President Obama and the Ground Zero Mosque

The controversy that the Ground Zero Mosque has created has brought to light many things that should receive attention, namely Imam Rauf's past statements and President Obama's fumbling maneuvers to try to position himself on every side of the issue.

Some Muslims it seems believe the opposition is based solely on Islamophobia when this is far from the truth. The opposition is around two factors mostly. The first is the mere placement of the mosque, two blocks from Ground Zero, the second is the character of Imam Rauf. In the preceding weeks it has been discussed that Rauf has a record that is far from moderate, saying two weeks after 9/11 that the US was complicit in the attacks and that Osama bin Laden was made in America. He also has refused to denounce Hamas as a terrorist organization. It is these revelations along with the sheer insensitivity of the placement that have created such opposition. As Americans we are always asked to be tolerant and show sensitivity to others, a trait we boldly embrace, but why cannot the Muslims who seek to build this show the same sensitivity? They do not need to build it there. This is an action intended to be provocative, not build bridges. The building of this establishment will not in fact build bridges, but rather create divisions and create a backlash against Muslims.

The White House initially chose not to get involved in this controversy, but the President last Friday chose to finally wade into the fray at a Ramadan dinner. Whereas he did say he supported it legally, he did not comment on the wisdom of the project. Rather he chose to back pedal on his comments the next morning though. The problem and real irony here though is that for being supposedly so eloquent President Obama spends a lot of time clarifying his statements and secondly, it would have been braver of him if he had spoken on the wisdom of it at the dinner instead of the next day in Florida. This would have been an opportune moment  to make the feelings of the American people known and explain to the audience that building it elsewhere would prove better for all. The President failed at this though, due to the fact that that might offend the audience at the dinner and perhaps cause them to not adulate over him.    

It can be said though that Americans, even after 9/11, showed no ill will towards Muslims overall. President Bush made it clear that we were not at war with Islam as a religion, but extremists. The fact remains though that it is hallowed ground and should be respected as such. If they built it six blocks away there would be no issue, but the proximity is what is causing the controversy. This is not a freedom issue when it comes down to it, but one of sensitivity.

The UAE and the Iranian Threat

In a recent speech on Aspen Colorado, Ambassador Yousef al-Otaiba said he would fully support a preemptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. He said:

I think it's a cost-benefit analysis. I think despite the large amount of trade we do with Iran, which is close to $12 billion … there will be consequences, there will be a backlash and there will be problems with people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country; that is going to happen no matter what.

If you are asking me, 'Am I willing to live with that versus living with a nuclear Iran?,' my answer is still the same: 'We cannot live with a nuclear Iran.' I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the UAE.

Supposedly this shocked some, but quite to the contrary it shouldn't. As I mentioned earlier in this blog, an Iranian nuke would have dire effects in the region. Not only does Israel have serious concerns about such a development, but the Gulf states have also to worry that a nuclear Iran would be a nation able to impose its will on the smaller countries in the region and in so doing be able to control what those nations did in terms of economic and foreign policy. It is no wonder that the UAE ambassador voiced such an opinion. He, though, is most likely not alone. More likely than not officials from Oman and Bahrain feel the same way that a nuclear Iran will act as a regional bully and that they are willing to put up with any protests that may result if their security is threatened. Why the Obama Administration does not understand this concern is beyond belief. If Iran was to go nuclear the US would have to also be prepared to intervene for those nations should Iran threaten them. It seems President Obama just doesn't understand all the consequences.

Not surprisingly this story was under-reported in the media this week and I only heard about it from Charles Krauthammer on Friday's edition of Special Report with Brett Baeir.

Neconservatism: The Biography of a Movement (Book Review)

Justin Vaisse's book, Neoconservatism: The Biography of a Movement, proved to be a fair-minded and educational read on the movement that has garnered much attention in the last decade.

Vaisse explains the history in a very linear, chronological fashion so as to explain exactly how it developed and who helped it get there. Other authors, when discussing the topic, don't do this, but he explains this method is the best in his introduction. What he does in the book though is explains that neoconservatism can be divided into three distinct ages. The first age which took place in the 1960s and was compromised of Irving Kristol, Nathan Glazer, Norman Podhoretz, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. In this phase it primarily addressed domestic issues in the pages of The Public Interest and was a reaction against the New Left and the protests it inspired on campuses some of these men taught at. It must also be noted that a good portion of these men such as Kristol were former Trotskyists at City College of New York.

It was in the second age when foreign policy started to become its primary concern. In fact many second age and third age neoconservatives overlap. This group of people, including luminaries such as Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, and Paul Wolfowitz were greatly inspired by Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D-WA) and the nuclear strategist Albert Wohlstetter. Their primary concern was opposition to Henry Kissinger's detente and a desire to maintain military dominance over the Soviet Union. The strong support for Israel, which is characteristic of neoconservatives also began here.

In the third age, which is said to have started in 1995, Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan are to said to have made their names known. Although many second age neocons are active in this phase, it was here that such institutions as the Project for the New American Century and The Weekly Standard began under the direction of Bill Kristol and where they came to occupy places of influence in the Bush Administration. Vaisse makes sure to be fair to the neocons when discussing this phase and not lay all the blame for the Iraq War at their feet as some do. Even though he is fair, he does take them to task for having a narrow view of what it would take to make their vision succeed. He does not go overboard in doing so, but rather gives the movement constructive criticism.

Overall I can say the book is well-written and fair on top of being very informative. He lays out precisely what compromises the current neoconservative vision of foreign policy and through his narrative gives the reader a well-informed idea of how they developed it and who contributed to it. He dispels some alleged "myths" about neoconservatism as well. He says that despite what some authors say, philosopher Leo Strauss did not have an that much of an influence on future neocons. This of course can be disputed depending on who you are discussing. For the neoconservatives though, he ends the book on a high note. He says that despite the road bumps that the movement has encountered of late that it in fact is not dead, far from it in fact. It has ingratiated itself into influential think tanks such as American Enterprise Institute and the Hudson Institute as well as being the chosen foreign policy of the Republican party and conservative movement in general and as a result will return to influence world affairs in the future.

Israel and the Flotilla Incident

Yesterday in a raid by Israeli commandos a flotilla transporting 10,000 tons of "relief" materials to Gaza was interdicted and resulted in 9 being killed.

The larger problem in the operation is the fact that this operation has caused an international incident that has resulted once again in the international community's condemnation of Israel. In addition to the larger international problems, the fact of the matter is that if Israel suspects weapons are being smuggled into Gaza they have the responsibility to act
in their nation's interest and prevent them from entering. Turkey, an ally since 1996, should realize this.

What will come of this latest incident is unknown, but it will most likely contribute to frustrating the Obama Administration's Middle East peace process, which at this point is going nowhere due to an amalgam of failed policies. One thing the administration must remember though in this process is to not join the international community's condemnation, but rather come to Israel's defense in their time of need.

The Implications of an Iranian Nuke

It does not appear to be clear that President Obama and his administration understand all the implications that allowing Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon would entail. For there are many that could essentially transform the Middle East.

One of the unintended consequences of allowing this to occur would be the growth of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. The first nation that can be expected to pursue nuclear weapons is Saudi Arabia. Considering its proximity to Iran and that it is made primarily of Sunni Muslims, they would most likely want to offset the "Shia bomb" of Iran. This could happen also due to the fact that of Iran acquired a bomb it will feel emboldened and could try to pressure the surrounding Gulf states into following its will possibly vis-a-vis oil. This would only make sense to protect their interests.

From there it could be a domino effect. Considering Iran had one and Saudi Arabia was working on acquiring one the bigger nations in the region could also see it as only being their prerogative that they have one as well. These nations could include Egypt, Turkey, and possibly Syria. If all these nations were to acquire nuclear weapons you would see a dramatically different Middle East, one where an arms race has transformed it into a nuclear hotbed.

In addition to the threat of nuclear proliferation, Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon poses an existential threat to Israel. There is no question in the mind of the Israeli leadership that they can risk that Ahmedinejad is posturing for his domestic base. They cannot risk a nation such as Iran acquiring such a capability and either directly threatening it or passing it off to a terrorist organization such as Hezbollah or Hamas. President Obama does not seem to understand this position of Israel, which in and of itself is disconcerting. If Israel feels Iran is close to acquiring the bomb it, without a doubt, will take action. This should be allowed.

These are only two of the most obvious consequences that the administration is not willing to face for one reason or another. They cannot simply submit to the inevitability of it and give up and in the process abandon allies such as Israel most importantly, and others in the region such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states.

How Not to Treat an Ally

This past week has proven to be another week in which the Obama Administration has chosen to alienate our closest ally in the Middle East, Israel.

The way in which President Obama treated Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House was deplorable. He treated him as if he was the Prime Minister of a pariah state (such as North Korea or Iran) in his not meeting with him in public and snubbing him afterwards. Add to this the fact that the Administration has been scolding Israel for building settlements in Jerusalem in the preceding weeks and you have a situation where this president is showing outright hostility to Israel. Considering he is not showing the same hostility to Iran through sanctions, but instead lessening the severity of them and you are left with a very strange foreign policy, one that can be said to be inconsistent with previous policy of both Democrat and Republican presidents and dangerous in the message it sends to our historical allies as well as our current enemies. President Obama should back off the bullying of Israel and instead turn his enmity to nations that pose a real threat to not only us and our allies but the world at large. Nations such as Iran.

America Will Survive

Considering the passage of the healthcare bill and what it means for our country I can't help but think our country will come through this. It will take more than one man or one bill to change the core of what makes America great. We survived the Great Depression. We are the country that came out victorious in World War II and won the Cold War through the leadership of Ronald Reagan. We were attacked on September 11 and rose from the ashes of that tragedy. The US is a beacon to the world, a symbol of hope and freedom. It takes more than one president to alter what makes America exceptional. It takes more than one man to fundamentally alter age old alliances. Just as we always have done we will bounce back. Our history and what makes us so great are bigger than President Obama despite what he thinks. This is something we must remember.

The Dutch Inquisition

By Johanan Raatz

To my fellow serfs, knights and lords, I wish to inform you of a great crime that hath been committed in the Netherlands. The apostate Geert Wilders, of the infamous Party for Freedom, hath knowingly and willingly denied and rejected the sacred doctrines of tolerinthe and diverthity, therein committing a mortal sin.

For those of you who have not been following this story, allow me to back up and start from the beginning. In 2008, Wilders produced a blasphemous video called Fitna, wherein he portrayed Islamist ideology negatively and drew comparisons between the Koran and Mein Kampf. This hateful speeth offended a politically correct minority, thereby promoting hatthred and intolerinthe in the community.

For his shameful sin, Geert Wilders hath been arrested and brought before the Dutch Inquisition on charges of heresy and hate speeth. If he refuses to recant his heresy and repent his hateful speeth, he will be sentenced to one year in jail and/or burning at the stake.

Wilders, however, remains defiant in his sin against political correctness and denies that he hath insulted Islam. Instead, he insists that he was merely telling the truth. In his defense, he has asked that the court consider eighteen expert witnesses, among them renowned academics who have studied Islam as well as radical Islamists.

However, the court in its supreme wisdom hath rightfully rejected fifteen of these witnesses. With these witnesses, Wilders was attempting to use unholy means to obtain knowledge through rational analysis and empirical investigation. For example, instead of obtaining knowledge through the divinely-inspired dogmas of political correctness regarding oppressed minorities, he intended to interview radical Islamists themselves in an attempt to learn their views first-hand. The court, however, knoweth that justice can only be reached if the proceedings are based on politically correct dogma.

This tactic by the fiend Wilders is especially pernicious though. If he were to convince the masses that true knowledge could be obtained by such unholy means he would corrupt them, leading many souls to believe that the holy writ of Political Correctness is false. Heresy would then run rampant and many would go astray.

Lest any are tempted to follow Wilders in his heresy, let your faith not be shaken. If sound testimony and scientific observations from pagan academics side with Wilders, knowest that your ears and eyes are deceiving you for it contradicts the divinely inspired dogma of Political Correctness.

Many in the heathen land of the Americans have taken part in Wilders heresy and so damned their souls. These impious Americans say that Wilders is exercising his right to free speech and that this is necessary for a free and democratic society to flourish. However, we should not follow them into the evil of reason and vain philosophy that dares to exalt itself above the Divine Dogma of Political Correctness. Let us never forget that Western Europe hath the One True Enlightenment of Progressivism and Political Correctness, and that any who espouse that enlightenment is based on reason rather than sacred dogma are in grave error.

In closing, let us remember to intercede to Saint Marx on behalf of Geert Wilders’ soul. Perhaps after his mortal body is burned at the stake for hate speech the God of Progressivism and PC will have mercy and save him from eternal damnation.

This article first appeared in the The February 15th edition of the UWM Post.

The US and the Crisis in Haiti: A Case for American Exceptionalism

The response of the US in the wake of the humanitarian crisis in Haiti should show the world as well as fellow Americans how exceptional this country is. This American Exceptionalism that has been on display is something President Obama failed to acknowledge in the series of speeches in his first year in office.

This exceptionalism goes beyond just what our political leaders and military do though, although that should not be dismissed. This extends to what the average American does. It is average Americans who, when disaster happens, reach into their personal finnaces to give to those in need even when they do not have much to give. It is also these Americans who are the ones acting as missionaries in Haiti before the earthquake occurred that exemplify how the US is the nation who provides the most support.

I've heard some say we owe Haiti due to the fact that due to their rebellion against France the US was able to acquire Louisianna. I don't agree with this line of thinking for two reasons. Firstly, it is not known that the United States would not have acquired Lousianna then, what can be said though is that it would've been acquired if not at that time then soon after. Secondly and more importantly, we are not providing aid to the Haitians because we owe them, not at all. We do it because it is what makes us exceptional. When we see another nation in dire straits we provide help because it is the right and just thing to do and as a people it is in our nature as compassionate people to reach out and help those who could benefit from our resources.