widespread belief that KDP and PUK officials have compromised the Independent Higher Election Commission's regional offices after KDP security forces visited and, in some cases, arrested opposition candidates within hours of their filing theoretically confidential candidacy papers.

As has the Islamic Republic's leaders, Iraqi Kurdistan's leaders speak of democracy, but have become drunk with power, and disdainful of public accountability. As in Iran, Kurdistan Regional Government officials have amassed vast fortunes inconsistent with salaries. Today, ordinary Kurds refer to Barzani, his nephew, and his sons, as "little Saddams." Actually, "little Rafsanjanis" might be as accurate. As in Iran, Iraqi Kurdish officials have also worked to constrain independent monitoring which might report on intimidation and interference before election day.

As a consequence of all this, it appears that the Iraqi Kurdish people seek change. What remains to be seen, however, is if Iraqi Kurds will stand up for freedom and liberty as have the Iranian protestors, and if the Iraqi Kurdish security forces will, like their Iranian counterparts, use the point of a gun and midnight roundups to disenfranchise a deserving people.

Michael Rubin, a senior editor of the Middle East Quarterly, is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a senior lecturer at the Naval Postgraduate School.

CAROLINE GLICK

http://www.pjtv.com/video/Middle_East_Update/A_Rift_Between_the_US_and_Israel%3A_Is_Obama_Hurting_An_Important_Relationship%3F/2091/

About Me

I grew up in Chicago's ultra-liberal, anti-American and anti-Israel stronghold of Hyde Park. Hyde Park's newest famous resident is Barack Obama. He fits right into a neighborhood I couldn't wait to leave.

I made aliyah to Israel in 1991, two weeks after receiving my BA in Political Science from Beir Zeit on the Hudson -- otherwise known as Columbia University. I joined the Israel Defense Forces that summer and served as an officer for five and a half years.

From 1994-1996, as an IDF captain, I served as Coordinator of Negotiations with the PLO in the office of the Coordinator of Government Activities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. In this capacity I was a core member of Israel’s negotiating team with the Palestinians.

After leaving the IDF at the end of 1996, I worked as the assistant to the Director General of the Israel Antiquities Authority.

I then returned to geo-politics serving as Assistant Foreign Policy Advisor to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in 1997-1998.

From 1998-2000 I went back to the US where I received a Master's in Public Policy from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government in June 2000. Although I spent most of my free time hiking in New England, it did not escape my attention that the vast majority of the faculty at the Kennedy School were not particularly fond of America -- or of Israel.

In the summer of 2000 I returned to Israel and began writing at Makor Rishon newspaper, (Hebrew). I served as chief diplomatic commentator and edited magazine supplements on strategic issues for Makor Rishon until March 2002.

In March 2002, I accepted the position of Deputy Managing Editor of The Jerusalem Post. At the Post I write two weekly columns. These columns are regularly syndicated.

During Operation Iraqi Freedom, I covered the US-led war in Iraq as an embedded journalist with the US Army’s 3rd Infantry Division. Reporting for the Post, Maariv, Israel TV’s Channel 2 and the Chicago Sun Times, I was one of the only female journalists on the front lines with the US forces and the first Israeli journalist to report from liberated Baghdad.

My writings, which have also been published in The Wall Street Journal, National Review, The Journal of International Secrutiy Affairs, The Boston Globe, The Washington Times, The Jewish Press, Frontpage Magazine and Moment Magazine and numerous online journals focus on the strategic and political issues challenging the Israel and the United States. I have appeared on MSNBC, FOX News, Sky News, Christian Broadcast Network, Israel Television channels 1, 2, 3 and 10. I am a frequent guest on talk radio shows in the US, Britain, Australia and Israel.

In April 2004, in addition to my work at the Post, I resumed writing for Makor Rishon as the paper’s lead columnist and commentator.

I am the senior fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and travel several times a year to Washington where I routinely brief senior administration officials and members of Congress on issues of joint Israeli-American concern.

In its Israeli Independence Day supplement in 2003, Ma’ariv named me the most prominent woman in Israel. In December 2005, I was awarded the Ben Hecht award for Middle East reporting from the Zionist Organization of America. In January 2006, I was awarded the Abramowitz Prize for Media Criticism by Israel Media Watch.

In 2008, my first solo book - Shackled Warrior: Israel and the Global Jihad was published by Gefen Publishers. You can purchase the volume here.

I live in Jerusalem.