Palestinian Police Kill Unarmed Israelis

Joseph’s Tomb – Let’s put an end to this disgrace

Read More About: ehud barak, Oslo II, PM Netanyahu

Share This Post

 0

Relinquishing Joseph’s Tomb was supposed to be temporary
By Michael Freund
The Jerusalem Post, April 28, 2011
Earlier this week, an incident occurred that should have provoked outrage across the civilized world. In an act of wanton slaughter, Palestinian policemen opened fire at a convoy of Jewish worshipers near Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus on Sunday. The men had just recited morning prayers at the Jewish holy site in honor of Pessah, and were heading home to prepare for the end of the festival. But they never made it.
At a checkpoint near the tomb, our ostensible peace partners killed Ben-Yosef Livnat, 25, and wounded four other Israelis, one of them critically. Livnat, a nephew of Culture and Sport Minister Limor Livnat, left a wife and four young children. Even as the Israeli vehicles sought to escape, the Palestinian policemen reportedly continued to fire on them.
Although the IDF initially refrained from labeling the episode an “attack,” it’s clear that that is precisely what it was. And by Sunday evening, both Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak were calling the shooting an act of “murder.”
Palestinian officials were quick to point out that the Israeli worshipers had failed to coordinate their visit in advance – as though that somehow justified shooting at them. But as Barak rightly noted: “No problem of coordination can justify an incident like this and the shooting of innocent people.”
Even though the identity of the perpetrators is known, none have been detained as of this writing. And given the Palestinian Authority’s track record in punishing those who attack Israelis, there is no reason to suspect that the policemen in question will be made to pay for their crime.
Needless to say, barely a peep was heard from the international community over this brazen assault on the fundamental right of Jews to worship freely. Just imagine what the reaction would have been had Palestinian worshipers leaving a mosque been attacked by Israeli policemen.. We all know how that would have gone down. But the hypocrisy on display should hardly come as a surprise. After all, the Palestinians have been targeting Joseph’s Tomb for years with impunity.
Who can forget October 7, 2000, when Palestinian policemen and Fatah terrorists launched a coordinated assault on the Israeli soldiers guarding the site? After then-prime minister Barak ordered the army to withdraw, a Palestinian mob went on a rampage. Brandishing sledge-hammers and other tools of tolerance, they demolished the tomb – one of the most sacred sites of the Jewish people. In subsequent years, after the structure was repaired, Palestinian vandals repeatedly ransacked and desecrated it.
The Palestinian conduct vis-à-vis the tomb is a clear violation of signed commitments. The Oslo II Accords, signed on September 28, 1995, spelled out specific arrangements concerning Joseph’s Tomb in Article V(2b) of Annex I, which were designed “to ensure free, unimpeded and secure access” to the site.
So much for relying on the Palestinians to keep their word.
The murder of Ben-Yosef Livnat cannot be allowed to pass without a forceful Israeli response. It is simply intolerable that an Israeli can be gunned down in cold blood by a Palestinian policeman.To begin with, Israel should arrest the gunmen who carried out this attack and bring them to trial before an Israeli court. There cannot and must not be immunity for those who murder Israeli citizens.
Moreover, it is time to correct the error made nearly 11 years ago, when Israel forsook this holy place. After the IDF withdrew, the Israeli public was assured that the step was not permanent, but merely a tactical move dictated by the situation on the ground. Just hours after the retreat, the website of Yediot Aharonot reported: “Israel pulls out of Joseph’s Tomb – ‘Temporarily.’” But here we are, more than a decade later, and the tomb still remains “temporarily” abandoned by the Jewish state, in what has become a mark of shame for our nation.
Israel should annex the site, forever restoring it to our exclusive control. And measures should be taken to ensure that Jews can visit safely whenever they wish. As of now, Israelis are allowed to visit once or twice a month, under cover of darkness, like thieves in the night. No nation with even a modicum of dignity would allow such a situation to persist at the tomb of one of its founding fathers.
So let’s put an end to this disgrace. Doing so will send a strong message to our foes, underlining once and for all that the Jewish people will neither cower nor flee. It is time to raise the Israeli flag over Joseph’s Tomb and reclaim this site, and with it, our self-respect as well.

Deneen Borelli Outstanding Black Woman

Months ago, we promised to bring to your attention black conservatives who think for 

themselves and are willing to say so proudly.  We had never heard of Deneen Borelli 

until we read the accompanying piece by J. Christian Adams, however, after reading

the article, we see the reason she was interviewed.  

We Conservatives must encourage all minorities to come over to our way of thinking

as it is in the country's best interests. Men and women like Deneen must be supported 


 by spreading their message. Talk to your friends about her book and if you  

like it, buy it.

Take a few minutes to read about her, it will be time well spent.

Conservative Tom

PJ Media Interviews Blacklash Author Deneen Borelli About Race, Obama and Hockey

May 2, 2012 - 2:44 pm - by J. Christian Adams

 

Deneen Borelli is a dangerous woman. Her new book, Blacklash, How Obama and the Left are Driving Americans to the Government Plantation, provides an unapologetic portrait of how government dependency has destroyed initiative, and the family unit, in much of black America.

Borelli is dangerous in the same way Sarah Palin is dangerous, or any of the other counter-symbols to left-wing orthodoxy.  As a black conservative, with a sharp wit and courage to speak out, she is a beacon to others who might otherwise be too timid to break out of the confines of racial expectations.

Blacklash tells the story of how one woman who happened to be black also happened to be conservative.  With race playing such a central role in our national discourse, Borelli presents a dangerous symbol to a president who will need extraordinary racial cohesion to win re-election.  Beyond the symbolism, her message is even more lethal to the left: being a racial minority does not mean you have to think a certain way.

ADVERTISEMENT

I had the opportunity to interview Borelli aboutBlacklash for PJ Media.

Adams:  You’re a fan of the New York Rangers and follow the Stanley Cup playoffs.  After Joel Ward of the Washington Capitals scored the series winning goal against the defending champs this week, he was subjected to vile online racial taunts.  “Gorilla” was one of the more mild slurs Boston Bruins fans used.  What does this say about the racial expectations you write about in Blacklash, both in the sense of “keeping people” in familiar places because of their skin color and, perhaps more importantly, that real racism is not confined to red states and the deep south?

Borelli: Yes, I love hockey and for many years my husband and I were season ticket holders for the New York Rangers. There is nothing more exciting than a Stanley Cup playoff game in Madison Square Garden. We have many fantastic memories of exciting games including Wayne Gretzsky’s last game and retirement ceremony. That was an amazing experience!

The comments made about Ward are clearly uncalled for and extremely inappropriate. Unfortunately, social media, especially Twitter, has become a venue for venting outrageous personal attacks about individuals. Like Ward, I’ve also been a target of personal attacks and name calling.

However, name calling is not going to stop me from promoting my views about liberty and I’m sure it’s not going to stop Ward from playing hockey and scoring goals.

Finally, I do not believe that those comments are representative of the vast majority of Boston Bruin fans or hockey fans in general. It’s a shame that a vocal few can tarnish the image of hockey fans and a city.

Adams: In the cases I brought under the Voting Rights Act, you would often see white voter cohesion at about sixty percent in racially polarized elections (meaning 60 percent of whites voted the same way), but black voter cohesion would be around ninety percent, or higher, and the cases were brought to reward blacks with a minority majority seat in a legislative body.  Could you describe the cultural, economic and political influences you write about in Blacklash that produce these astounding levels (90 percent) of racial block voting?

Borelli: Clearly, the overwhelmingly black support for Democrat politicians has not served the black community well. The condition of blacks in Detroit, Los Angeles and Harlem speak for themselves.  Far too many blacks see the government as an ally and become dependent on social services and liberal black politicians, like drug dealers, are more than happy to keep this population addicted to government services and dependent.  This system keeps the politician in power and too many blacks dependent on one party. Monopolies are bad for consumers and voters.

Contributing to the voting monopoly is the lack of diversity in media reaching blacks – it’s an echo chamber of liberal themes and messages including inaccurate claims about conservative and Tea Party goals. Tragically, there is no counter communications effort and I’m hoping Blacklash could be the start to break the monopoly of thought in the black community.

The Republican Party should also be held accountable for conceding this voting bloc, because they don’t try to reach blacks even though most blacks have conservative values.

Adams: In Blacklash, you compare the theology of the churches you attend with Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s sermons.  Do you think Barack Obama was entirely “clued in” to the messaging and racial hostility from Wright’s pulpit, and why is Wright’s particular theology so dangerous?

Borelli: I’ve attended Christian church services my entire life and I never heard any Baptist or Methodist minister or Catholic priest say anything as outrageous as Wright. I find it hard to believe that President Obama, who heard Wright’s sermons for many years, was unaware of Wright’s warped version of Christian teachings. Obama has a pattern of associating with radicals and Wright is just another example.

Adams: In Blacklash, you compare the modern civil rights movement with the noble efforts of the 1950s and 1960s.  I touch on this in my book Injustice also.  I am always struck by the images of the movement from that time – coats and ties, Sunday best, etc. – but also the messages of individual dignity, self-reliance and the expectation that one’s actions and character determine success.  After great victories from that era, something went wrong with the movement – what caused it?

Borelli: I’m awed at the courage and conviction of Dr. King and the other civil rights leaders of that time. Their cause was based in morality and their call for justice was executed with Dr. King’s brilliant strategy of peaceful demonstrations. Tragically, the movement veered off course after the assassination of Dr. King because the void wasn’t filled with another selfless leader.  Those that followed Dr. King and invoked his name became self-centered and focused on money and power instead of a righteous cause.

Adams: Are conservatives and Republicans usually too cowardly to confront racial issues head-on and articulate a competing narrative, and if so, how damaging is that surrender?

Borelli: Most conservatives by nature are not activists and they tend to think that the facts will speak for themselves. Accordingly, too many conservatives think that the black community will naturally recognize the major role Republicans played in promoting equal rights for blacks since the founding of the Republican Party. This passive approach toward the black community resulted in a huge voting bloc for the Democrat Party.

The Tea Party is the activist arm of the conservative movement and it’s adding a much needed advocacy arm to advance limited government policies. As a frequent speaker at Tea Party rallies and events, I’m encouraged by the sincere interest these activists have in trying to reach blacks with the attributes of limited government and liberty. In fact, the most asked question I get at these events is how we can recruit more blacks in our movement.

I believe Blacklash can be used as a way to reach many members of the black community. Blacks need role models and examples of American exceptionalism and my life’s journey from a Democrat to conservative activist provides a compelling example.

Adams: You write in Blacklash of the race hustlers like Jesse Jackson shaking down corporate America, exchanging cash for racial peace.  You criticize particular corporations.  Do you know of any corporations which have had the fortitude to stand up to Jackson’s crowd and tell them to pound sand?

Borelli: Sadly, corporate America is the punching bag of the liberal activists including Jackson. Corporate executives would rather pay the ransom than stand on principle. I’ve witnessed Jackson’s antics at shareholder meetings and encouraged management to reject his claims of racial bias.

Recently, Van Jones’ former group Color of Change’s intimidation tactics forced major companies such as Kraft, Coke and PepsiCo to end their membership with the American Legislative Exchange Council by threatening boycotts of their company’s products.

Unless corporate America finds a spine, black activists will continue to loot publicly traded companies.

Adams: I heard people inside the Justice Department excuse the New Black Panthers, and you write about them in Blacklash.  Why are some people willing to dismiss the significance of groups like the Panthers but at the same time rail against white hate groups? Why the disconnect?

Borelli: Hate groups of any color should be denounced by all political, religious and community leaders.  This is not a matter of liberal or conservative beliefs but a matter of right vs. wrong.

Unfortunately, the New Black Panthers are avoiding condemnation because Eric Holder’s Department of Justice seems to have a color coded justice system and because the liberal media fails to pursue this hate group like they should.  The failure of black leaders including President Obama, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the NAACP to condemn the statements of hate from the New Black Panthers relating to the Trayvon Martin tragedy is deplorable.

Adams: What has the minimum wage done to the black community?

Borelli: The consequence of the minimum wage has been harmful to the black community. It’s a contributing factor to the high unemployment rate among blacks, especially the outrageously high unemployment among black teens, which has been reported to be about 40 percent.

Adams: You write “just because someone is black doesn’t mean they have your interest at heart.”  Is this really a widespread assumption in the community, that skin color is so revealing?

Borelli: Unfortunately, some blacks unconditionally follow black politicians and community activists such as Rangel, Sharpton and Jackson without regard to these individuals’ self-serving agendas. The problem is these individuals have a monopoly on the messages in the black community, especially in urban areas. There is no competition for thought or leadership so these individuals can and in many ways do get away with anything.

As I write in Blacklash, President Obama’s policies have been horrible for blacks. Obama’s energy policy, for example, is designed to raise the price of our traditional forms of energy which functions as a regressive tax on low- and fixed-income hard-working Americans.

Adams:  Regarding the corruption of Representative William Jefferson, you say of the Congressional Black Caucus, “it’s showing it’s true color, and it’s not black.  It is the color of arrogance, entitlement, and invincibility that is not race based but bred from years of not being held accountable for their actions.”  Why are they not held accountable, and in what context beyond Jefferson?

Borelli: The Congressional Black Caucus’ (CBC) single focus on progressive policies has not served the needs of the black community. The members of the CBC are not being held accountable because the black constituents in the congressional districts have a group think mentality and unfounded allegiance to their congressmen. Because there is no competition from a different way of thinking or a new approach to stubborn problems, the CBC member can and frequently do get away with anything, including ethics violations.

Adams:  What would Frederick Douglass think of Al Sharpton?

Borelli: I believe Douglass would strongly oppose Sharpton’s message of victimization and government dependency for blacks. Even though Frederick Douglass personally suffered the horrors of slavery, he rose above that terrible experience to promote equality and equal opportunity for blacks through education and hard work but not through special treatment. Douglass was an advocate of self-help as the means to individual independence and self-reliance. In contrast, Sharpton propagates the myth that blacks need special treatment and government support for social advancement.

Adams: What do you hope to accomplish with Blacklash and your work?  Do you want to give hope to five to twenty percent of blacks who might tend to be conservative, or do you think something bigger is realistic?  Is it enough to crack the ideological monopoly, or is more possible?

Borelli: I want to use Blacklash as way to shatter the black establishment’s monopoly of power and thought in the black community. Taking advantage of liberty is the answer to social advancement in America and not government dependence.

My life story is a great example of America’s exceptionalism where anyone can succeed without regard to family name, heritage or money. I’m a nationally recognized pubic figure as a result of hard work and determination, not from my family’s wealth or connections. I hope to inspire blacks, especially young individuals, that with hard work and perseverance the sky is truly the limit.

Adams: I heard your interview about Trayvon Martin on the Sean Hannity radio show with Jesse Jackson’s daughter unwilling to condemn the New Black Panthers.  You were frustrated, and said to Sean, “See, this is what I put up with.”  Could you elaborate about the frustration?

Borelli: I found the resistance of Ms. Jackson to denounce the outrageous comments of the New Black Panthers appalling. I believe her failure to condemn hate speech exposes the real agenda of so-called black leaders is to escalate racial tensions so they can retain power and relevance.

Adams: In Blacklash you publish some of the hate directed toward you.  Since the book has been published, can you update us with the worst hate you’ve received about the book, and tell us why it is important that people see it?

Borelli: Following Blacklash, there remains much of the same negative feedback from some. I’ve been called a sellout, black Tom puppet, slave to money, HOUSE NIGGA, self-hating Auntie Tomasina, a joke and a prostitute for Fox, and I should kill myself.

But the vast majority of comments have been very positive. My book signings have been an especially rewarding experience where I’m warmly greeted by fans and supporters. Importantly, I’ve been contacted by a number of blacks via social media who are extremely excited about the book and very supportive of my message of liberty.

Cabinet Officials Out of Touch Utopians

This administration is so out of touch that it passes laws and fails to enforce current laws at a whim. If it feels right or wrong, they do it, regardless of its legality.  Previous Presidents have had odd people in their cabinets, however, this one has the most!

In the following post by Victor Davis Hanson, the most outrageous of the " Cabinet Kids" are exposed to the light of day. Would it be nice to have people who would do things only in the best interests of country?

Conservative Tom

.  

Cabinets Gone Wild

• 
 
• Victor Davis Hanson 
   

May 03, 2012

 

We've had some unusual Cabinet secretaries in past administrations -- Earl Butz, John Mitchell and James Watt come to mind -- but never anything quite like the present bunch.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has overseen some $5 trillion in new debt. To help pay for it, he wants the rich -- the top 1 percent already contributes more in income taxes than does the bottom 90 percent -- to pay more for what he calls "the privilege of being an American." Geithner, whose department oversees the IRS, should have taken his own advice: As a rich American one-percenter, he once failed to pay his own self-employment taxes, and improperly claimed his children's camp costs as a dependent-care deduction.

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar has pulled off the near impossible: At a time when the known gas and oil reserves of the United States on public lands have soared, he has cut back on federal leasing of them to just about 2 percent of available offshore lands and 6 percent of onshore. Meanwhile, huge new amounts of oil are now found on private lands despite, not because of, the Interior Department. When he was a U.S. senator, Salazar claimed that even $10-a-gallon gas would not change his mind about voting to increase offshore drilling. And although he controls the leases of the richest oil and gas reserves in the Western world, he just recently shrugged that no one knew whether gas would hit $9 a gallon.

Then there is the even stranger case of Energy Secretary Steven Chu, whose department helped oversee millions in bad loans to green companies like Solyndra, First Solar and Solar Trust of America -- the Teapot Dome scandals of our times. Chu once infamously quipped before assuming office that he wanted U.S. gas prices to reach European levels. Apparently Chu wanted to force less fossil-fuel burning -- although he later confessed that he does not drive a car.

Chu also once warned that the California's Central Valley agriculture might disappear due to global warming. True, it could decline, but more likely due to the Obama administration's decision to divert irrigation water in hopes of helping out the 3-inch San Francisco Delta smelt. Chu should realize that private-sector California farmers create thousands of jobs, while his own Cabinet's Solyndra-like projects have done precisely the opposite.

Attorney General Eric Holder dropped charges against the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation. That may explain why he said nothing when the same group put out a dead-or-alive bounty poster on George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin shooting case. Holder's department is suing the state of Arizona for passing a law to enforce the largely unenforced federal immigration law. Holder suggested that the Arizona law was racially inspired even as he admitted that he had never read it. Holder has praised the race-baiting Al Sharpton for his "partnership" and called the country "cowards" for not holding a national conversation on race on his terms. The attorney general has referred to African-Americans as "my people," and he has characterized congressional oversight of his office's failure to rein in the Fast and Furious scandal as racially motivated attacks on himself.

Labor Secretary Hilda Solis just tried -- and failed -- to draft a proposal prohibiting kids under 18 from working "in the storing, marketing and transporting of farm product raw materials," even on family farms. And she wanted to turn over some farm training programs now run by the Future Farmers of America and the 4-H to the government. Most Americans raised on a farm believe that the times spent doing chores with their parents, siblings, and neighbors were the most important and rewarding years of their lives.

Yet more worrisome, Solis is selective in her enforcement. She envisions new rules for businesses, but she first should have ensured that her family had followed old ones. When Solis was nominated, it was learned that her husband had several tax liens against his business, some of them 16 years old. And not long ago, Solis' department posted a video advising illegal aliens to call her office if they felt they were treated unfairly by employers. Abusing workers is wrong, but then so is entering and residing in the United States illegally -- as a Cabinet official should know.

The common theme with these Cabinet secretaries is loud, uninformed rhetoric; a lack of practical experience; a certain utopian zealotry -- and an expectation that there are rules for government grandees and quite different ones for the rest of us.

Unthinking Illusions of Islam

If you want to read what the "intelligentsia" in the CIA are thinking, read the following posting.  It is scary how unaware they are of the threat.

Conservative Tom

Dangerous Illusions about Islamism

Robert R. Reilly - Israel-America Renaissance Institute (I-ARI),  May 2nd, 2012

Pictured left – Like Father, Like Son

Ideas have consequences, as Richard Weaver famously wrote. If one misconstrues the ideas of the Islamists who are coming to power in the Middle East, one inevitably will misjudge the consequences. Take Reuel Marc Gerecht’s recent article in the Wall Street Journal, “The Islamist Road to Democracy.” In it, Mr. Gerecht, a former CIA hand now at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, says the Islamists are winning but we shouldn’t worry. The West went through worse and came out democratic. In fact, he says, the Middle East has suffered from Western communist and socialist ideologies, which left Islam as the last refuge. So what did we expect? They will work it out on their own terms. This transition may not be pretty to watch, but in the long run, it will “evolve” organically to real democracy. In fact, Mr. Gerecht says, “[The Islamists] are the key to more democratic, liberal politics in the region.”

Come again? Mr. Gerecht admits his thinking is “counterintuitive,” but it comes closer to missing reality altogether. How do you miss a target this big? Mr. Gerecht’s misplaced optimism is based on two things: misconceptions about the West —particularly the historically unjustified view that upheaval ultimately and necessarily leads to improvement—and a profound misunderstanding of the Islamist Shariah agenda.

Mr. Gerecht thinks we in the West got so tired of killing one another in religious wars that we secularized ourselves and became democratic. The same can happen in Islam, even though “Islam hasn’t seen the sustained barbarism that plagued” Europe. This construction of history is faulty in two ways. This is not the way democracy developed in the West, and the history of Islam is not as sanitary as he implies.

As the outcome of religious wars in other civilizations has shown, alternative pathways to democracy were and are available. Secularism did not, as he suggests, bring forth liberal values—rather, liberal values produced secularism. The idea of freedom of conscience preceded secularism and was based on the very Christianity that he holds accountable for the killing. Also, the conception of a secular state is uniquely Christian.

On the other hand, was Islam so much more peaceful than barbaric Europe? The war between Iraq and Iran in the 1980s produced a million casualties. Then Saddam Hussein, all by himself, created another million Iraqi victims of his state terror. This is all Muslim-on-Muslim violence, as is most terrorism today. Considering the number of casualties in proportion to the size of their populations, that’s pretty competitive with Western barbarism. Let us not forget what Islam has done in its past – albeit to non-Muslims. Historian Will Durant said, “[T]he Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history.” How bloody? Belgian writer Koenraad Elst estimates that “the Indian [subcontinent] population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanat).” That would stand up well against any bloody religious war in Europe. None of this produced democracy.

Mr. Gerecht also claims that the Middle East has embraced the view that “Islam is the answer” because Islam became a haven from the tyranny produced by imported Western ideologies. However, that ignores the fact that before the post-World War II descent into tyranny, the British Empire had created model constitutional monarchies in places such as Iraq and Egypt, which enjoyed real parliaments, limited government, the rule of law, independent judiciaries and a relatively free press. So the real question becomes: Why didn’t democracy lead to more democracy in the Middle East, rather than to its overthrow? It does no good to say the West did this to the Middle Eastern people; they did it themselves.

Altogether, Mr. Gerecht’s misconceptions have led him to the perverse view that the Islamists are critical “to the moral and political rejuvenation of their countries.” Yet he fails to note that the notion of freedom of conscience, a necessary prelude to the secularism he espouses, is entirely absent from their thinking, as it is, indeed, from Islam itself. According to Pew Research, about 84 percent of Egyptians support the death penalty for apostasy from Islam. In his book “Islam and Secularism Face to Face,” Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the de facto spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, states that “secularism is atheism.” Also conspicuously missing is the idea that all people are created equal, the cornerstone principle of democratic, constitutional government.

Only by neglecting the importance of ideas could Mr. Gerecht make the astonishing prediction that this will lead to democracy and say such groundless things as “how powerful the appeal of democracy is among the faithful.” Listen, rather, to the realism of Sudanese writer Al-Hajj Warraq, who recently said in a television interview, “Democracy is about more than just the ballot box. Democracy is a culture engraved upon the cerebral box before it is the ballot box. One cannot talk about freedom in the absence of free minds. The tragedy of the Arab Spring is that when the tyrannical regimes fell, the fruits were reaped by movements that preach closed-mindedness, rather than free thinking. The outcome will be regimes that are worse than those that were toppled.”

Why is this happening? Things are headed in this direction because, as Islamist thinker Azzam Tamimi explains, the real struggle of the future is “going to be about who is Islamist and who is more Islamist, rather than about the secularists and the Islamists.”

The misguided idea that Islamist victory will lead to democracy works only in the following, highly ironic way. A Muslim intellectual reformer from the Middle East recently sent me this bitter message: “As I see, this new Islamic wave is necessary. It is similar to the necessity of Nazi party control of Germany. The Nazis caused many historical disasters, but these disasters were quite strong and hard lessons for Germans and the world. Middle Eastern societies are in need of learning such a hard lesson from these retarded parties.”

Let us pretend that my Arab friend, similar to Mr. Gerecht, was not being sarcastic. Then, we would have to point out to him that Germany only learned its hard lesson because it lost the war to the Allies. What if the Nazis had won? That would have produced a contrary message. In what war are the new Islamist governments going to be defeated in order for them to learn their lesson? If this is the “Islamist road to democracy,” Mr. Gerecht can keep it.

Seattle OWS Violence

May 2, 2012 11:30 AM

• PRINT
 
• TEXT 

AP reports,  we post the violence in Seattle yesterday which follows the violence in San Francisco on April 30.  This is only the beginning, more to come and we will continue to report on this domestic terrorism.

Conservative Tom

Violence, arrests at Seattle May Day protests

SEATTLE — Black-clad protesters using sticks and bats smashed stores and automobile windows during May Day demonstrations that turned violent in Seattle, and police recovered homemade incendiary devices made from toilet paper rolls and fruit juice boxes.

Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn issued an emergency order Tuesday, allowing police to confiscate items that could be used as weapons. By Tuesday night, police had seized about 70 such items, including one with at least a dozen cigarette lighters taped together.

"Our concerns were real, and I think we handled it as best we could," police Sgt. Sean Whitcomb said late Tuesday night. "These were, for the most part, peaceful demonstrations. It's such as shame that such a small group of individuals were able to hijack the event and dilute the message to one of violence. They came here and they smashed it up."

Police arrested at least a dozen people throughout the day, as hundreds marched through downtown. Later in the day, two planned marches for immigrant rights and other social issues were mostly peaceful, though the large crowds disrupted rush hour traffic and temporarily rerouted city buses.

By late evening, however, rain and winds had thinned the crowds. Whitcomb said late Tuesday that police officers would continue their patrols and monitor activity overnight.

"We appreciate that the vast majority of people out there are peaceful participants," McGinn said at an afternoon news conference. "What we know from WTO previously is you get a group of people committed to cause damage...My direction to police is I expect them to respond to law breaking swiftly and aggressively."

McGinn said many of the most violent protesters — those who had caused damage with rocks, hammers and tire irons — tried to hide in the larger crowd early Tuesday afternoon by shedding their all-black clothes.

At the federal appeals court building, an FBI evidence team arrived after protesters shattered glass doors with rocks and threw or shot a smoke bomb toward the lobby. The device hit the only door that didn't break, spun off into some nearby bushes and started a small blaze that quickly burned itself out.

The entrance to the Niketown store was completely smashed in, with chunks of broken glass littering the sidewalk. Vandals splattered paint across the store and a neighboring business. Police on bicycles moved in and dispersed people, and the entrances were soon closed off with police tape.

Charlone Mayfield, a retired medical industry worker from Seattle, was inside a Verizon cellphone store when she saw the crowd approach. One of the protesters broke off from the group and struck the window as she watched.

"He started hitting the window with his baseball bat...I was here when WTO happened, this is really scary," Mayfield said.

Traditionally, May Day honors labor and workers' rights. In Seattle, it drew hundreds of demonstrators for immigration rights and from the Occupy movement, with several groups converging on a park near downtown for rallies and music.

A separate group held an organized march for immigrants' rights that proceeded to a downtown bank branch and then staged a rally.

"Our march is about the workers and the immigrants," said Rafael Garcia, 27, who pushed his 1-year-old son in a stroller.

Earlier Tuesday at the American Apparel store next to Niketown, assistant manager Mia Harrison was folding sweaters when she heard the commotion.

"I decided to go out on the sidewalk, and I saw all the people in black masks running to Niketown and our store. They started to throw smoke bombs and canisters," she said.

The vandals shattered a door and cracked two windows. No one was hurt.

"It's pretty sad, almost like someone broke into my house," Harrison said.

___

Associated Press writer Doug Esser contributed to this report.

© 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.