Obama: A Change Hamas can believe in

Why is the terrorist group Hamas so enthusiastic about supporting Obama? From Nealz Nuze:

THE MESSIAH "UNDERSTANDS" HAMAS

I touched on this briefly on the program yesterday. Barack Obama says that he understands why top Hamas advisers support him for president. Isn't that sweet? He says, "It's conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, 'This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he's not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush."

My translation? Horsesqueeze.

Are we really to believe that Hamas would endorse a candidate for the US presidency based on the fact that he has spent some time in the Muslim world? Not exactly. Muslim terrorists and radicals will endorse and support Barack Obama because they know he will not be a bother to them. He will not stand up to Islamic extremism. This is a guy who wants talk, not action. They absolutely love talk, Muslims have managed to become about 25% of the population of Europe while all this talking is going on. When people are just sitting around talking it leaves radical Muslims free to act. You talk. We'll act.

There's more Obamanation news out there. Now we read that Obama referred to Israel as a "constant sore" that infects all of our foreign policy. Well, that certainly ought to really bring on the support from Jewish voters.

OBAMA'S SUPPORT ... IN PALESTINE

Al-Jazeera has produced a report showing Palestinians in Gaza campaigning for Barack Obama. In fact, not only are they campaigning but they are working at a phone bank, calling people in America to ask them to vote for Obama. One of the pro-Obama Palestinian organizers says that he is voting for Barack Obama because he studied his campaign manifesto and thought that he was a man capable of change.

Change? Well, if we stopped fighting Islamic radicalism ... that would be a change, wouldn't it? That would be change that Muslims can believe in.

(bold emphasis mine) I'm sure Hamas agrees with Obama's "constant sore" remark about Israel. And an aggressor always finds an appeaser more appealing. Hamas favors not only Obama, but the Democrats generally. It's a fact.

Now Obama is making a fuss about a speech President Bush made to the Israeli Knesset. Obama was not singled out in the speech, but he apparently sees himself in the remarks. Obama has said that we should be talking to Iran, just as many other Democrats have too. Obama's remarks are a matter of public record. He did say it. Yet he wasn't singled out in the speech. So what's the fuss about? Is no one allowed to disagree with Obama? Is it too distracting from his efforts to get himself elected?
     

Is America Morally Paralyzed by Iran?

Thomas Sowell asks an interesting question with his recent article:

Is America Today the France of Yesterday?

[...] At one point, Hitler could have been stopped in his tracks "without the firing of a single shot," Churchill said.

That point came in 1936 -- three years before World War II began -- when Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland, in violation of two international treaties.

At that point, France alone was so much more powerful than Germany that the German generals had secret orders to retreat immediately at the first sign of French intervention.

As Hitler himself confided, the Germans would have had to retreat "with our tail between our legs," because they did not yet have enough military force to put up even a token resistance.

Why did the French not act and spare themselves and the world the years of horror that Hitler's aggressions would bring? The French had the means but not the will.

"Moral paralysis" came from many things. The death of a million French soldiers in the First World War and disillusionment with the peace that followed cast a pall over a whole generation.

Pacifism became vogue among the intelligentsia and spread into educational institutions. As early as 1932, Winston Churchill said: "France, though armed to the teeth, is pacifist to the core."

It was morally paralyzed.

History may be interesting but it is the present and the future that pose the crucial question: Is America today the France of yesterday?

We know that Iran is moving swiftly toward nuclear weapons while the United Nations is moving slowly -- or not at all -- toward doing anything to stop them.

It is a sign of our irresponsible Utopianism that anyone would even expect the UN to do anything that would make any real difference.

Not only the history of the UN, but the history of the League of Nations before it, demonstrates again and again that going to such places is a way for weak-kneed leaders of democracies to look like they are doing something when in fact they are doing nothing.

The Iranian leaders are not going to stop unless they get stopped. And, like Hitler, they don't think we have the guts to stop them. [...]

Thomas goes on to describe how Hitler made many of the best anti-war statements of the 1930's, knowing it was what the Western Democracies wanted to hear; knowing it would perpetuate and extend their moral paralysis, giving Hitler time to build up his massive war machine.



The Iranian leadership is doing much the same, talking about peace to the West while preparing their people for war and martyrdom. But they also have their eye on something Hitler didn't have: nuclear weapons capability, and missiles to deliver them.

Even without the nukes, Hitler nearly won the war. Add nukes to the equation, with an enemy that has no concerns about M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction) to restrain them, and... dare we play this game again?

I recommend reading the whole thing, Thomas makes a very compelling case. The parallels are chilling.

Here is a compilation page of this and my other previous posts about Iran and nuclear capability. See for yourself how the Iranian leadership is preparing it's people for martyrdom.
     

Funding for terrorists? I didn't vote for this...

You can read related commentary and links here.
What is the difference? Fatah holds the same views as Hamas; they are just less honest about it publicly, and pretend to acknowledge Israel's right to exist, in exchange for foreign aid. And that's exactly what they are getting. In fact, it looks like we will be sending funds for BOTH groups!

Our government doesn't want to send money to support our troops in Iraq, but they CAN send MILLIONS in US tax payers dollars to support terrorists. I'm not surprised at the Democrats doing this. But now the Republican's are hopping on board? From Tammy Bruce:

Bush Has Now Officially Jumped the Shark

[...] First, Rice insists on us sending $86 million more dollars to terrorist group Fatah, holed up in the West Bank after the absolutely terrific job they did with the hundreds of millions in weapons and support we had already sent to them. She also wants to give another $40 million to the UN which will then send it to the "Palestinians" in the Gaza Strip. Yeah, great idea--prop up Hamas, and help the people who voted in Hamas in the first place so their Islamist paradise will be sustained long enough so they can assist Iran in the complete destruction of Israel.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced Monday that the administration would contribute $40 million to the United Nations to help the Palestinians, particularly in the Gaza Strip, and ask Congress to approve another $86 million in U.S. aid.

Congress has been mostly quiet on the issue, although some Republicans say they have grave concerns the money will end up in the hands of Hamas.

if you think she's and Bush are pushing this because Fatah and the CIA were organizational geniuses and got all our weapons and supplies out of the Gaza Strip, think again. Hamas has released a list of $400 million in U.S. supplied weapons, ammunition and various military supplies they have captured. To say nothing of the CIA material also left behind. Here's a partial list of what Hamas, an Iranian Death Squad, now has its bloody paws on:

* "Dozens" of mounted machine guns
* Approximately 7,400 American M-16 assault rifles
* About 800,000 rounds of bullets.
* Eighteen armored personnel carriers
* Seven armored military jeeps
* "Tens" of armored civilian cars, including pickup trucks and magnums.
* Eight massive trucks equipped with water cannons for dispersing protests
* Fourteen military-sized bulldozers

And what does Hamas think of our pledge to send more aid and weapons to Abbas? They're lovin' it. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) I'm sure they are loving it. What the hell is our state department doing? How is this helping FIGHT the WOT? This looks more like insuring that it continues! Are we (the governments of the West) part of the problem? We certainly seem to be sustaining it. Literally.

You can read related commentary and links here.

LGF reports that the Bush Administration is considering 'Reaching Out' to the Muslim Brotherhood, the very source of the cancer that afflicts the Middle East today.

I thought it was the policy of Jimmy Carter and the Democrats to believe the lie that EVERYTHING can be solved by diplomacy. We've already been down that road many, many times, with disastrous results.

I didn't vote Republican so they could then implement the Democrat's foreign policy. If the Republicans are now going to go spineless and adopt the Democrat's clueless foreign policy, we are in BIG trouble.

I suspect that we are once again giving money to the Palestinians in order to once again prevent an all-out war. Essentially, we are buying them off. But that just allows them to regroup and grow stronger. Aren't we just postponing the inevitable, and perhaps making it even worse when it does happen?

If you want a crash-course in what is happening in Gaza and the West Bank, see LMC's post: The Gaza Civil War. It's an excellent summary of the situation, with many good links.