Dennis Prager has weighed in with his opinion on Keith Ellison placing his hand on the Qu’ran instead of the Bible when he gets sworn in. At first, I didn’t think I’d be that interested in this column, even though I enjoy Mr. Prager’s work. I’m thankful now that I took the time.

First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism, my culture trumps America’s culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.
Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison’s favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

The truth is that America has never been nor should it ever be multicultural. The goal of the Founding Fathers was to create American society, where we pulled towards the same goals. The plague we call multiculturalism strives to divide people by letting each pursue a culture that is distinctly not American. (continue reading post »)

COMMENTARY By BRUCE HERSCHENSOHN:

This war will either be won by those who shout “Death to America” or won by those who fight for our survival and the survival of civilization as we know it. Too bad, but there is no room for the politically-correct. To win in Afghanistan, in Iraq, or wherever the jihadists may take us, we must fight a politically incorrect war as we did in World War II in which world opinion and winning hearts and minds were not issues until after victory was achieved. Today, the politically-correct ask, “Ahhh, but what is victory?” Weird question. Victory means winning no matter what it takes. Otherwise, in this case, all is lost. All.

Cross-posted at Bear to the Right

Technorati Tags: Global War on Terror,War,Islam,Jihad

This year’s prime example of bureaucratic wrong-headed thinking, aka the Baker Commission report, will be made public this December. This year, like in all other years, Democrats will fawn all over the report while pushing for acceptance of all its recommendations. The White House should reject these recommendations because they’re defeatism disguised as ‘realism’. David Sanger’s article lists a number of interesting insights into the report.

A draft report on strategies for Iraq, which will be debated here by a bipartisan commission beginning Monday, urges an aggressive regional diplomatic initiative that includes direct talks with Iran and Syria but sets no timetables for a military withdrawal, according to officials who have seen all or parts of the document.

As I’ve written before, direct talks with Syria and Iran shouldn’t be held because (a) they aren’t interested in stabilizing the region and (b) because they won’t keep their word. Diplomacy is only useful when dealing with honest people. Otherwise, it’s an exercise that’s designed to impress the ‘world community’, which is meaningless. It seems to me that holding direct talks with Iran and/or Syria only legitimates them. Instead of playing nice in public, we should be putting them on notice that their financing the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq won’t be tolerated. (continue reading post »)

Bottom Line Up Front: D-Charlie Rangel believes soldiers serving in Iraq are there because they couldn’t get a “decent career.”

Who hates the military more; Bill Clinton who wrote in 1969 that he “loathed the military”? John Kerry who joked that soldiers are uneducated and stupid? Charlie Rangel who believes the military isn’t a “decent career”? It’s hard to say, but new comments from D-Congressman Charles Rangel of NY are yet another example in a long line of put downs aimed at the military from Democrats. Rangel on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace said this:

I want to make it abundantly clear: if there’s anyone who believes that these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment. If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.

Before addressing the insult, let’s address the error. The Heritage Foundation Report: Who Bears the Burden? did an in depth analysis of U.S. military demographics to include household income, level of education, race/ethnicity, and region/rural origin. Here are some of their findings:

(continue reading post »)

A wave of ‘realism’ is sweeping through the United States, proof that bin Laden was right. The current wave of ‘realists’ includes James Baker and Chuck Hagel. Here’s what Sen. Hagel wrote in this morning’s Washington Post op-ed:

The time for more U.S. troops in Iraq has passed. We do not have more troops to send and, even if we did, they would not bring a resolution to Iraq. Militaries are built to fight and win wars, not bind together failing nations. We are once again learning a very hard lesson in foreign affairs: America cannot impose a democracy on any nation, regardless of our noble purpose.

Ironically, the title for Hagel’s op-ed is “Leaving Iraq, Honorably”. Frankly, I’m mystified how abandoning an entire nation before they’re able to defend themselves is anything approaching honorable. I’d further take issue with calling it leaving, not that a Hagel-driven foreign policy wouldn’t have that as a key component but because that isn’t telling people the truth: Hagel’s hogdepodge of random and stray thoughts is really defeatism wrapped into a tidy little euphemism created during Vietnam.

I can’t even call Hagel’s thing a plan because that would imply rational thought on his behalf, something that isn’t evident. Believe it or not, Hagel’s delusional thinking gets worse: (continue reading post »)

It appears that the eight imams who were removed from the US Airways Flight might have done so as part of a scheme to reduce airline security. Here’s what Investors Business Daily said in an editorial:

Turns out among those attending their conference was Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, (D-MN), who will be the first Muslim sworn into Congress (with his hand on the Quran). Two days earlier, Ellison, an African-American convert who wants to criminalize Muslim profiling, spoke at a fundraiser for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Muslim-rights group that wasted no time condemning US Airways for “prejudice and ignorance.” CAIR wants congressional hearings to investigate other incidents of “flying while Muslim.” Incoming Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, (D-MI), has already drafted a resolution, borrowing from CAIR rhetoric, that gives Muslims special civil-rights protections.

It’s stunning to think that John Conyers, CAIR-Michigan’s 2005 Man of the Year, drafted this resolution by “borrowing from CAIR rhetoric.” Then again, Conyers has carried CAIR’s water for ages. It’s also curious that the imams chose to pray in such an ‘in-your-face’ way, considering this fact, disclosed in an email to Gateway Pundit:

Greetings Jim,

As a person raised a Muslim and practicing Islam. I was taught that if a Muslim’s time of prayer comes and needs to pray. But is in a confined space or in a situation which would attract negative attention. That a Muslim could pray sitting in chair etc…and use nodding or bowing to symbolize the Rukaahs and Sejdas needed for prayers. The prophet Mohamed has advised Muslims to not attract negative attention and not to act in a way perceived negatively by our surroundings. In airports in many Muslim countries there are special rooms for praying so as not to be praying in a waiting area.
These Imams must have known what their praying in a waiting area in an airport (if it is in fact what they did) filled with people would do. Muslims should not be inviting or seeking trouble.
I am saddened to see how far some Muslims have strayed from Islam.

(continue reading post »)