Monthly Archives: February 2012


‘Hope and Change’ Only for America’s Enemies, Islamic Extremists

Posted by Dr. Marc Weisman Feb 26th 2012 at 4:03 pm in on FEATURED ARTICLE FOR 2.27.2012   EgyptEuropeFeatured StoryIran,IslamIslamic extremismIsraelMiddle EastNuclear ProliferationPoliticsStrategy,Syriaground zero mosquesaudi arabiashariaunited statesComments (160)

With the presidential election looming, I thought it wise to revisit president Obama’s 2008 campaign theme. He ran on the adage, “hope and change.” Let’s look into hope and change, Obama style.

Islamism is so pervasive, so zany, so entrenched all over the world that I could throw a dart at the globe any random day and find a story to discuss involving extremism, violence, or oppression from its adherents. And it’s getting worse. Why is it getting worse, you ask? No doubt there are many reasons, but the one that sticks in my craw is that American weakness is largely responsible. Weakness will always invite aggression, and this president’s profound lack of leadership—weakness—has inspired our enemies the way fuel enrages wildfire. I guess we should have taken president Obama at his word and believed his conviction for “hope and change.” But hope for whom? What type of change?

Allow me to share a few examples for whom hope (and change) springs eternal due to the feckless actions of the Obama administration.


Iran is our nemesis. It is also the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism. It is largely Iranian weapons and expertise responsible for killing and maiming our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet in 2009, when millions of Iranians took to the streets to protest their totalitarian, anti-America, and anti-Israel government, president Obama did absolutely nothing to help them. This was the perfect chance for strong United States to encourage the Iranian moderates to replace the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad.

What appeared then to be a missed opportunity was actually just the beginning of a pattern of inexplicable direct and indirect support for radical Islam. Just today in the news out of Iran is a story about Youcef Nadarkhani, a 34-year-old father of two, who converted to Christianity in Iran. He has been sentenced to death. What’s his crime? His conversion to Christianity, because Islam does not allow such apostasy under the penalty of death. Another current story on Iran is the IAEA now admitting it cannot allay the world’s fears that Iran is indeed close to creating their first nuclear weapon. The confidential IAEA report said Iran has, since late last year, “tripled output of uranium refined to a level that brings it significantly closer to potential bomb material.”  Yet, the Obama administration has been very measured in its censure and sanctions on Iran, ostensibly because of the effect this would have on oil prices—hint, hint—his reelection.

Obama also refuses to seriously consider military action against Iran, and they know it. Nor will he sell Israel the bunker-busting bombs that could destroy the Iranian nuclear program in an aerial attack. This is the same Obama that naively terminated (for nothing in return from the Russians) the already agreed-to missile defense system that would have protected Eastern Europe from rogue states like Iran.

Translation: Hope for Iran to change the balance of power in the Middle East and perhaps the world.

Muslim Brotherhood

The Obama administration has allowed the Muslim Brotherhood, instead of the pro-democracy opposition, to lead Syria after the expected ouster of President Bashar Assad, says a report posted on Jihad Watch. Herbert London from the Hudson Institute, a leading consultant to the Defense Department, asserted that the administration has decided to work with Turkey and the Brotherhood in Syria for a post-Assad government. “It would seem far more desirable to back the democratic influences—the political organizations that require cultivation and support—despite their relative weakness at this moment,” the report said.

This is the same Obama that told us last year that the Muslim Brotherhood is reformed now–not to worry. At the time, other pundits and I presaged that we will soon regret the Arab Spring once it becomes the Arab Fall and Winter. Alas, it is upon us even as 16 Americans working for NGOs (Non-government Organizations) promoting democracy are detained and threatened with trial in Egypt by their ruling Islamists. The Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty is also in serious jeopardy.

This is one hell of a “thank you” from these radicals for supporting them over our own US ally, Mubarak. Mubarak was clearly a “son of a bitch,” but as President Roosevelt famously said, “at least he was our son of a bitch.” Tunisia and Libya are also quite clearly expressing their anti-West, anti-infidel rhetoric despite our support in overthrowing their respective regimes. And what is the American response to these third-world nations’ ungrateful insolence? Barely a peep.

Translation: Hope for the Muslim Brotherhood to change the world by imposing Sharia in more nations than imagined in their wildest dreams.


The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is an unindicted co-conspirator in the terror-finance trial against the Holy Land Foundation. The FBI will no longer do business with them. CAIR is in the corner of every radical Muslim that tries to force-feed Islamist tradition, law, and custom down the throat of America. Recall Muslim teacher Sefoorah Khan, who was dismissed last year by her Chicago area public school system. She was terminated for abandoning her students when she decided to attend “The Pilgrimage” or Hajj— a trip to Mecca, Saudi Arabia, after just 9 months’ employment. The U.S. Attorney General under Obama joined a suit filed by CAIR on her behalf against the school system. The case settled with Ms. Khan being awarded some $75,000.

It is also CAIR that encourages Muslims traveling in US airports to resist pat-downs and other efforts by TSA because safety takes a back seat—pun intended—to advancing the special rights and privileges of Muslims. CAIR is a major supporter of the Ground Zero Mosque and promotes legal actions against cities and towns across America that resist Muslim centers in the heart of their small, generally Christian towns. The Obama administration is typically in lock-step with CAIR in all of these and other controversies.

Translation: Hope for CAIR to change the American landscape to one more and more accepting of Islamic and Islamist customs and mores .

Apologists for Islamism

Just last week the president added a chapter to his incessant apologies to Islam on behalf of America. Our soldiers properly destroyed desecrated Qurans used by Muslim prisoners to communicate improper messages to each other. Obama’s apology, predictably, further stoked the flames of yet another irrational, violent, angry, and sadly lethal riot; Americans were killed.

Silence would be bad enough from our president when world leaders (Germany, France, Switzerland and Britain) have the courage to decry the danger and failure of Islamist multiculturalism in their lands. They tell us the cultures of their nations are under great strain as a radical brand of Islam grows bolder–so bold that large swaths of many European cities are entirely off-limits to infidels such that even police and fire personnel dare not trespass. But silence isn’t enough for this administration. No, this president goes out of his way to promote acceptance of even the most opprobrious Islamic customs and religious edicts.

In many speeches, president Obama has championed the “religious” rights of Muslims that are incongruent with western culture. These statements include: “It is important that Western countries avoid impeding Muslims from practicing their religion ‘as they see fit’” and “I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” Why? In reality, of course, it is politicalIslam masquerading as religious Islam that is being offered protections it does not deserve.

Translation: Hope for Islamists everywhere but particularly in Europe where there exists progressive change away from their rich cultures toward the homogeneity of fundamentalist Islam.

The enemies of Israel

Israel lives in a very, very bad neighborhood. No previous U.S. president has distanced himself from Israel. Why? Because weakening the bond between America and Israel would provide a frenetic and renewed hope to all of Israel’s enemies that finally, the destruction of Israel can be imagined.

Obama has publicly humiliated Israel by blaming the lack of peace on Israeli settlements. He has also criticized Israeli demands that Hamas and Hezbollah recognize Israel’s right to exist. The president has recently rebuffed Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu even while Congress honored him with an unprecedented seventy standing ovations during his address to the joint chambers. This president fatuously attempts to appease Islam at the expense of Israel.

Translation: Heretofore unimaginable hope has been infused into the global Arab and Muslim psyche that real change(Israel’s destruction) is finally plausible.

So, hope and change are indeed upon us, just as president Obama promised. Unfortunately, the beneficiaries of this hope and change are our enemies. We Americans and our allies are the victims.



2012-02-27T15:28:36+00:00 February 27th, 2012|

UN Resolution 16/18 an UN-Wise Capitulation to Anti-Free Speech Fundamentalists

Posted by Dr. Marc Weisman Jan 16th 2012 at 12:09 pm at FEATURED STORY OF THE DAY JAN 16, 2012   Featured StoryForeign Policy,IslamIslamic extremismObamaTerrorismUnited NationsComments (97)

Last month in Washington, the United States hosted an international conference to advance the implementation of UN resolution 16 / 18.  The resolution was adopted “by consensus”—a disarming term that really means without a vote—at a session of the U.N. Human Rights Council last March. It was endorsed the following month by the UN General Assembly.


UN 16 /18, whose formal title is “combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons based on religion or belief,” sounds innocent but is not. To better understand the danger that belies this ostensibly high-minded resolution, let’s look at its genesis.

The 56 member “Organization of Islamic Cooperation” (OIC) began with earlier versions of the resolution. The impetus for it was to curtail the alleged global Islamophobia following the 9/11 attacks. Earlier renditions sought to criminalize “blasphemous speech” and “defamation of religion.” Even President Obama couldn’t reconcile the language in the original drafts due to the freedom of speech guaranty within the Constitution. Fast forward to UN 16 / 18. Out of necessity, the petition was broadened to protect not only Islam but all religions. Of course the OIC and UN have exhibited virtually no predilection to safeguarding Christians, Jews or others. Make no mistake, there is a single purpose for UN 16 / 18: silencing the critics of radical Islam. The OIC worked tirelessly with others to craft language acceptable to the US and eventually found the winning formula. They speciously substituted the word “incitement” for “defamation” and voila; the ever-appeasing Obama administration was now fully behind it. In a world where a simple cartoon can incite millions of Muslims to riot, just exactly who will be the judge of what constitutes “incitement to violence”? The UN? The OIC?

Never mind that the world is chock-full of depraved Islamists who terrorize, kill and strive to advance radical Islam throughout the West. Never mind as Abigail Esman wrote for “the continued use of anti-Jewish materials in the schools of Saudi Arabia…or the ongoing persecution of Jews and Christians in numerous Muslim countries”. Never mind the desperate flight of Christian minorities from scores of Muslim countries. Never mind the pervasive religious fanatics who will flog if not kill an infidel for merely uttering a word, drawing a cartoon or writing a comedic skit that is uncomplimentary to Mohammad. Never mind that last year the FBI documented at least eight anti-Semitic crimes for every anti-Islamic one in the US. None of these require UN action but so-called “Islamophobia” requires urgent UN intervention. Really?

Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, an American Muslim and the founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, puts it like this: “We should be putting Islamist autocracies on the defense and then simply reiterate that our First Amendment principles already protect the rights of all minorities — whether Muslim or otherwise — and that the best standard of free speech is the American one.” Amen. What a shame that the non-radical Muslim majority doesn’t join Dr. Jasser and others in combating the fundamentalist poison that infects Islam.

It is telling that the nations promoting this resolution have populations that are well beyond 90 percent and often 99 percent a single religion—Islam. Jordan Sekulow, director of policy and international operations for the American Center for Law and Justice states: “What is the problem here with the 1 percent speaking out and why is that such an issue that needs to be handled at the international level?”

I’ll tell you why although you already know. UN Resolution 16 / 18 is no more about religious tolerance than MSNBC is about fair and balanced reporting. It is all about religious intolerance. No doubt, some members of the UN actually believe this to be a step toward religious broad-mindedness. However, when the world naively agrees to censure if not criminalize dialog that might lead fanatics to “imminent violence,” we are all in trouble. By agreeing to this ridiculous sophomoric attempt to silence radical Islam’s critics, we are actually accepting responsibility for violence perpetrated by these extremists. This only further decimates our ability to combat them. Tragically, once again, the world has been duped by backwater Islamists who exploit our tolerance to advance their depraved quest for a world rid of Christians, Jews and all infidels.


2012-02-27T15:26:35+00:00 February 27th, 2012|