Barack Obama is Herbert Hoover
Phil Orenstein • October 10, 2008 2:17am • Uncategorized
With a little more than three weeks to go until Election Day, the major game-changer is yet to come. Obama’s radical associations, lack of experience and voting record of raising taxes on the middle class, will come into the equation as November 4th draws nearer and people start to use their brains. The major issue now is the economy and people who have lived through the depression or whose parents have, understand that Barack Obama is Herbert Hoover in many ways.
The consensus is that there were no game-changing moments in Tuesday night’s town hall debate in Nashville. The candidates traded jabs and talking points focusing on the economy, which is now distressing the McCain campaign, as he slips further in the polls and in battleground states. The economy dominated the debate as Obama continued to tie McCain to the unpopularity of the Bush administration which started with a surplus when President Bush came into office, as Obama remarked and now the national debt has nearly doubled. Some people saw what they wanted to see in each candidate as illustrated by the following exchange from a young unregistered undecided colleague:
We all know that McCain is equal to Bush. If you did watch the last night Presidential Debate you should have well noted that McCain is done for now. He repeated many many times the sentence “look at my record my friends” but he didn’t say a word on how he is going to change “in better” this country and how he is really different from Bush. It is like when I come to a job interview and you, the interviewer, ask me “Do you know how read blue prints?” and I reply “look at my resume”. What would you think about my professionalism? …Ok if you are good person you will probably give me a chance but guys, here we are electing the President of the United States of America not a McDonald Manager. Obama doesn’t have any important experience but he knows what to say and how to act, something that for someone like McCain, with is impressive record, doesn’t. I am sorry for who is blind in this country and doesn’t want to understand that the Bush (Republican) administration has destroyed the American and world Economy….Be a smart voter and do the best for your country.
Another colleague responded as follows:
I won’t share my political views with you, but in my opinion and with all due respect, if this is the logic you’re applying in your choice for the next President of the U.S., then I am hopeful that you are not a registered voter!
McCain and Obama aside, your decision to cast your vote should have little to do with an hour of sound bites on TV from these candidates and more about where the candidates stand on the issues through their past performance…..their track record, their voting record, their ability to get things done. If you believe only what you hear, then it is probably safe to say that you will hear only what you already believe.
Answer these questions for me…..What has Barack Obama done for America to deserve your educated vote for President?? What has John McCain done for America that deserves your educated vote for President?? When you have those answers I will listen to your opinion. Keep in mind that some of our greatest Presidents were not great debaters. I send your words back to you….Be a smart voter and do the best for your country……use your brain…..
International terrorism and national security issues were off the radar screen. The focus of the debate was on the economy and the unpopularity of the Bush administration. McCain never broached the topic of Barack Obama’s radical associations and unsavory friends, including terrorist William Ayers, Amerca-hating pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright, anti-Semitic Minister Louis Farrakhan, convicted criminal Tony Rezko and many others. Neither did he attack Obama on his voting record of tax increases across the board and massive spending programs as the treatment for times of financial distress which would plunge the country into the likes of another depression. This is the game-changer.
I was speaking to my good freind, Professor Gerald Matacotta tonight and he explained that the major issue we are now facing is the economy and on this issue Barack Obama follows in the footsteps of Herbert Hoover, who was a Republican in name only (RINO). Rather, he was a progressive and a social engineer, who funded massive public works programs with monumental tax increases. The stock market crashed occurred in 1929 during the first year of the Hoover administration. Hoover raised corporate and income taxes and imposed tariffs which sunk the country deep into the Great Depression. He instituted the Revenue Act of 1932 which was the largest tax increase in American history raising the income tax from 25% to 63% on the highest earners. The result of his tax increases took money out of the economy decreasing consumer and business spending, as homelessness, poverty, and bank failures grew out of control and unemployment soared to 25%. Hoover’s prescription for the stock market fall was to tax the people more and use the funds for public works, as government took over more and more of the private sector.
This sounds similar to Obama’s prescription for the present financial predicament we are facing. Some of the details of Obama’s vague plan reveal that it would be the largest tax increase in over a decade, raising taxes on the incomes of those earning $250,000 or more. This would fund universal healthcare and other massive government programs. But looking at Obama’s record in the U.S. Senate where he voted for higher taxes at least 94 times, and his support for hundreds of tax increases in the Illinois State Senate, we see a dangerous character very much like Herbert Hoover emerge.
We should “use our brains” and not let history repeat itself. As we get closer to Election Day, people who now say they support Obama should wake up and realize that Barack Obama is mysterious and unknown. The worse thing for a troubled economy is to increase taxes on wage earners and businesses. Judging from his record, if Obama gets elected, he will increase income taxes across the board, raise corporate taxes, and impose tariffs when the revenues from those earning $250,000 or more fall short of the mark, not only to fund his massive government programs, but also to lift us out of a financial recession. He will blame the Bush administration and deliver a somber address to the American people on sharing the burden of sacrifice. He will declare that it’s the patriotic duty of all Americans to pay more taxes as his running mate Joe Biden has mentioned. We should learn from history and not let a repeat performance of Hoover’s perilous reaction to the stock market crisis of 1929 recur in 2009.
World for Obama
Michael Cecire • October 9, 2008 22:23pm • Uncategorized
Via Lee Huang, the Economist has an interesting little “electoral college” map of the world. Needless to say, McCain is getting absolutely annihilated worldwide.
Exceptions? As of now: Georgia - solidly for McCain, Macedonia - leaning McCain, and Moldova - a toss-up.
I don’t think it’s much of a coincidence that all three of these countries were once dominated by an oppressive communism, and that Georgia and Moldova both have outstanding territorial issues with Russia (read: Russian occupiers engaging in ethnic blackmail). Macedonia, for its part, wrangles with an ongoing low-level Islamist insurgency.
Recapturing the Momentum of Democracy
Michael Cecire • October 9, 2008 21:43pm • Uncategorized
At the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI) here at Penn, Adrian Basora and Jean Boone have put out a short piece really well-documenting some of the dire repercussions of the August War in Georgia and underscore the War’s role as only the most overt example of a creeping trend.
Long before the Russians entered Georgia, democracy was clearly on the retreat in postcommunist Europe and Eurasia, as was the leverage of both the United States and the democratic European powers. Despite the extraordinary democratic breakthroughs that produced the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and continued through the Rose and Orange Revolutions of 2003-04, today only 30 percent of the people of the region live in countries identified by Freedom House as democratic, while 56 percent live in the resurgent authoritarian states of Russia, Belarus, and Central Asia.1 Critically hanging in the balance are four key countries – Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova and Bosnia – whose democratic transitions remain uncertain and whose persistent political weakness leaves them vulnerable to both domestic conflicts and external pressures.
Democracy on retreat. Not a particularly pleasant theme to accept, but as there is more than enough evidence to suggest that the Western project of democratic promotion is presently in shambles. As a matter of fact, I recently had a piece posted on the invaluable Michael Totten’s website on the extreme fragility of Georgian democracy, despite a general (and correct) preference to Russia’s cynically-termed “sovereign democracy.”
The FPRI authors go on to suggest a small list of initiatives for Western policymakers to regain momentum, enveloped within a wholesale paradigm shift towards more attentive engagement while cognizant of realities on the ground. This may sound like common sense, but the somewhat fractured and fluctuating nature of US democracy promotion today (think of Rice’s biweekly jaunts to Ramallah versus her annual 2-second cameos in the Caucasus).
The article is highly, highly recommended. And while we’re on the topic, Michael Totten’s latest piece on his trip to Azerbaijan is well worth a look. The site of another volatile South Caucasus “frozen conflict,” again involving Russia, this is a situation worthy of every sober observer’s attention.
Humor: Clever account of the subprime crisis
Laurie Morrow • October 8, 2008 22:48pm • Uncategorized
A clever, prescient account of the subprime crisis, offered by British comedians John Bird and John Fortune — in 2007:
Hat tip: Ralph Colin. Thanks, Ralph!
The Pornification of a Generation
Brent Tantillo • October 8, 2008 11:52am • Uncategorized
Newsweek reviews Carmine Sarracino and Kevin Scott’s The Porning of America. Newsweek describes the sad circumstances that led to the book’s writing:
The idea for a book about porn culture came to Kevin Scott the day his daughter decided she absolutely had to have a Bratz-doll pony. For months, the 5-year-old had begged him for a Bratz doll—clad in spike heels, fishnets and miniskirt, enormous puppy-dog eyes protruding from her oversized head. Her sexy look seemed a little too sexy for a preschooler, so he and his wife bought her a different doll, which she was happy with. Except that a few months later, Bratz came out with Bratz Babyz. “If Bratz had looked like Barbie hookers, these looked like baby hookers,” Scott says. Again, he convinced his daughter that My Little Pony was just as cool—and for a moment, the conversation ended. Until, of course, the Bratz came out with Bratz Ponyz. And then, says Scott, an English professor at a small college in Georgia, “I realized porn culture and I were in a death match for my daughter’s soul.”
This book explores how porn culture has invaded our children’s lifes. As the Newsweek article states:
Whether we welcome it or not, television brings it into our living rooms and the Web brings it into our bedrooms. According to a 2007 study from the University of Alberta, as many as 90 percent of boys and 70 percent of girls aged 13 to 14 have accessed sexually explicit content at least once.
And the results of this exposure are hypersexualized teens who mimic porn poses, and clothes, and culture, without really knowing or understanding what they are mimicing:
All it takes is one look at MySpace photos of teens to see examples—if they aren’t imitating porn they’ve actually seen, they’re imitating the porn-inspired images and poses they’ve absorbed elsewhere. Latex, corsets and stripper heels, once the fashion of porn stars, have made their way into middle and high school. An ad for Axe shower gel, marketed to teen boys, uses the slogan “How Dirty Boys Get Clean,” while Burton, the snowboard company, partnered with Playboy earlier this year on a new line of “Love” boards—complete with voluptuous cheeks smack dab in the middle of each. The boards’ online description reads: “I enjoy laps through the park; long, hard grinds on my meaty Park Edges followed by a good, hot waxing.” One of the most popular kids’ videogames, Guitar Hero, features animated rock stars that stand on a stage with a neon stripper gyrating on a pole behind them. Strippers have become cool—unremarkable even.
Even worse though is the fact that pornography creates unrealistic expectations of sex by creating a fantastical world where even movie stars such as David Duchovny, who is married to arguably one of the most beautiful women in the world Téa Leoni, is addicted to internet porn and must enter rehab for it. Is she not enough?
Can McCain still win?
Brent Tantillo • October 7, 2008 12:12pm • Uncategorized
Roger Simon of Politico writes an interesting column today on what Senator John McCain must do if he wants to win the presidency this November. We’ll see if he does it in tonight’s town hall debate:
“I think during the Tuesday night debate, McCain can do two things: One, McCain can’t be afraid to go right at Obama, define his economic policies as dangerous to our economy. Two, he has to talk about the Supreme Court. Obama will be the ultimate judicial activist advocate as president, using the courts for social engineering projects. Once the American people focus, McCain can win on this issue. It is an issue that attracts independent voters and Catholic Democrats.
Other issues that will resonate with voters is reminding them who Senator Obama truly is:
The Obama-Biden ticket is the most liberal ticket the Democrats have offered America since George McGovern in 1972. Barack Obama is far more liberal than most Americans. Moreover, a politician’s associations are a window into his values. If John McCain liked to hang around with the Ku Klux Klan, and if his church had given a lifetime achievement award to racist David Duke, all of us would consider those legitimate areas of inquiry.
But Simon expresses concerns regarding McCain’s grassroots leadership:
“Every election goes in peaks and valleys in the polls. I am increasingly looking at the ground game. Hollywood stars are out there registering voters. The underlying problem of McCain’s campaign is grass-roots action and activity. My fear there is that Obama is ahead in that.”
How can McCain get an edge in the grassroots-get-out-the vote part of his campaign? The first aspect of that is reminding voters who John McCain is and how he differs from Bush. Professor Bainbridge explains this well here:
My thinking about this election cycle has been heavily influenced by the work of UCLA political science professor Lynn Vavreck. In brief, Vavreck says that what usually matters most in predicting electoral outcomes is state of the economy. In each election cycle, there are two types of candidates: clarifying and insurgent candidates. A clarifying candidate’s job is simply to make clear where he or she stands on the economy, because a majority of voters are likely to stand with him on economic issues. An insurgent’s job is to change the debate; to make the debate about something other than the economy, because most voters will not stand with him on economic issues.
When the economy is doing well, the candidate of the incumbent party can be the clarifying candidate. He takes credit for his predecessor’s strong management of the economy and gets rewarded by voters who are feeling good about the economy and, accordingly, the incumbent party. When the economy is in the tank, however, the candidate of the incumbent party must go the insurgent route and change the terms of the debate to something else.
McCain finally seems to have realized this:
Sen. John McCain and his Republican allies are readying a newly aggressive assault on Sen. Barack Obama character, believing that to win in November they must shift the conversation back to questions about the Democrat’s judgment, honesty and personal associations, several top Republicans said.
With just a month to go until Election Day, McCain’s team has decided that its emphasis on the senator’s biography as a war hero, experienced lawmaker and straight-talking maverick is insufficient to close a growing gap with Obama. The Arizonan’s campaign is also eager to move the conversation away from the economy, an issue that strongly favors Obama and has helped him to a lead in many recent polls.
“We’re going to get a little tougher,” a senior Republican operative said, indicating that a fresh batch of television ads is coming. “We’ve got to question this guy’s associations. Very soon. There’s no question that we have to change the subject here,” said the operative, who was not authorized to discuss strategy and spoke on the condition of anonymity.
The second element of McCain’s grassroots strategy must be to use Gov. Palin to energize the Republican base as Bush did in 2004. Republicans still have the same number of voters as they did in 2004, the problem is that they are not energized. Evangelicals, veterans, and Catholics, among others, are still concerned about the same issues as they were in 2004. However, they are not aware of the victories in social policy that have occurred in the last four years, for example, under the Roberts court: upholding the partial-birth abortion ban, support of school choice, and the finding of a fundamental right to bear arms in D.C. v. Heller. All of this progress in the culture wars could be erased with an Obama presidency.
With Friends Like These…
Brent Tantillo • October 6, 2008 17:28pm • Uncategorized
Sarah Palin took the gloves off over the weekend, stating that Barack Obama pals around with terrorists. Her reference referred to Obama’s deep connections to Weather Underground founder William Ayers. Palin was merely referencing an article in the New York Times:
“There has been a lot of interest in what I read, and what I read lately well, was reading my copy of today’s New York Times and I was really interested to read about Barack’s friends from Chicago,” Palin said. “OK, now I get to bring this up not to pick a fight, but it was there in the New York Times, so we’re gonna talk about it.
“And it turns out one of Barack’s earliest supporters is a man who according to the New York Times, and are they ever wrong, according to the New York Times was a domestic terrorist and part of a group of that, quote, pushed a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol,” Palin continued. “Wow. These are the same guys who think patriotism is paying higher taxes. This is not a man who sees America as I see America, OK?”
Barack Obama called the attacks by Palin “shameless” and “offensive.” However, what his campaign didn’t say is more revealing. They didn’t say these allegations weren’t true. Because they are true. Matt Drudge unearthed a document today showing that Ayers and Obama were at 1997 University of Chicago debate in which the two were on a forum stating that the juvenile justice system is “overcrowded, under-funded, over-centralized and racist.” Senator Obama was at the forum to push his legislation to “combat legislation that would put more juvenile offenders into the adult system.” And of course the debate was set-up by none other than Michelle Obama, who said of her husband and Ayer’s performance:
“Students and faculty explore these issues in the classroom, but it is an internal conversation,” Obama said. “We know that issues like juvenile justice impact the city of Chicago, this nation and — directly or indirectly — this campus. This panel gives students a chance to hear about the juvenile justice system not only on a theoretical level, but from the people who have experienced it.”
The Republican National Committee also has a dozier on the Ayers-Obama relationship:
In 1995, During Obama’s First State Senate Campaign, William Ayers And Wife Bernadine Dohrn Hosted A Meeting Of Chicago Liberals At Their Home For Obama, Which One Attendee Said Was Aimed At “Launching Him.” “In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district’s influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. While Ayers and Dohrn may be thought of in Hyde Park as local activists, they’re better known nationally as two of the most notorious — and unrepentant — figures from the violent fringe of the 1960s anti-war movement. … ‘I can remember being one of a small group of people who came to Bill Ayers’ house to learn that Alice Palmer was stepping down from the senate and running for Congress,’ said Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent Chicago physician and advocate for single-payer health care, of the info rmal gathering at the home of Ayers and his wife, Dohrn. ‘[Palmer] identified [Obama] as her successor.’ … Dr. Young and another guest, Maria Warren, described it similarly: as an introduction to Hyde Park liberals of the handpicked successor to Palmer, a well-regarded figure on the left. ‘When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the living room of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn,’ Warren wrote on her blog in 2005. ‘They were launching him — introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread.’” (Ben Smith, “Obama Once Visited ’60s Radicals,” The Politico, 1/22/08)
From March Of 1995 Until September Of 1997, Obama And Ayers Attended At Least Seven Meetings Together Relating To The Chicago Annenberg Challenge. (Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Board Of Directors Meeting, Minutes Of The Board, 3/15/95, 3/31/95, 4/13/95, 6/5/95, 9/30/97; National Annenberg Challenge Evaluation Meeting, List Of Participants, 5/24/95; Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Chicago School Reform Collaborative Meeting, Minutes, 10/23/96)
- NOTE: Bill Ayers Was Asked To Help Obama Formulate The Chicago Annenberg Challenge By-Laws. (Chicago Annenberg Challenge Board Of Directors Minutes, 3/15/95)
In 1997, Obama Praised Ayers’ Book On The Juvenile Justice System. “The two men were involved in efforts to reform the city’s education system. They appeared together on academic panels, including one organized by Michelle Obama to discuss the juvenile justice system, an area of mutual concern. Mr. Ayers’s book on the subject won a rave review in The Chicago Tribune by Mr. Obama, who called it ‘a searing and timely account.’” (Jo Becker and Christopher Drew, “Pragmatic Politics, Forged On The South Side,” The New York Times, 5/11/08)
- Obama On William Ayers’ “A Kind And Just Parent: The Children Of Juvenile Court”: “A searing and timely account of the juvenile court system, and the courageous individuals who rescue hope from despair.” (Chicago Tribune, 12/21/97)
“[Obama And Ayers] Have Also Appeared Jointly On Two Academic Panels, One In 1997 And Another In 2001.” (Russell Berman, “Obama’s Ties To Left Come Under Scrutiny,” The New York Sun, 2/19/08)
From 1999 To 2002, Obama Served With Ayers On The Board Of Directors For Woods Fund Of Chicago. “[Ayers] served with [Obama] from 1999 to 2002 on the board of the Woods Fund, an anti-poverty group.” (Timothy J. Burger, “Obama’s Chicago Ties Might Fuel ‘Republican Attack Machine’,” Bloomberg, 2/15/08)
- During The Time Obama And Ayers Served Together On The Woods Fund, Ayers Was Quoted Saying “I Don’t Regret Setting Bombs … I Feel We Didn’t Do Enough.” “‘I don’t regret setting bombs,’ Bill Ayers said. ‘I feel we didn’t do enough.’ Mr. Ayers, who spent the 1970’s as a fugitive in the Weather Underground, was sitting in the kitchen of his big turn-of-the-19th-century stone house in the Hyde Park district of Chicago.” (Dinitia Smith, “No Regrets For A Love Of Explosives,” The New York Times, 9/11/01)
- NOTE: Obama, Born August 14th, 1961, Was 40 Years Old When Ayers Was Quoted. (Obama For America Website, www.barackobama.com, Accessed 10/6/08; Dinitia Smith, “No Regrets For A Love Of Explosives,” The New York Times, 9/11/01)
- While Obama And Ayers Were Serving On The Woods Fund Together, Ayers Posed Standing On An American Flag For An Article In Chicago Magazine Entitled “No Regrets.” (Marcia Froelke Coburn, “No Regrets,” Chicago Magazine, 8/01)
Obama And Ayers Are Neighbors In Chicago’s Hyde Park Neighborhood. “Twenty-six years later, at a lunchtime meeting about school reform in a Chicago skyscraper, Barack Obama met Mr. Ayers, by then an education professor. Their paths have crossed sporadically since then, at a coffee Mr. Ayers hosted for Mr. Obama’s first run for office, on the schools project and a charitable board, and in casual encounters as Hyde Park neighbors.” (Scott Shane, “Obama And ’60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” The New York Times, 10/4/08)
- Obama Spokesman Ben LaBolt Told The New York Times That Last Year Obama And Ayers “Bumped Into Each Other On The Street In Hyde Park.” “[Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt] said they have not spoken by phone or exchanged e-mail messages since Mr. Obama began serving in the United States Senate in January 2005 and last met more than a year ago when they bumped into each other on the street in Hyde Park.” (Scott Shane, “Obama And ’60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” The New York Times, 10/4/08)
- Neighbors Have Said “It’s Only Natural” That Obama Would Know Ayers, Who Often Opens His Home For Gatherings, As Obama And His Wife “Are A Part Of Our Neighborhood And Part Of Our Social Circle.” “Since coming out of hiding in 1980, the couple have raised three boys in Chicago and become part of the fabric of their liberal South Side neighborhood. Neighbors said it’s only natural that Obama would know Ayers and Dohrn, who often open their homes for gatherings filled with lively discussions about politics, arts and social issues. Obama and his wife ‘are part of our neighborhood and part of our social circle,’ said Elizabeth Chandler, a neighbor of Ayers’.” (Trevor Jensen, Robert Mitchum and Mary Owen, “Bill Ayers’ Turbulent Past Contrasts With Quiet Academ ic Life,” Chicago Tribune, 4/17/08)
Ayers’ Organization, The Weather Underground, Was A “Violent Left-Wing Activist Group”:
“William Ayers … [Was] A Founding Member Of The Group That Bombed The U.S. Capitol And The Pentagon During The 1970s.” (Russell Berman, “Obama’s Ties To Left Come Under Scrutiny,” The New York Sun, 2/19/08)
- Ayers’ Group, The Weather Underground, Is A “Violent Left-Wing Activist Group.” “Senator Obama’s ties to a former leader of the violent left-wing activist group the Weather Underground are drawing new scrutiny as he battles Senator Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination.” (Russell Berman, “Obama’s Ties To Left Come Under Scrutiny,” The New York Sun, 2/19/08)
The Weather Underground Produced A Manual Which Begins, “We Are A Guerrilla Organization. We Are Communist Women And Men, Underground In The United States For More Than Four Years.” “The coalition was said to be a violence-prone faction inspired by the Weather Underground’s ”Prairie Fire,” a guerrilla warfare manual published in 1974. The manual begins, ‘We are a guerrilla organization. We are Communist women and men, underground in the United States for more than four years.’” (Paul L. Montgomery, “2 Women In Brink’s Case Identified With Weathermen From Start In ‘69,” The New York Times, 10/ 22/81)
Even Wikipedia’s entry for the Weatherman and the Weather Underground calls them a “radical,” “revolutionary,” “anti-capitalist,” organization that “carried out a campaign consisting of bombings, jailbreaks, and riots. Their attacks were mostly bombings of government buildings, along with several banks, police department headquarters and precincts, state and federal courthouses, and state prison administrative offices. This lead the FBI to describe their organization as a Domestic Terrorist group.”
But of course Senator Obama called William Ayers “mainstream.” Obama believes that bombing government offices is mainstream? I wonder what he thinks about Osama bin Laden. He’s probably just misunderstood.
Sarah Palin!
Laurie Morrow • October 2, 2008 22:39pm • Uncategorized
It’s morning again in America.
Ingrid Mattson: Media Darling, Still Shilling for Wahhabi Islam
Winfield Myers • October 2, 2008 10:20am • Uncategorized
Ingrid Mattson, a Canadian convert to Islam, is rapidly becoming the chief spokesman for Islam in North America. This is extremely troubling, as my colleagues at Campus Watch have described in two recent publications. For despite Mattson’s media popularity, she has a long record of soft-peddling the horrors of Wahhabi Islam, and is in fact president of the Islamic Society of North America, an organization with ties to the radical Muslim Brotherhood.
Yesterday, Cinnamon Stillwell blogged about Mattson’s involvement in the U.S. Muslim Engagement Project. Here are the first few lines of the post, “Ingrid Mattson and the ‘U.S. Muslim Engagement Project’” (read the whole thing here):
Ingrid Mattson, director of the Macdonald Center for the Study of Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations at Hartford Seminary and president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), has been all over the news lately.
Mattson was one of the speakers at an interfaith gathering at the Democratic National Convention in August, and now word comes that she’s a member of the “leadership group” for the U.S. Muslim Engagement Project. The latter consists of a bipartisan coalition of American leaders from a variety of backgrounds, which, as described at its website, seeks to form “a clear and strong consensus on a strategy to enhance U.S. and international security by working more intensively and directly on the underlying causes of tension with key Muslim countries and communities.”
While this would appear to be a laudable goal, Mattson’s background and viewpoints demonstrates that she is hardly a suitable candidate for involvement.
Last month, Jonathan Schanzer, an adjunct scholar at Campus Watch, published an excellent introduction to Mattson at National Review Online. Here is an excerpt from Jon’s article that illustrates Mattson’s true radicalism:
Mattson is a professor at the Hartford Seminary, where she teaches Islamic law and Islamic history. Through this position of authority, Mattson has obfuscated the threat of radical Islam, numbing her students and the American public to a dangerous ideology.
For example, it is no secret that Wahhabism is a radical Islamist ideology responsible for a great deal of the anti-Western violence produced in the Muslim world. Yet, in a CNN chatroom interview in 2001, Mattson stated that Wahhabism is “a reform movement” that “really was analogous to the European protestant reformation.” Inaccurately, she claimed that “the Saudi scholars who are Wahhabi have denounced terrorism,” despite the fact that many continue to teach its virtues.
Islamic-terrorist sleeper cells in the U.S. carried out al-Qaeda attacks on September 11, 2001. Last year, the director of national intelligence explicitly expressed “worry that there are sleeper cells in the U.S.,” and cited specific concerns about increased al-Qaeda capabilities on American soil. Yet, only two months earlier, Mattson insistently told the Baltimore Sun that the supposition that terrorist sleeper cells exist in this country, “is not true. There aren’t any sleeper cells.”
Despite the fact that radical Muslims have been responsible for the lion’s share of terrorist attacks against Western interests for decades, Mattson questions why the label “Islamic” is included when President George W. Bush and other leaders talk about terrorism.
The archives at Campus Watch contain a large number of articles on Mattson. This illustrates that, with radical Islamists as with standard-bearers of the far left, the MSM happily legitimizes those who view social and religious pluralism and liberal democracy as impediments to be overcome rather than as guarantors of liberty.
Next question: will Ingrid Mattson play a role in a potential Obama administration?
Update: Speaking of creeping Islamism, Cinnamon Stillwell also penned a well-received article last week titled “Sharia Law: Coming to a Western Nation Near You?” She critiques another, even better-known apologist for Islamism, Georgetown’s John Esposito:
Georgetown University’s Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU) will be hosting a conference on October 23 that asks the loaded question: “Is There a Role for Shari’ah in Modern States?”
The Saudi-funded ACMCU and its founding director, John Esposito, one of the foremost apologists for radical Islam in the academic field of Middle East studies, have certainly been doing their bit to make the idea more palatable.
The Saudi prince for whom ACMCU was named has been pumping millions of dollars into Middle East studies at Georgetown, Harvard, UC Berkeley, and beyond, and as the case of Esposito demonstrates, it magnifies the voices of scholars with a decidedly uncritical bent. As a result, ACMCU analysis regarding Sharia (or Islamic) law tends to focus not on its injustices (amputation, stoning, hanging, honor killing, punishment for blasphemy, execution of apostates, persecution of non-Muslims, sanctioned wife-beating, female genital mutilation, and so on), but rather on repackaging it in ways that will appeal to Western sensibilities. The concept of a more “moderate” version of Sharia law that is compatible with democracy is at the forefront of this effort.
Read the rest here.
New York Times Columnist’s Faulty Arithmetic
Phil Orenstein • October 2, 2008 1:06am • Uncategorized
New York Times columnist Larry Rohter has some ‘splaining to do. His September 30th “Check Point” column, “Misleading Claims by McCain on Obama’s Tax Plans” needs some fact checking itself. In attempting to paint an image of Obama as a fiscally responsible tax cutter, he points out an exchange in the debate where McCain charged that Obama had “voted in the United States Senate to increase taxes on people who make as low as $42,000 a year,” which Obama denied, and McCain responded, “look it up.” Rohter proceeds to demonstrate in that case, that Obama didn’t vote to increase taxes and McCain deliberately misrepresented the facts. He concedes that the budget resolution that Obama endorsed would raise taxes a mere $15 on some individuals making $42,000 a year. Either Rohter’s math is wrong or he has deliberately omitted some key facts. The facts are that Obama voted twice in favor of the Democrats FY 2009 Budget Resolutions, which would raise the tax on individuals earning $42,000 by 3%. That means an increase of $960 for individuals without dependents making $42,000. ($42,000 means an approximate taxable income of $32,000 X 3% = $960) The increase for married couples making $63,700 or more in taxable income would be $1911 or higher! Look it up.
That doesn’t correspond to Obama’s campaign rhetoric where he boasts, “If you make less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increase one single dime.” Rather his actual resume of tax increases while in public office speaks the truth. Rohter has his work cut out for him to try to spin Obama’s opposition to the Bush tax cuts which means higher income taxes, social security taxes, capital gains, and corporate taxes. How about trying to turn around Obama’s voting record in the U.S. Senate where he voted for higher taxes at least 94 times, and his support for hundreds of tax increases in the Illinois State Senate. Obama is an advocate of massive tax increases, and I trust his record rather than his rhetoric.
I have written a letter to the New York Times and to columnist Larry Rohter, and I will post their response if they choose to answer. Otherwise we will have one more example of journalistic integrity succumbing to partisan propaganda and fabrications ubiquitous in the “newspaper of record.”
