Why Mitt Romney Endangers American Lives

Four Americans are dead in Libya, including the U.S. ambassador to the country, after a rocket attack that came amidst protests against a cheesy, poorly produced, anti-Prophet-Muhammed film that was filmed in the United States and went viral in the Muslim world.

While the rest of the country mourned the dead and decried the act of violence, Mitt Romney went on the attack, accusing President Obama of apologizing to terrorists.

What actually happened is far different.

The American embassy in Cairo, feeling the heat from Muslim reaction to the film, distanced themselves from the film, stating in a tweet: "U.S. Embassy condemns religious incitement." That caught some flack for seemingly going against the right to free speech. They later wrote, "We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."

Now, the American embassy is doing exactly what its supposed to do. It is not the embassy's job to explain "sticks and stone may break my bones, but words will never hurt me," to a populace that for decades was thrown in jail or murdered for proclaiming unpopular beliefs. It is the embassy's job to smooth things over. Their job is to avoid violence in the interest of maintaining diplomacy. The filmmakers certainly had the "universal right" to make their film, however, free speech is not without consequences. If you're Michael Richards and do stand up, and respond to African-American hecklers with liberal use of the n-word, you'd better get ready for the backlash. And as we know, unflattering portrayals of Mohammed (who, according to the Muslim religion, isn't even allowed to be represented in a positive image), often result in protests, which lead some extreme factions to violence.

It's simple cause and effect--insult Mohammed, incite violence. No one's saying violence is the appropriate response to hate speech. We're just saying, it happens. So if you don't want people to die, you should probably resist the urge to insult the prophet.

Now, lets say someone in this country does decide to insult Mohammed. It's their right, sure. But the U.S. government shouldn't be insulting Mohammed, the same way they shouldn't insult Jesus, or Moses, or any other religious leader. The problem is, when an American citizen's insult travels around the globe (the way Pastor Terry Jone's Koran burning did, or the way our soldiers pissing on the Koran did), America's enemies use it as a weapon against America. "See!" they tell their followers. "This is America. Not the home of the free, but the home of hate. They hate Islam! They want to destroy you!" They publicly screen that crappy anti-Mohammed video, and say to those inclined to listen, "This is what America is about! This is what America represents!" They take the action of one individual or one small group and use it to represent what America is all about.

To respond to those extremists, it is necessary for a representative of the United States to stand up and say, "No, this isn't what we're about. We believe in free speech, and that means, sometimes, one of our citizens says or films something idiotic and offensive, like the hit ABC show 'Bachelor Pad.' But we as a country also believe in the freedom of religion. And we believe that it is irresponsible, and wrong, to use one's right of free speech to denigrate and shame another person's freedom of religion."

That's what the embassy said. That's what Hillary Clinton said: "Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind."

It's a statement aimed at refuting what the extremists say-- that the actions by a very few represent the feelings of the greater whole. It condemns violence, while making it clear that perceived cause of the violence--religious intolerance--is not what America represents. In short: "What the extremists tell you is a lie."

Mitt Romney, clearly, does not believe this. Instead of standing up for the majority of Americans who don't think all Muslims are terrorists, he's standing up for the few that do. Instead of telling the world that this hateful, anti-Islam video doesn't represent the best of America, he's saying to the world that it does. Hate, according to Mitt Romney, is America's greatest export. And he's damn proud of it.

"It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks," Romney said.

Except, well, of any of the American representatives commenting on this attack, it's Romney who gives the terrorists what they want. Instead of telling the extremists, "Your justification for this violence is bogus," he's AGREED with them. He's saying America doesn't have to distance itself from the film the extremists used as an example of America's intolerance. Rather, he's arguing that America should defend and support what the film had to say! It's free speech, so Romney will stand by it to the bitter end, even if that speech was made by an Egpytian Coptic Christian with a criminal history who clearly intended for the film to cause violence.

As far as the international stage is concerned, it seems that Romney and Obama have very different ideas about how a President should behave. While Obama believes a President should show America is better than what its enemies say it is, Romney believes a President should show America is EXACTLY what its enemies say it is.

You decide which is better. You decide which action really sides with the terrorists.

Jews and Muslims, So Happy Together?

The controversy over opening a Palestinian chicken restaurant next to the sacred land of Goldblatt's Deli may never end, but in America, there's no greater friend to Muslims than the Jews.

That's according to a recent study conducted by the Abu Dhabi Gallup Center.

Whereas only 56% of Protestants believe Muslims living in the U.S. are loyal to the country, 80% of Jews do. Protestants and Catholics are far more likely to believe Muslims are sympathetic to the goals of Al-Qaeda.

Of course, Jews know all too well the results of blaming an entire religious group for all of a nation's ills.

So let us break challah and pita together, and dip them in hummus, and lay the blame for the world's craziness where it really belongs.

The British.

It Can't Happen Here

It began with an attack, led by a bearded man, seeking to destroy the government of a country which stood for everything he stood against. Even though he failed, the people of the country began to fear bearded men like him, began to fear men who came from the same religious background. Right-wing religious, political, and media leaders referred to these people as vermin, less than human. They blamed them for the country's woes, a sick economy, a decline of national culture and stature. Popular cartoons appeared mocking their religion. Their places of worship, houses, and businesses were attacked. Their books were burned...

This may sound familiar to anyone following the current trend of anti-Muslim furor in this country. Osama Bin Laden attacked us. Right-wingers have stirred up anti-Islamic feelings. Those feelings have taken root in people who have suffered in our current economic downturn. Recently, a Muslim cab driver and a mosque were attacked. Now a Florida church plans to burn hundreds of Korans, the Muslim holy book, which have been sent to them from people all over the country.

But the story I began with is not the story of America's relationship with Islam following the September 11th attacks. It is the story of a different country, in a different time. Let me tell you the rest.

Over time, the dehumanization of these "enemies of the state" became accepted by the majority. After that, it was easy to pass laws restricting their freedoms. But this didn't make the people of the country feel quite safe enough. It was then suggested that there was an easy solution to the problem these enemies of the state presented. Kick them out.

I'm reminded of the simplistic solution many right-wingers have offered to the influx of illegal immigrants in this country. But this story isn't about Mexicans either.

But the solution wasn't that easy. Where would these people go? Neighboring countries didn't want them. In the meantime, they were forced to move into cordoned-off slums and makeshift encampments. These became overcrowded. Disease was rampant. The manpower and money necessary to keep these places under control was overwhelming. It was then that someone came up with a different solution. A permanent one.

Hopefully, you've figured out what story I'm telling here. It's the first part to a more popularly known story, an introduction that often gets skipped over, simply because the details of the final part are so chilling, so monstrous.

It's the story of a Jew, Kurt Eisner, who led the overthrow of the German government in Munich at the end of World War I, and was a key figure in forcing Germany's surrender. He didn't do it because he was a Jew, he did it because he was a radical communist. But his attack gave fuel to the right-wing forces that claimed Germany's defeat in World War I was due to leftist elements in their own country, not superior foreign might.





In this atmosphere of hatred, a new leader rose to power. He built his constituency by playing to their basest fears-- that Jews and the communists were trying to destroy their country. His hateful words inspired Germans to terrorize all Jews, no matter what their political beliefs. It was just a matter of time before this leader put into action his "final solution."

Could such a thing happen here? We're not at that part of our story yet. But the first few chapters written after 9/11 look eerily similar to that story of the past, with Muslims (and dark-skinned immigrants) instead of Jews. The Koran-burning parishioners are a reminder that people tend to follow their leaders, even into madness. 11,207 people are fans of this event on Facebook.

How many would have been fans of Kristallnacht?

Jews have a saying: "Never Again." I think that includes making sure that no other group is ever subjected to the kind of hate that spurs the most demonic violence in men.

So I've started a "Americans Against International Burn A Koran Day" group on Facebook. Show that there are enough Americans out there who recognize the signs of a country spiraling towards madness.

"Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings." -Heinrich Heine

[UPDATE: The book burning was canceled, proving that when the majority of good people stands up to the minority of bigots, the bigots sit back down.]

Israel Is Not A Threat To Peace, Hamas Is



I shouldn't have to write the statement above. It should be obvious. Israel is a democratic nation with a long history of attempts to make peace with its neighbors. Hamas is a terrorist organization with a long history of blowing people up in nightclubs and buses.

But recent events have even got Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama blaming the Israelis for derailing the peace process. And I wonder just what Barack and Hillary are basing that on. That Israelis are building some new houses in a part of Jersusalem that would most likely be part of Israel anyway if a peace plan came to pass?

Let's get the facts straight. The Jerusalem suburb of Ramat Shlomo is NOT an Arab suburb. It's not a Palestinian suburb. Ramat Shlomo didn't exist before 1995. It was built and settled by Haredi Jews. It is NOT in the disputed East Jerusalem territory, which Palestinians want for their capital. It might be close by, but it is not in any territory that was once settled heavily by Arabs.

Furthermore, Hamas, as justification for their "Day of Rage" (which involved rock throwing at soldiers and general rioting), claimed that the Jews built a synagogue next to the Al-Asqa Mosque, as part of a fiendish plan to eventually annex the mosque territory and destroy it. Nevermind the fact that the Al-Asqa mosque is more than four football fields away, on top of the Temple Mount (which Israel has placed in the hands of the Muslims ever since its independence), that the synagogue was built in the JEWISH quarter of Jerusalem, and that the synagogue replaces the one built in the 1800s that was desecrated and destroyed by Jordan in 1948. When Israel rebuilt the synagogue, they maintained, rather than destroyed, the Muslim minaret that the Arabs had built on the site.

So what has Israel done wrong? They've built more houses for Jews in a place where Palestinians NEVER lived, in a place where more than 18,000 Jews already live. They've built a synagogue in the JEWISH quarter of Jerusalem, where a synagogue already stood. My God! What ANIMALS!!!!!

Hillary and Obama have to get their facts straight. They reacted to a pro-Hamas press release, and by declaring Israel to be out-of-line, gave Palestinian extremists ammunition to rally their cause. It would be a non-issue if Obama had said, "We're looking at the new building activity and examining whether it runs afoul of the peace process." Instead, he regurgitated the first thing he was told by some anti-Semite.

I just returned from Israel. In Jerusalem, I saw a city where anyone who wants to worship can worship in the way they please, without the threat of violence. I walked through the Muslim quarter, where a mob of little arab children, fresh from school, ran through the streets chanting "Allah Akbar," "God Is Great," with not one Israeli soldier batting an eye (even when a few of the kids spat on and pushed members of our tour group). I witnessed an Israeli government that strives to create a place where all religions can operate freely and pray in peace. Even when some of those people throw rocks at them.

Can we say the Palestinians would do the same? If, when, they receive East Jerusalem, will it be a place where any tourist from a non-Muslim nation can ever go? Will it be a place where any Christian or Jewish ruins or holy sites will be safe from desecration and destruction?

We've seen how they respond to a slight that wasn't even a slight. How will they respond once the Israeli soldiers pull out, and there's no one stopping these riots from exploding?

Personally, I fear for the day. And any reasonable person should too.

You tell me: Is Ramat Shlomo (A) in EAST Jerusalem?