The convergence of socialism and environmentalism is one of the more oddball ideological alliances, when you consider that socialist and particularly Communist countries have been some of the world's worst polluters. "Mastery over Nature" was the guiding doctrine of the Soviet Union and still is in Communist China or Cuba.

The key to this convergence of opposites lies in their mutual opposition to free enterprise, and their belief that unregulated human endeavors are threats that need to be controlled. As Western socialist countries began replacing industrial jobs with bureaucratic ones and positions on the dole for everyone else; national endeavors gave away to international regulatory bodies, and the ideology of ecology no longer seemed as hostile to socialist aims.

The Great Socialist Fraud is its substitution of Unrepresentative Social Class Defense in place of Representative Democracy. Or to break it down, socialists claim to seek power in order to represent people who are not being served by democracy, but once in power do their best to toss out the democracy, and function as an elitist political class.

Socialists need to claim to be in power only to represent the unrepresented, without any intent of actually representing them. So the Soviet Union's Dictatorship of the Proletariat became a Dictatorship minus the Proletariat. Of course absent a dictatorship, the problem with this arrangement is that the people they claim to represent, eventually decide they want actual representation. That is one of the reasons socialists have abandoned traditional European workers in favor of championing Muslim immigrants, a pathetic political solution that comes with its own dead end built in.

Since immigrants can only be politically exploited for so long, the next step is to find something or someone to represent that cannot speak for themselves. Children are one option, but children grow up. Animals are perfect, as they can never represent themselves. No wonder apes have been given human status in Spain. But the animal rights hobbyhorse can only be ridden so far. Now speaking on behalf of the ecology of the entire planet, that as Al Gore has discovered, gives you unlimited influence.

The beautiful part of claiming to represent the entire ecology of the Earth is that with a crisis of that magnitude, you can also demand massive global solutions virtually without limit. He who can manufacture the biggest crisis, can also take hold of the biggest panic, and implement the greatest changes.

None of this is really new. During the Cold War, the Left fused pro-Communist and Anti-War sentiment together with bad science to create a Nuclear Winter panic. Their agenda was to demonstrate that a nuclear exchange was unwinnable as it would mean the end of all life on earth.

Originated by noted anti-war activist Carl Sagan, functioning outside of his specialty and doing his best to sabotage the Reagan Administration, Nuclear Winter quickly became accepted dogma, despite Sagan's lack of credibility when it came to serious science. But typical of such ideological science, it would go on to be revised to fit an agenda. For example in 1991 Sagan would insist on Nightline that based on his nuclear winter investigation showed that the Kuwaiti oil fires would destroy Asia's agriculture and cause mass starvation.

Unsurprisingly none of that of that happened, but the nuclear winter fraud has been dusted off and reused over and over again. With the end of the Cold War, nuclear winter predictions have been downsized to claim that even a small nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would lead to nuclear winter as well.

Never mind that Nuclear Winter had very little scientific credibility, it pushed a political agenda. Global Warming does the same thing.

The Nuclear Winter fraud was meant to demonize national defense by Western powers against Communist ones. The Global Warming fraud is meant to demonize Western industry in general and greatly reduce the standard of living in Western nations with a series of restrictions on industry and basic daily life.

Prominent scientists who question the rush to a Global Warming consensus are smeared and accused of being cranks or secretly taking money from oil companies. Groups of "Concerned Scientists", often operating outside their fields but inside a left wing political ideology, are thrown together demanding immediate government action to halt Global Warming. These are all hallmarks of the same process begin repeated.

Of course the inconvenient thing for Global Warming is that it is testable by simple observation (which outside of a nuclear war, Nuclear Winter was not) and when global warming activists find themselves freezing, faith in Al begins to collapse. So does any public consensus that there is a Global Warming crisis, no matter how many commercials about crying polar bears get run.

The irony of Global Warming is that it ignores the well known changes to global temperatures that are well documented over the centuries and even the millennia. In favor of assigning blame to human beings. This species of human arrogance was behind the same assumption that a few nuclear explosions or enough broken fridges could destroy a planet, better than 99 percent of which humans have never even made physical contact with.

The drive to use the Ideology of Ecology to manufacture global environmental crisis, leads to this sort of absurd human-centered grandiosity. Little has really changed from the days when Socialists insisted that they would tame the planet for the benefit of mankind. Today they insist that they will tame mankind for the benefit of the planet. In both cases they foolishly assumed that the planet was theirs to make or unmake. And in both cases they were wrong.

But though they may hide behind science, it is not the planet that they seek to control, but the lives of men. The Ideology of Ecology is not really about the ecosystem, it is about regulating what humans may or may not do. The Church of Environmentalism has one devil in its steeple, and that devil is human individualism. Man is the villain, the snake in the otherwise peaceful Garden of the Earth. And that false religion is being inculcated in generations of children who are being taught to hate and despise human achievement, and worship at the altar of its destruction.

Worse yet behind that poisoned belief system, is a drive toward collectivization, to scapegoat the individual and the nation that stands alone, in favor of a Utopian global community together putting its boot down on any unregulated human endeavor. And so the snake devours its own tail, as the Dictatorship of the Proletariat becomes the Dictatorship of the Ecoletariat.

When the Greeks sought to enter Troy, first they laid siege to the city but when they realized that its defenses would not fall, they instead built something that mirrored the Trojans' beliefs, and let them do the hard work of bringing it into their city, along with the enemy force hidden inside.

There are two sides to the left's ongoing siege of America. One side is the openly hostile one, the radicals who hold rallies cursing America, waving bloodstained puppets and burning American soldiers in effigy. Their pamphlets promise a coming revolution and a war against American fascism.

Then there is the truly dangerous one. This side of the left is far more numerous and well established. It does not openly talk about destroying America, instead it talks about reforming America, bringing fairness and justice to all. It wraps its agenda in the American flag, even when its agenda is legitimizing flag burning. Its organizations have names like People for the American Way or the Center for American Progress. It builds up a wooden mockery of American values, hollows it out, and then pushes it toward the city.

The Openly Hostile Left will call for freeing terrorists, because America is a capitalist imperialistic monstrosity and the cause of the terrorists is just and right. The Trojan Horse Left however will call for freeing terrorists in the name of American values, the Constitution and Freedom. I don't have to tell you which approach has been more consistently successful over the years.

Obama is an interesting phenomenon because he represents the most obvious bridge between the Openly Hostile Left and the Trojan Horse Left. Obama's mentor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, relied on his race to serve as camouflage for his hateful rhetoric as a member of the Openly Hostile Left. Obama's contribution was to take the ideas of Wright and camouflage them in the rhetoric of American values. In this way Obama imitated another of his mentors who had crossed the bridge from Openly Hostile Left, to Trojan Horse Left, William Ayers.

Ayers had made the transition from leader of America's best known domestic terrorist group at the time, whose goal was the armed overthrown of the United States, to "working within the system" as an academic and an educational reformer. Ayers' journey was not simply a case of radicalism made respectable, but radicalism made more potent by its seeming normalization and integration into the American worldview, and actualization through gaining positions of power.

"Working within the System" is the best embodiment of the Trojan Horse strategy. It's also the Lobster strategy, slowly raising the ambient temperature of the environment by implementing radical ideas slowly through a pipeline of increasingly legitimate institutions, until the country is finally boiled alive. The most legitimate and most American institution there is, the one that also has the widest range of power and control, is the Presidency.

A Trojan Horse attack's power lies in its seeming invisibility, in the way that the attackers seem like they belong there, doing what they should be doing. After all when you're attacked you can defend yourself, but when you're infected, there is no obvious outward threat. Instead you notice you are growing weaker, things that were once easy to do have become hard, you experience symptoms that are not crippling, but irritating and difficult to cope with. That is what the infection of America looks like to most people, a gradual weakening, annoying social problems, and a growing lack of competence and impaired reasoning. America is sick, and the left's ideology is its disease.

The left does not think that "real problem" with America is limited to a bunch of corporations, but to selfish and nationalistic American values that need to be changed. And it has built up its own wooden mockeries of American values, and slowly used them to replace the real thing. The left however is also well aware that you can't simply tear down the Capitol Building, drag it away in the night, and replace it with the Red Square, and not expect anyone to notice the difference. It's a process at the end of which no one will notice the difference, because there will be no difference to notice.

The Trojan Horse Left's approach to building "The New America" is not the Openly Hostile Left's slash and burn tactics, but Values Sliding. Values Sliding begins not by tossing away American values, but by emphasizing some out of proportion, with a specific aim, and deemphashizing others. This game of 3 Card Monte is usually covered by occasional references to American history and the boilerplate rhetoric that everyone has heard at a million rubber chicken political dinners. Few listeners will even notice that anything is wrong. After all the speaker mentions Valley Forge, our common sacrifices, the Mayflower, tolerance, unity, community, sacrifice and building a future together. It all sounds right, except it's all really wrong.

That is Obama's rhetorical approach when dealing with larger more mainstream audiences. The inauguration address was boring and generic because it was meant to be. The address that had been crafted for him was a masterpiece, not because it was a work of oratory that stood out, but because it didn't. The inaugural address was meant to reassure everyone that Obama's reign would be business as usual. "It's just another inaugural address, exactly like the ones you heard before. No need to worry folks, go back to sleep, we'll wake you up when the train reaches its station."

That's the same approach Obama has taken in putting Conservative Democrats like Hillary Clinton into prominent positions around him, and then cutting off their legs by quietly empowering the radicals in his administration who will actually be making the real decisions. On the surface everything seems like business as usual, in the basement where the coal furnace is, the temperature is slowly being turned up as high as it will go.

With Values Sliding you can create a distorted image of America that fits your agenda and use it to sell just about anything. The proportions of a nation's values are like the proportions of a human face. Continue distorting a man's feature, and you create a grotesque creature that looks like him, but is really a hideous mockery of him. Like morphing the photographs of two men into one, you can use this process to transform a nation into its worst antithesis.

That is what Obama's New America is meant to be, the final culmination of the left's long efforts, of the work of men like Ayers "within the system". It will happen with the American flag waving high, with references to George Washington and American history that will grow scarcer and scarcer, as the values continue to be slid, and it will all be called a New American Dream, a New Revolution in American Democracy or a New American Way, and its aim will be to subvert the Constitution, the rights of all Americans, free elections and Democracy itself.

Like Orwell's Oceania, responsibility will come to mean slavery, free speech will come to mean political correctness, unity will mean obedience, and democracy will come to mean doing what you're told. It will demand nothing from our leaders, and everything from the people who will be told to put away such childish things as individuality and private property to work for the greater good. A bright day and a new beginning to America, united behind one leader, and his call for universal national service. And there he is, the man on the cover of every magazine, in the headline of every paper, whose face and whose family the citizens know better than they know their own. As always he is looking upward at the bright future to come, his head haloed by the sun.

What happens when you bring a new dog into the house and it makes a mess on your rug or bites you on the leg. The first thing you do is take a rolled up newspaper and thwack it on the nose. Then you say firmly, "Bad Dog."

When it comes to Muslim violence however the West has long ago not only stopped thwacking Muslims on the nose with a newspaper, but doesn't even bother to say, "Bad Dog" anymore.

What if the dog bit one of your kids hard enough to require stitches, and instead of getting rid of it, you instead blamed your own family for not working hard enough to make the dog feel accepted. So while the blood is still running down your kid's leg, you thwack him on the nose, and pet the dog on the head while saying, "Good Dog."

Sure at some point the state might step in, but the problem is that the dog is 1.5 billion Muslims, and you are the state.

Europe is slowly coming around to the idea that Islam must be housebroken, even as America continues insisting that Islam is just great except for a few extremists somewhere who wouldn't have any influence, if we just appeased Muslims more. But Europe's idea of housebreaking still misses the point.

Evicting a few Imams and banning religious clothing from schools certainly won't housebreak Islam. It's the impotent behavior of people who are too afraid to deal with the threat and can't even name the problem.

About the only countries who thwack Islam on the nose anymore are America and Israel, and they do it all too lightly, and hardly say "Bad Dog" anymore. No wonder the house is full of crap, the kids need tetanus shots and the "dog" is running the house.

Nation building ventures have made a dog's dinner of what should have been a simple newspaper thwacking that would have left major holes in the countries that sponsored terrorism. Instead we did the equivalent of trying to build obedience schools, which we had to let the dogs themselves run in the end, while agreeing to try any trainers who thwack too hard in court. No wonder the dogs again wound up having the run of the house.

It's common sense that you can't share a house, a neighborhood or a country with a rabid dog. Either the dog goes, or you do. Between being unable to deliver a simple thwack and birth rate statistics biased toward the four footed clan, it doesn't take a genius to figure out which was this is headed. You either throw the dogs out, housebreak them or learn to live like a dog.

As the riots, murders, gang rapes and bombings across Europe show, a lot of people would rather learn to live like dogs, than stand up to the pack. But that kind of whipped cur attitude isn't limited to Europe. Bush has spent the twilight days of his presidency apologizing for saying "Bad Dog" once too often, after 3000 of his countrymen were brutally murdered. In Israel, as in much of Europe, pointing out that Arab Muslims and terrorism have a propensity to go together is a criminal offense.

Not only can't our governments say "Bad Dog" anymore, even civilians aren't allowed to say it on a freelance basis, let alone deliver a good solid thwack to the nose of the mangy curs. Forget about housebreaking Islam, the way things are going Islam is housebreaking us.

While Europe has gone to the dogs out of fear of the Hounds of Islam, it's worth remembering that old fictional English detective, Sherlock Holmes, and the Hound of the Baskervilles. Holmes investigates a suspicious death supposedly caused by a mysterious haunted creature, the Hound of the Baskervilles. The official verdict is that the Hound does not even exist. Many believe that it exists and is a spectral monster that cannot be stopped. Holmes however shoots the dog and discovers that it is no unstoppable fiend, only a large dog covered in phosphorus.

Islam is not unstoppable. It is not a supernatural unkillable force. It is a large vicious dog covered in phosphorus, glowing in the dark, and terrifying those who might resist its rampage. When you shoot the dog however you discover that it is mortal, and in the process you discover your own strength, and the dog learns once more than men and women are its masters to be obeyed. Because if dogs will not submit to men, then men will be forced to submit to dogs.

Let's cut through all the debates. The issue here isn't really White Phosphorus or fuel for Hamas or terrorists using ambulances and hospitals as cover, or the morality of human shields. None of those were ever really the issue, no more than the spindly 45 kilometers of Gaza were the impetus for war.

Israel is being held to a double standard, but there is one single core at the heart of that double standard. And it has nothing to do with how much land Israel is or isn't willing to give back, how many checkpoints Israel has to keep terrorists out, or whether the Separation Wall should swing one kilometer left or right. None of those are the issue. Only this is.

Does Israel have the right to exist.

Israel withdrew from Gaza, ethnically cleansed its own population to do it, turned over the land, and then watched Gaza be taken over by Hamas, a group that's first cousin to Al Queda, which refused to even negotiate any permanent peace, and began lobbing rockets at Israel. After all that, some might have foolishly assumed that if Israel used troops to stop the attacks, that the world would be behind it.

Of course that was not the case. And the simple reason is that those who do not support Israel going after Hamas, do not support Israel's right to exist.

If it were otherwise, why would a shell falling on an Israeli town have less moral weight, than one falling on an Arab town? If it were otherwise, why would a dead Israeli child have less value than an Arab one? Why was Gaza occupied Palestinian territory when it was in Israeli hands, and yet considered rightfully belonging to Egypt before 1967?

The answer of course is that they wouldn't. The double standard isn't a simple matter of bias, and those who suffer from it, sooner or later tip their case, by raising the question of whether Israel should exist at all or not.

While Israelis continue to believe that there is anything they can do to change the picture, the double standard is not rooted in anything that Israel does or doesn't do. It really doesn't matter what Israel does, the problem for both Muslims and their supporters in the West, is that Israel exists. Period.

Anything survival oriented that Israel does, will meet with instant condemnation from them. If Israel kills terrorists, it's a terrorist state. If Israel builds a wall to keep the terrorists out while giving up the land to them, Israel is practicing Apartheid, say the very same people who have been demanding that Israel give up the land. If Israel blockades Iranian arms, it's starving the "People of Gaza".

Even when Israel begins making concessions, these are only used as proof of how evil Israel is. If Israel sits down to negotiate, it's accused of plotting to rob the terrorists. If Israel offers 99 percent of the land, it's blamed for not offering 100 percent of the land. If it offers a 100 percent of the land, that too is clearly another trick, say its maddened critics. If it negotiates with Fatah, it's subverting democracy by locking out Hamas, despite the fact that Hamas believes in theocracy, not democracy. If it negotiates with Hamas, it's subverting Fatah, which is just another example of Zionist treachery.

Israel is accused of using Fatah as its puppet and is accused of creating Hamas to destroy Fatah, by the very people blasting Israel for striking Hamas. Israel is blamed for the situation in Gaza, despite giving up Gaza. They demand that Israel offer a ceasefire, when Israel does and Hamas refuses it, they blame Israel. When Israel declares a unilateral ceasefire, they naturally blame Israel. The madness never ends. And it's never meant to.

There's nothing rational that powers this double standard. There is nothing you can argue or debate with. When you cut to the emotional core of it, what motivates the other side is a deeply held belief that Israel should not exist.

Humanitarian behavior by Israel only further maddens its critics. By trying to escape their propaganda, Israel only earns further vitriol, and it is as futile as sending protest letters to the German government was in 1941. You cannot convince people who are deeply determined that you should not exist otherwise by offering them a hug.

The correct response to people who think you shouldn't exist, is to fight for your own existance harder than ever. Anything else is foolish and self-defeating.

There are various reasons why Israel's enemies believe it should not exist, from the theological to the political to the economic. But those cannot and will not be changed by Israel's actions. The same people who believed Israel should not exist in 1948 were not temporarily silenced by Israel's show of humanitarian nobility, but by Israel demonstrating over and over again that it could survive and thrive, even against the odds.

Nothing deters a would be murderer and his accomplices, half as well as the proposed victim buying a shotgun and a pair of dobermans, and leaving the last intruder's body out on the lawn.

The frenzied display of hatred for Israel is not produced by Israeli military action or supposed atrocities, but the lack of conclusive victories. Each setback for Israel drives its enemies into a new frenzy of excitement, certain that they are on the verge of achieving their final solution. A drawn out conflict in turn draws the press, which always loves an unsolvable problem, and smells the decay that comes from failure. Both can be dissuaded only by strong Israeli leadership delivering solid defeats to the terrorists the enemy has pinned their hopes on.

Had Israel destroyed Hamas and Hizbullah, the criticism would quickly die down to an annoyed mutter. The fanatics would retire to raving in a corner. But Israel turned back from doing so, and so the hate will increase, the incitement will grow viler and the attacks will grow more dangerous. Because nothing emboldens the enemy like failure.

A month after Operation Iraqi Freedom, and the Anti-War movement were marginalized buffoons. Two years and they were media darlings. The difference was the perception of success for the war effort. Had the issue been moral, then the Iraq War would have been wrong regardless of how successful it seemed to be. But the issue is never moral, it's political.

The US effort throughout and after WW2 was barraged by criticism, a criticism now forgotten primarily because the far right and far left journalists responsible for it and their words became irrelevant, as as US demonstrated that it had succeeded. The Iraq War or the Vietnam War would have been no different.

Meanwhile since the intifada began, each Israeli concession has not made Israel safer, has not made the Arabs who live inside Israel better off, but has given those who hate Israel fresh hope that the country they hate so much can finally be destroyed. Every failure to crush the terrorists has fueled the public and media frenzy of hate directed at Israel. And the longer Israel fails to finish the fight, the worse it will get.

Israel cannot win by appeasing those who hate it, or by relying on humanitarian gestures combined with indecisive military operations to convince its critics that it is really more moral than the terrorists. Israel can only Win by Winning.

Israel's Public Relations problem does not come from winning, but from losing or from failing to win. When Israel decides to win the fight against Terrorism, it will also win the Public Relations battle. That way and no other way lies victory.

America's got debt fever and the only prescription is more socialism.

Democratic administrations since FDR, particularly the Clinton Administration, pushed government involvement in home lending. They did it backed by the same kind of cheery "Every American Deserves to Own a Home" rhetoric, we're already hearing from the Office of the Imaginary President in his speeches.

But of course while every American might deserve to own a home, not every American can realistically afford to own a home. Ignoring that reality requires making a lot of bad loans, that were made with the best of politically correct intentions.

Liberal fatcats like the Sandlers got filthy stinking rich off those loans and kicked over their profits to fund and found ultra-liberal groups that would promote liberal candidates, including a certain friend of Chicago slumlords, Barry Hussein.

Wall Street firms had a ball with them until the bottom dropped out, and off they went to D.C. with their hands out. "Give us a bailout," they cried. And as corrupt and greedy as they were, they had a point. They were going back to the source of the problem.

It was government intervention that birthed the monster in the first place. From the old days of the old Democratic party where FDR used his control over banks to enforce racially segregated home loans, and created Fannie Mae, to the modern days of the Clinton and Obama Administrations, whose top officials, including Rahm Emanuel, had their dirty little hands all over it, used home mortgages to troll for votes.

Now that that monster had collapsed, instead of letting it die, the prescription for a problem caused at its root by government intervention, was of course more government intervention. Because you can just never have too much of a bad thing.

Amid all that talk about warning signs, no one had the guts to place the blame on inappropriate government involvement as the root cause, combined with the stupidity of people who took out mortgages they couldn't afford, and instead of taking responsibility, went to the voting booth to vote themselves some more Pie in the Sky, from Obama's Endless Wagon of Giveaways.

But that's the point of socialism. Why be responsible when you can just go deeper in debt and rob the taxpayer blind. It works for individuals, and for governments too.

Now the auto industry wants a bailout too. And why shouldn't they. Good old Uncle FDR rammed through the National Labor Relations Act and intimidated the Supreme Court into dropping any objections to its blatant unconstitutionality. The NLRB put unions in the driver's seat, creating a huge well funded base for the Democratic party, while strangling entire industries to death. This of course didn't matter to FDR or any of his successors, so long as the money and the votes kept coming in to the Democratic party.

America began losing industry after industry, which moved overseas to China or across the border to Mexico, or anywhere they could operate freely. Democrats responded by imposing even more regulations on industries, only accelerating the whole process. As a result the biggest growth area for union jobs is in workplaces directly funded or controlled by the government.

The automotive industry can survive one of two ways, it can jettison the UAW monkey on its back, not likely considering that the party who rakes in the union dues just won big, or it can become a subsidiary of the government, which looks increasingly likely. And that is the beauty of socialism, everything it touches fails, but never actually collapses or dies, until the whole socialist beast itself perishes. Which means you can safely expect more bailouts and a lot more regulations, keeping the environmentalist and the 75 dollar an hour union worker happy, while ripping off the taxpayer with both hands, and killing what's left of the American auto industry by a slow death.

Socialism means never having to make the tough decisions, except when you have 3 beds and 4 patients, and as patients in the UK and Canada know, no amount of noble speeches will fix that. Failure is the free market's warning system. If you're going the wrong way, you'll find out when you see all the cars swerving the other way and see the guard rail coming up ahead. It may hurt, but if you use your head, you've got a good chance of surviving it.

Socialism by contrast has no warning system. The windows are hung over with black cloth and the only time you figure out anything is wrong, is when you're already plummeting over the cliff. Instead of a crash, life becomes grim, shortages become constant, finding what you need, whether it's medical care, transportation or food, becomes first a struggle and then requires living outside the law. And yet the television chirpily keeps telling you that things couldn't be any better. Yes we can folks, yes we can!

Socialism is the answer to a very simple equation. If you refuse to take responsibility for yourself, someone else will take it for you. If millions of people grow used to the government taking responsibility for them, we call it socialism. But who becomes responsible for the government? The answer is no one. In totalitarian socialism, blame is passed down the line to the weak. In bureaucratic socialism, the blame is buried in the paperwork. And on the rare occasions that failure is admitted, what follows is a call for more of the same.

But the debt still piles up and things still get worse. And you can only bail out so much water, before you have to admit there's a hole in the boat. You can only bail out so much money, before you admit that there's a hole in the system, and the money can only have value, so long as everyone keeps ignoring the giant hole. Guess how long that works for? Try and guess, if you get it right, there may be a Nobel Prize in Economics in it for you.

There are two solutions to the current crisis, either the the government restores responsibility to its citizens and the free market, or the government will devour the citizens and the free market to create a vast financial and regulatory shell game that will end with the collapse of the entire system. There are no shortcuts around responsibility, only different ways of getting to the same place. And the longer the trip, the more painful the  final destination.

There is a basic difference between a cult and a political movement. A political movement is geared around issues, a cult is built around a belief that attaching yourself to a particular guru can teach you how to be a better person and "redeem" you and the rest of the world.

You can demonstrate that a political movement is wrong, but demonstrating that a cult is wrong does no good whatsoever. A cult leader functions by convincing his followers to become emotionally and physically invested in the idea that only by following them can they be saved. Cult membership has to be broken, like any emotionally based addiction.

For our purposes, we can classify Obama cultists into several categories.

1. Far left - Many members of the far left got on board with Obama, but often as a means to an end without actually believing his hype. Paradoxically they actually represent a small share of hard core Obama cult believers.

Even when they do need deprogramming, there really is no point to it. Regardless of whether they support Obama or not, their core beliefs are hostile to America and supportive of terrorism. Deprogramming them is the equivalent of switching an alcoholic from Dewar's to Jim Bean. It's a difference but not one that makes a difference in the nature of the basic problem.

The far left in any case will be deprogrammed by more radical members of their own kind, a process that began even before Obama's victory march, and has been gathering speed with Rahm's selection as Chief of Staff. Obama's policies will never move fast enough or be destructive enough to suit them, but that is normal for their kind which cannot be satisfied except by squabbling to death over which of them is radical enough. When in power the argument is usually settled with a round of revolutionary purges followed by a bloody dictatorship.

2. Early Obama Supporters - Generally liberal, sometimes to the left and often young, they found themselves swept up in a popular movement with plenty of coolness cachet attached to it. Except they expected things to actually change.

The media frenzy that is overwhelming ordinary Americans is leaving them curiously untouched. The election's conclusion and even the inauguration was anticlimactic, and they're noticing that things don't really seem to be changing the way they expected them to. Like the McGovern voters of another generation, they invested their time and energy in a candidate who was supposed to solve everything, only to be told that it's a lot more complicated than that. But they were never much for complications in the first place. When they hear the word "complicated", they change the channel.

Growing layoffs, expected to hit younger workers hardest, as well as the collapse of much of their economic boom fueled tech centered lifestyle, should add to their frustration and irritation, and leave them needing someone to blame. Remember this will take time.

Deprogramming them, especially when there is a generation gap, will be difficult. To the more progressive minded, pointing out that the economy is still bad, that we're still at war and that the government still exercises a great deal of police powers... and asking what exactly has changed, is a core attack.

In general, emphasizing Obama's failure to deliver is key. Don't unintentionally create defenses for them by harping on Obama's lack of experience. And don't play the "I Told You So" game. Once they realize how misguided supporting Obama was, they'll be able to play it themselves.

Particularly with young supporters, Obama's abuse of trust and shallowness will become key points. Young people regularly experience abuse of trust, and will look back on past emotional experiences as shallow. Once both can be established, a great deal of progress will have been made.

3. Black Obama Supporters - Black Obama supporters rank as having the most ridiculously inflated expectations for Obama, from widescale payouts to an end to racism and radical changes for their own status. Those expectations of course won't be met.

Obama has been good at exploiting the expectations of African-Americans, but at the same time has often disdained them on the campaign trail, focusing on using his own supposed African identity to trigger white guilt, while promising some sort of post-racial nirvana.

The worst disillusionment for them will be business as usual. While the usual liberal taps will be turned on, in many cases they were turned on under Bush already, and the change just won't be that dramatic. Not that anything could be. Racism won't go away either. And the disappointment will set in.

Here it can be useful to emphasize how many black leaders were outright opposed to Obama or suspicious of him. Burris' treatment, can also serve as a handy footnote. As is Obama sending his children to a private school. But the general lack of any real progress and deflated expectations are the key points here. This is not a demographic that will be voting Republican in large numbers any time soon, but their frustration can help send a note of disharmony through the picture that Obama would like to present.

4. Ordinary Americans - Millions of ordinary Americans, including those who did not support Obama in the election, are being swept up in the constant torrent of media hype that centers on promoting Obama and everything having to do with him.

The best response to this was already made by McCain's celebrity commercial during the election backed by the question, "Are you actually better off under Obama?"

When people stop to think about it, what they're really seeing is celebrity coverage without any content. And in a recession, "Where's the beef" is ultimately going to carry more weight, than footage of Obama's kids or the curtain Obama's wife is wearing. The power of that kind of non-stop propaganda coverage can't be underestimated, but the bottom line will have to be answered sooner or later.

A year from now, most people will be deadened against the hype and will care a lot more about unemployment and out of control government spending. And they will be ready to listen.

5. Hispanic-Americans - See 3 and 4, combined with Richardson, who had switched to Obama, getting the boot. Loss of jobs and lack of real economic development will be key.

6. Jewish-Americans - As I've said often, that 78 percent figure is false. We'll never know what the true figure is, but Obama did poorly with Jewish voters compared to Kerry or Gore. His policies on the War on Terror and Israel will leave plenty of material for those Jews who care about either one, but still voted for Obama.

The major caveat here is that most Jews who did vote for Obama, could give less of a damn about Israel or the War on Terror. They generally have no meaningful Jewish identity and belong in a generic upper middle class liberal category. Some were genuinely fooled by the propaganda barrage leading up to the election, and may be more reachable by facts.

7. Republicans - Yes there are unfortunately no shortage of Republicans caught up in the hype. They may not have voted for Obama, but some have been swept up in the whirlwind. Some more prominent figures are obviously taking part for personal gain or out of political timidity. Many are simply willing to give Obama a chance and hopeful he will succeed. That however will quickly fade, especially when they see some of the facts on Obama's record and the records of his appointees, and his rapidly inflating spending plans.

Those who meanwhile throw in with Obama for cynical political or politically correct reasons will be the first to jump ship, when they realize that the S.S. Barack is taking on water. There is no point in bothering with them until then.

8. Idiots - There is no real point in trying to convince idiots of anything. They're idiots. They can't help it. They voted for Obama in 2008. They'll vote for him in 2012. They'll vote for him in 2016 too, even if he (hopefully) isn't on the ballot.

Please note, idiots may belong to Categories 1-7. If you do encounter an idiot, leave it alone or follow the traditional custom of throwing rotten fruit in his direction.

9. The Media - Sooo how are those pre-arranged press conferences going? You guys really enjoy being completely shut out of the process, huh? How's the bankruptcy coming along at the paper? Tough times. Too bad the White House can't seem to help you, or even take your questions.

10. General Guidelines - Avoid dumping your frustration with Obama, pick specific areas and flaws to point to by way of conversation. Be reasonable and don't press your point. People can figure out things on their own better, when they aren't being shoved toward a particular conclusion. A well made point can nag away far better, than actual nagging.

While it can be tempting for those of us who are in the loop to dump a lot of knowledge at once, this kind of information dump approach can confuse people who will then naturally shut down the conversation. You want to pick specific points, and avoid areas that many people associate with conspiracy theories. While Obama's citizenship is a valid point, it is not one that will matter much to most people, particularly after the inauguration.

Bread and butter issues will be much more relevant for most people. For those who voted for Obama despite their beliefs being at odds with his in key areas, e.g. Catholics, Jews, Anti-War, Libertarians, it can help to emphasize his positions on Abortion, Hamas, Wars abroad or government spending. This will however be strictly fringe. Most people voted in order to make things better, and Reagan's old question will still play well, "Are you better off?"

Protests that Obama needs to be given more time or more of a chance, should be met with firm, "We've given him a chance. If he can't do the job, he should make way for someone who can" and "We can do better." And we can.

That above all is the key point. Obama is not the best America has to offer. There's always a better choice out there.

Rabbi Hollander warned America, “The Arabs are already saying, ‘Today Aza (Gaza), Tomorrow Jerusalem. Soon they will be saying, Today Jerusalem,! Tomorrow America, G–d forbid. Americans take note while there is still time.”

Rabbi David Hollander was from another generation, a time when Orthodox Rabbis did not bow to discretion or found themselves silenced by the politically correct whims of liberalism. Instead even in the Age of Political Correctness, he continued to fight for what was for right well into his nineties-- dying as the oldest pulpit Rabbi in America at the age of 96.

His uncompromising stands would often result in him being marginalized and mocked by an increasingly liberal generation of Modern Orthodoxy in America, who no longer took the causes he fought for seriously. Yet he refused to be politically correct, he refused to be silenced, and refused to see evil and not speak up against it.

“I represent the right wing,” he says. “I took a very strong stand. I carried on the fight for the last 60 years.“I am not a moderate in any way.”

In 1956 he led a delegation of Rabbis to work on behalf of Soviet Jews imprisoned behind the Iron Curtain, only 3 years after the death of Stalin.

Inside the 73-year-old synagogue, religious and community leaders addressed the crowd in English, Yiddish, and Russian. Rabbi Hollander recalled leading the first official delegation of American rabbis to the Soviet Union in 1956. ‘’When just a few blocks from the Kremlin I saw a house of God, I could not believe that such a small building had survived so close to the Kremlin,'’ he said. ‘’Where is Stalin, where is Lenin today? Communism is dead, but the little Torah is marching today, and with Russian Jews. Who would have thought that, 20 years ago?'’

I personally remember Rabbi Hollander describing the scene, the intimidation by Police and KGB personnel, and finally reaching the Moscow Synagogue, and reading the words the words of our Forefather Jacob in Genesis 28:17 inscribed above it, "אֵין זֶה, כִּי אִם-בֵּית אֱלֹהִים, וְזֶה, שַׁעַר הַשָּׁמָיִם, "This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven". And he marveled to see that even in the darkness at the heart of Soviet power, G-d was still present.

From leading that 1956 delegation of Rabbis to his modern day challenges to the leftist policies of appeasement toward terrorism in Israel and America, his life spanned a world of challenges and a refusal to remain silent, no matter what. As a pulpit Rabbi he took on areas that no one else wanted, in the Bronx and Brighton Beach, as a man he was both courageous and humble, well read, deliberate and yet forceful. There will be plenty of brief pieces "remembering him", but very few remembering what he really stood for.

“The root cause of terrorism is the success of terrorism,”

This story recently came to mind when Senator Joseph Lieberman was in Israel and announced as loudly as he could that the Jews have no right to live on "occupied territory." We are painfully ashamed because very recently, a non-Jew, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, defended Israel, and pointedly referred to the West Bank as "so-called occupied territory." Senator Lieberman, who calls himself an Orthodox Jew, does not stop from pontificating that part of the Holy Land given by G-d to the Jews is forbidden to Jews.

It is difficult to have such high expectation from our modern American Joseph. Yet, one would still expect some humility, some integrity and some fairness in judging who is at fault in the current terror war in the State of Israel. Lieberman deplored the "desperate" humanitarian condition of the Palestinians without stating clearly that the sole responsibility for this "desperate humanitarian condition" of the Palestinians lies with the Arabs, who train their sons and daughters to kill themselves in the process of killing Jews.

This shows how far the current Joseph has drifted from his Biblical namesake. He wears his alleged Orthodoxy on his sleeve and uses it as a campaigning point. This is most unbecoming and un-Jewish.

Rabbi Hollander was always ready to use public forums, from radio appearances debating terrorist apologies, to his regular Jewish Press columns, which the paper does not appear to have put online for some reason, and in the Algemeiner, he remained a vibrant and witty voice for truth right up to the end, as the following remembrance recalls,

I saw him just a few weeks ago in a rehab. center. He told me that he was up until 3:00 AM preparing 2 articles for the Jewish Press and Algemeiner Journal about the Mumbai tragedy. He was sharp and witty and a pleasre to talk to. He was broad minded, well educated and well read, yet a true ehrliche yid, with torah haskafos who loved all of klal yisroel.

3 years ago, at the age of 93, Rabbi Hollander showed he hadn't changed when he defied Mayor Bloomberg, and his alliance and dirty payoffs to Lenora Fulani, openly challenging him over it in public when no one else would.

When the Orthodox rabbinical board (Vaad Harabbanim) of Flatbush endorsed Mayor Bloomberg for reelection at its June 22 annual meeting, there was a gadfly in the ointment. Rabbi David B. Hollander stood up and asked the mayor about his alliance with Lenora Fulani, the Independence Party leader who defended on NY1 News in April her 1989 statement that Jews are "mass murderers of people of color." According to Hollander, the mayor's response was to claim that Fulani is only one out of 90,000 members in the Independence Party. Hollander recalls snapping back that Fulani is in fact the leader of the party, but since no one in the audience backed him up, the mayor was able to go on to other questions as if an adequate answer had been given.

Here is how Rabbi Hollander described the encounter in his customarily modest and understated way.

The mice held their annual convention and the delegates came from all over. A major item on the agenda was a question of life and death, namely, how to escape sudden death by being swallowed by the cat. The main problem was that due to the silent footsteps of the cat, there was no advance warning and, hence, no time to run into the safety of the holes. One mouse offered a solution: All listened with rapt attention. "In order to hear the cat," said the delegate, "we must hang a bell on the cat’s neck, giving us enough time to hide." They applauded this brilliant solution. But the celebration ceased when one of the wiser delegates asked: "Who of us will hang the bell on the neck of the cat?"

The lesson of this story is that it is one thing to have great ideas, but it is something else to put it into practice if it requires the selfless and dangerous feat of "hanging the bell," of sounding the alarm before it is too late...

This is still the key to the challenges facing us in America and Israel. The failure, the refusal to remove the atzmo, the self-interest, the drive for election and reelection and the ambition for affluence prevent the words and deeds needed to prevent destruction...

Even in the Orthodox camp we see the atzmo of self-serving condemnations, resulting in the failure to hang the bell--to speak up when Jews, the Torah and Israel are maligned.

Recently I was present at a gathering of an Orthodox organization, where a public official was seeking support in an election. The candidate himself was present to give his campaign talk. There seemed to be unanimity for his endorsement, despite the well-publicized fact that he was seeking the endorsement of a political party of 90,000 members headed by a woman who said that "Jews are mass-murderers of people of color."

Since I [attend] this organization’s gathering only from time to time, I was reluctant to ask for the floor, hoping that one of the regulars would say something. But alas, no one wanted to hang the bell to say anything. It was then that I thought of our sages’ teaching, that where there are no men, you should strive to be a man (Perek 2:6).

In keeping with this advice I asked for the floor--which was not granted, because my reputation for hanging the bell had preceded me.

The candidate himself pointed to my raised hand and I was finally called upon. I asked how he could associate himself with the enemies of the Jews and of America. He did not deny their anti-Semitism. He said instead that you cannot reject 90,000 members because of the wrongs of one person. I countered, of course, that it was not just one person, for she is the head of the party.

This is just one example. There are times when the failure to protest evil is an indication that one is not truly upset. The Brisker Rav, zt"l, said that Job was punished by pain all over his body because of his silence when the plan to remove the Jewish peril to Egypt was presented. But why this particular punishment? The answer is that Job rationalized his silence by saying to himself that his words will be ineffective.

He was therefore afflicted with pain, to show that when you have pain you cry out because it hurts, and if you don’t cry out it is because it does not hurt.

After the Disengagement that ethnically cleansed the Jewish population of Gaza, Rabbi Hollander said the following words.

"Why are we here?" Hollander asked. "It's over! So why are we bothering ourselves and pestering the consulate? The answer is in the Torah." He went on to explain how when Yaakov was shown the bloodied shirt that made him draw the conclusion that Yosef was no more, Yaakov mourned but he did not accept consolation. Yosef was still alive.

"We are mourning, but we are not allowed to accept consolation for that which is still alive!" declared Hollander. "The land will come back to us!"

That spirit of undying defiance, and the refusal to surrender what truly matters, is an inspiration in life as well as in death.

Barack Hussein Obama's first phone call to a foreign leader was placed not to any of America's traditional allies, but to the head of a terrorist group, Mahmoud Abbas, a PLO terrorist and current leader of Fatah, who currently maintains thousands of terrorists on his payroll, and was responsible for securing funding for the 1972 Olympic massacre.

As a founding member of Fatah, and part of the PLO, Abbas was part of an organization responsible for the murder of Americans, including the murder of wheelchair bound Leon Klinghoffer, as well as the abduction and murder of the American Ambassador to Sudan Cleo Allen Noel, Jr. and Chargé d'Affaires George Curtis Moore.

As well as an organization responsible for such terrorist acts as hijacking four jets bound for New York City, an act that certainly helped inspire Al Queda's plans for 9/11.

Obama could have placed his first phone call to the Prime Minister of England or Australia, to France's Sarkozy or for that matter his own Kenyan homeland, to his own cousin Prime Minister Odingo.

Instead Obama chose to make his first phone call to a foreign leader who is a terrorist and responsible for the murder of Americans. It's hard to find a better statement of the Terrorist in Chief's priorities than that.

Of course helping one terrorist group wasn't his only priority. Obama also moved to suspend the military trials of Al Queda terrorists, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of the 9/11 attacks.

And under Obama's No Terrorist Left Behind program, he also had to reward Iran, by pushing the redeployment of troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, undermining the effects of the surge, and working to reverse American successes in Iraq. This will naturally set up a Vietnam style situation which will enable Iranian backed Shiite terrorists to begin a campaign of terrorism that will then force the evacuation of American troops from Iraq.

But even as Obama worked to help terrorists win in the Middle East, he received another defeat back in America as his puppet apointee for New York's Senate seat, Caroline 'You Know' Kennedy was forced to withdraw to avoid a public rejection. In place of her, Governor Patterson chose Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand, a conservative Democrat, and a clear slap in the face to Obama's attempts to force his own unqualified fundraiser to be given a Senate seat.

This marks two Senate losses for Obama, in Illinois and New York. It also marks two embarrassments for the Democrats, with the Illinois Senate seat openly for sale, and the New York Senate seat the product of an ugly tarnished process.

Obama had been preparing for his larger struggle against fellow Democrats, rather than an increasingly impotent Republican minority willing to play lapdog to the Thief in Chief. Gaining two Senate seats would have given Obama a great deal of leverage versus Pelosi and Reid, and the Conservative Democrats that were brought into Congress as part of Howard Dean's strategy for gaining a Democratic majority in Congress.

Now one of those seats has gone to a Conservative Democrat, and the other to a walking joke. Bad news for Obama.

Meanwhile the festivities have ended in DC and the trash went home leaving DC full of their trash. So much for their commitment to being "green". It would have saved time and effort, as well as being far more appropriate, if Obama's inauguration had just been held in a trash dump.

Naturally of course the ticket holders who stomped in to see the Messiah got screwed over, and had to stand out in the cold, and wait to travel home to watch the inauguration on TV. The first of many disappointments for the idiots who drank the Pepsi and bought the T-shirts and hung up the posters.

And the Oaf of Office continues with Biden screwing up his own oath of office. But why would anyone expect people who don't believe what they're saying or take the oath seriously, to get it right?

Meanwhile a Dutch court will try Geert Wilders for violating Sharia and saying truthful things about Islam. This is naturally a serious offense, when you spend your time living in fear that the Religion of Peace will go on a killing spree if you dare criticize them.

But the best way to avoid the lobster problem is to confront creeping Sharia head on, as Wilders has been doing, or as the Danish cartoons did. Timidity is not an option. People must see the consequences of giving up their freedom.

In Israel meanwhile, in the wake of the failed campaign against Hamas, Livni is polling weaker, Barak has picked up, and Netanyahu is ahead. While this is a good trend, it means that Kadima's leadership has just gotten desperate, which means they'll be willing to do desperate things.

The last thing Labor got desperate, it made a deal with Arafat. When Kadima got desperate, it withdrew from Gaza. The pattern has been to change the game by making dramatic concessions that change the situation on the ground. With Obama in power, the situation reaches a critical point. Furthermore their one possible winning gambit is to strike a deal with Hamas that will see the return of Gilad Shalit, such a deal would of course have a horrendous price, but if Kadima thinks it can win them the election, they will go for it.

In the blogsphere roundup meanwhile,

Maggie's Notebook reports on Obama calling for the reopening of the Gaza border... you know the border on whose other side is a terrorist group dedicated to Israel's extermination.

Placing Israel squarely in the world's eye, Obama urges Israel to open the Gaza border, and according to this report, "Hamas has given Israel until Sunday to open the borders."

Via LGstarr, Racism at the Obama Administration means no jobs for "white male construction workers"

A top economic adviser to President Obama has told a congressional panel the billions of dollars in the proposed economic stimulus plan should be allocated with social issues in mind, to make sure the money doesn't go to just "white male construction workers" or the highly skilled.

Yes we wouldn't want to give jobs to just "any Americans". We want to to give it to the "Americans" who voted for Obama, which excludes white male construction workers and people of any race with actual skills.


The Gunslinger's Journal describes the "trashy" behavior of Obama's inauguration crowds.

Via Solstice13, a call for the defense of Geert Wilders from the new International Free Press.

At the Wrath of Mjolnir, a reminder of the real consequences of pacifism.

Nature hates a vacuum, and peaceful farmers tend to rule a land only until a more aggressive group arrives to take their women and their corn. It appears that warlike group, for the land to become Arizona, consisted of a couple of tribes speaking Athabascan tongues (thus, probably from Canada), the Navajo and Apache.

Did the Navajo and Apache buy their lands? Of course not. They took them.

Which is naturally how the world works. Pacifism is not a survival trait. And the peoples that the Europeans conquered in the American continent were for the part conquerors themselves.

Fiery Spirited Zionist speaks on the closing of Gitmo

I don't want it closed ever. The sacrifices our troops have made will go for naught as these prisoners will go back to terrorism like 61 of them who were released from Gitmo already did. I really can't understand the misguided concern liberals have for the worst terrorists on the planet who wouldn't hesitate to slaughter us en masse. These are sub-human scum. Some liberals are touting this as Obama showing his commitment to "human rights". Of all of the priorities regarding the issue of human rights around the world, why this? How about helping the people of Sudan if Obama wants to show his commitment to human rights. I wouldn't blame our soldiers for being pissed off not only at Obama but their fellow Americans for having elected him.

In Israel meanwhile some are waking up to the consequences of the disastrous retreat from Gaza and demanding an apology from those who falsely promoted its benefits. (Via Israel Matzav)

This includes the judges of the High Court of Justice who did not even bother to visit Gush Katif and made due with defense experts acting on behalf of the state "because that is the postion of the court since it was founded." The justices who ruled as they did because they automatically assumed that such a plan "improves the security situation" because "the evacuation reduces the desire of the Palestinians to harm the Israeli population." It would be appropriate for the honorable justices to take a vacation day as an act of forgiveness and go down south for a close-up look at the results of their decisions.

This also includes the media, which provided no challenge for Ariel Sharon and allowed him to turn a prosperous agricultural land, a world full of communities, synagogues, yeshivas and magnificent educational institutions into piles of rubble. Also the heads of the IDF and Shin Bet security service who never spoke in public what they whispered in the backrooms, and the soldiers and policemen who dragged the pioneers of Kfar Darom and Neveh Dekalim from their houses while raining blows on the demonstrators who understood what would come.

The apology must also include everyone who painted those who warned that the rockets from Gaza would reach Sderot, Ashdod and Be'er Sheva as delusional and opponents of peace. Everyone who promised that they would "give it to them" after the first Qassam, but in the end cried about the moral and international constraints that prevented them from doing so, and for years abandoned the south

You, too, who paid almost no attention to the hundreds of thousands who tried to stop the evil, who paid no attention to those who internalized the lessons of Oslo and warned that we should not give them land and guns again. You who paid no attention to those who warned of the Hamastan state, foresaw exactly the trajectories of the rockets, and understood that this was something we gave away for free, a further disintegration of our power of deterrence and an adrenaline shot for terror.

Now rise and ask for forgiveness from those who paid the highest price, with their bodies, souls and property for your close-mindedness, arrogance and wickedness. Ask for forgiveness from the Gush Katif expellees, the noble souls who did not steal land from anyone, who made the empty dunes bloom as ambassadors of the State of Israel and who turned into the south's security buffer and absorbed over 6,000 Qassams and mortar shells with their bodies and belongings in the last years of Gush Katif.

Ask for forgiveness from those who swore to "win with love" - who believed and sowed until the very last minute; from those who did not raise a hand against the soldiers. Apologize to those who continued to enlist in the IDF and pay the ultimate price even after they were expelled from their houses, because they understood that the state - the national homeland of the Jewish people, even within limited borders - is still bigger than any mistaken and confused government.

There is no way to know if they will forgive you, but you at least need to ask.

But nevertheless this kind of maddened and hollow charade of bureaucracy continues to function in Israel, as well as Europe and America... ceding ground time and time again to Islam.

On June 9, 2005, Olmert insisted in remarks to an American Jewish audience that the disengagement "will bring more security, greater safety, much more prosperity and a lot of joy for all the people that live in the Middle East." Continuing with his flight of fantasy, Olmert went on to say that "we are confident that this disengagement will be successful, and that it will then lead to the beginning of a new pattern of relations between us and the Palestinian Authority."

And that it did. That it did.

The ZOA has a fuller list at One Village

Then-Defense Minister, current Kadima MK Shaul Mofaz: "I anticipate that the level of terrorism will drop after the disengagement and after pragmatic Arab forces take control." (Israel National News , July 2, 2004);

Then Likud MK, now Kadima MK Meir Shitreet: "Some argue that there will be a threat, threat of escaping, threat to the Negev communities. I have never heard such a ridiculous claim. (Speech to the Knesset, October 2004).

Labor MK Dani Yatom: "Before the withdrawal from Lebanon , the Intelligence Directorate also threatened us with Katyushas reaching Hadera and we see what actually happened. I estimate, and my estimate is just as valid as those that threaten us with horrors, that after we leave the Gaza Strip, terrorism will decrease, not increase." (Maariv , February 5, 2004).

Labor MK Orit Noked: "I want to believe that as a result of the eviction from Gaza , moderate Palestinian factions will grow stronger, terrorism will be reduced." (Speech to the Knesset, October 2004).

Labor MK Ofer Pines: "I want to thanks [then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for the unilateral withdrawal policy] for he gives me and my wife hope that my son, when recruited, won't have to serve in Gaza Strip." (Speech to the Knesset, October 2004).

Meretz MK Ran Cohen: "The Disengagement is good for security. Right wing representatives spoke of Qassem rockets flying here or there. I'm telling you, if you want to spare both Sderot and Ashkelon, we have to understand that if we won't get out of Gaza Strip, in two-three years, or even a year, the range will extend to Ashkelon ." (Speech to the Knesset, October 2004).

But of course many such lists of quotes have been made since Oslo. And likely many more will yet be made.

Fresno Zionism meanwhile is sorry after only three days of Obama

Via the Religion of Peace site, a letter from a Muslim girl to Faith Freedom

These are the things they teach us. But, why do they hide such a BIG THING such as Muslims used to rape women captured in their raids? Yes it can only be called RAPE. How can a girl allow a person to have sex with her when they have killed her brother or father or husband? I cannot imagine myself or my mother or my sister in such a condition. It makes me sick to the stomach. You opened my eyes. I used to think so badly of the soldiers who raped women in Iraq. But the point is, are Muslims any better? They raped women when they could. Now, according to the logic of Islam, Iraq was in a state of war; therefore, based on Islamic reasoning, it was perfectly justifiable for the conquering army to raped the women.

Again based on Islamic logic, Iraq lost, so basically all the people in Iraq should become slaves of Americans including their women and children. But the thing is, only a handful of women in Iraq were raped and their rapists are prosecuted and sent to jail. Had it been the other way round and Muslims were the conquerors of a non-Muslim country, all the women would have become booty of Muslim soldiers and all of the pretty ones would have been raped. I feel disgusted! I cannot imagine my six year old, or any six year old girl to be married to a 52 year old guy NO matter how religious that person is.

I am a woman and I don’t have a “short memory,” as Muhammad said. I am not “deficient in intelligence” either. I have outsmarted many guys in my life. All my life I have studied on scholarship and right now I am perusing a degree again on scholarship. Then how can our prophet say we women have short memory and deficient in intelligence? This is scientifically wrong.

Now considering that a girl is raped, where in the world can she find 4 eyewitness men to testify in her case? Rape is not a circus that people will be invited to watch. It’s usually done in an isolated place where no one can see. Say a girl was raped and gets pregnant. She needs 4 witnesses to prove that she was raped and usually there isn’t even one. But the proof that she had sex out of the wedlock is there in her womb. Then what will happen according to Islamic law? She can’t provide any proof of rape. So she will be accused of adultery and stoned to death. Does this sound just or logical? No it doesn’t, at least, to those, who have a heart and a brain.

We in Pakistan never bothered to read the Quran in detail. We only knew what we were taught in our schools. The rest, we just depended on the scholars (who obviously lied to us, told us the good things, nothing about slaves and their rape was ever mentioned).

And yet another reminder of what happens to Westerners who wind up living under Islamic law.

Of course today you have to travel to Dubai to live under Sharia. Tomorrow you won't even have to leave Europe.

The First Law - When Obama makes a mistake, it is either ignored, or if it happens on a too public occasion to ignore, it is actually someone else's fault. See Obama's oath.

You can expect this law to kick in every time Obama makes a serious mistake in the public eye, or when his policies suffer a setback. It's one reason that Obama has stocked his administration with fall guys such as Hillary Clinton, who will take the blame when his foreign policy implodes.

Obama is incompetent, but following the Peter Principle, he's well aware that he needs fall guys to blame for his own failures.


The Second Law - The United States government is now first and foremost a tool for promoting Obama's cult of personality. From the Obama centered Whitehouse website, all down the line, the government exists to maintain Obama's permanent election campaign.

While the media will continue running a constant stream of puff pieces on Obama's wife and daughters, or Obama's latest golf club or vacation, the government will now be directed to building up the Obama image. The result already looks like something you would expect to see in Russia or North Korea or Saddam Hussein's Iraq. It will only get worse now that the government becomes part of the Obama propaganda machinery.

We can expect to begin seeing a serious shortage of real news, except for items reassuring us that Obama and the various members of the Obama Administration are working superhard on fixing everything wrong, except when it comes time to fix the blame on one of them for everything that is wrong.


The Third Law - Despite the media's already uncritical adoration of him, Obama will seek to bypass and subvert the media, to place his most valuable asset, his public image and his ability to shape the public's perception of him, under his control.

That means tightly regulating media access, as well as bypassing media outlets, for YouTube and left wing sites and streams more directly under his control. Paranoia is always deeply rooted in the incompetent, because they know how little they deserve the job. Obama knows that manipulating public perception is how he got the job. He knows how invaluable the media was in that effort. Like all tyrants, he must control that base of support, or risk seeing it bring him down.

Obama knows how fickle fame can be, which is why his control on the press has already tightened, turning press conference into pre-scripted charades.


The Fourth Law - Spread the worship around. Obama's success in part owes itself to the ability to make others emotionally invested in his success, for generational or racial or political reasons. Obama's secret is that he has no investment in their success.

Obama's Conservative outreach is part of a drive to make as many Americans as possible feel invested in his success. This will further enhance Obama's Reality Distortion Field that will prevent people from realizing his failures and his general worthlessness.

Like most successful con artists, Obama feeds off the emotional energy of his marks. He needs people to believe him and believe in him. When that happens, the believers join the collective delusion, making it that much harder for them to see through him.

This is a very dangerous and manipulative process with cultlike results. Investing emotional energy in a leader makes it hard to question him, and requires a great effort of will to realize that your belief in him was mistaken. Creating that emotional identification has been the key to Obama's success, maintaining and expanding it is now his goal. All the news stories and propaganda being conducted on his behalf has this overriding purpose-- to convince as many people as possible to believe in him and his mission.


The Fifth Law - Join up now. Belief is best implemented through action. Believing in a leader and actually working under him in some effort are two different things. Expect to see many more volunteer and community service programs, that will further embed tens of millions of Americans into the Cult of Obama.

The more effort individuals put into Obama's agenda, the more they must believe in him, in order to believe in themselves. This ugly hat trick is at the heart of most cult programming. It is at the heart of Obama's zombies. The trick is to subvert individual identity into the service of the identity of the cult leader, tying his purpose to yours, his esteem to your self-esteem.

People can lose faith in a normal political leader, but losing faith in a leader they have invested their own identities in, requires them to cut away a part of themselves, and is a very difficult deprogramming process. The more people come to believe that Obama's success is their success, and Obama's failure is their failure, the more power Obama gains over their hearts.


The Sixth Law - The old way is the new way, and the new way is the old way. Some of Obama's followers are slowly realizing that his progress and change simply mean repackaging everything that was in a new basket with a shiny new bow. Obama has no new ideas, as a matter of fact he has no ideas. He has plans, but they are not based on serious policies or the welfare of America, but his wishes and the wishes of his backers.

Change is a mantra, but not a reality. Obama's people are relics from previous administrations, power brokers and insiders. They're there to help him keep a grip on power and reassure everyone in D.C. and around the world, that it's still going to be basically be business as usual. At least as far as corruption and favors go.

Obama's new administration is all image, because there is no real substance. There are no ideas, there are only a handful of agendas, all of them old too. The rest will fall by the wayside. Spare change easily left behind.


The Seventh Law - Never mention the Emperor is naked. The real secret is just how weak Obama is. Obama's constant need for worship is a symptom of that weakness. So was his inability to stand up to Blagojevich and Burris. He surrounds himself with stronger men, because he is nothing more than a hollow image projected on the stage for everyone to worship.

Tyrants are typically weak and worthless men, petty and filled with self-loathing, desperate to affirm their self-esteem through the shouts and cries of the mob. Tyrants are typically foreigners, outsiders who don't identify with the society or the people they rule, and are made even more insecure by the knowledge that they don't belong.

This insecurity drives their ruthlessness need to control their image, to demand the worship of everyone, to consolidate power, to warp the minds of men and to lash out viciously at anyone who does not join in. Tyranny is insecurity combined with sadism. The tyrant who wants his image to be worshiped, cannot truly look himself in the mirror. Neither can Obama.

Obama is an outsider who has been afraid all along. He lies, he manipulates, but if he has one link to Lincoln, it is that he fears that he cannot fool all of the people all the time. But he is determined to try his best. Which is why he will spread his reality distortion field as far and wide as he can. It is why he will do his best to control the press, to take the blame for nothing, to keep lying and rolling out shiny new announcements that mean nothing-- hoping to stay one step ahead of the people he is fooling.

These are the laws of the Obamanation by which he intends to rule. These are the laws by which he hopes to hold on to the power he has illegitimately seized. These are the laws that must be broken for him to fall.