The Romney Campaign's Baffling Mistake

For a man who has gone to great lengths to downplay the role of personal religious practice in the selection of an American president, 2008 GOP candidate Mitt Romney may have gotten what he deserved in his recent verbal exchange with Al Sharpton. By that I do not mean that Sharpton was right, or that his comments about Romney’s faith were not bigoted (they were). On the contrary, Sharpton insulted Romney and Romney’s faith in the same manner Sharpton insults nearly all faiths and ethnicities that differ from his narrow world view. Romney deserved the follow-up criticisms of his faith and subsequent media scrutiny because Romney demonstrated poor judgment by acknowledging and commenting on anything spoken by Al Sharpton in the first place. If the decision was made by a campaign advisor, Romney should start seeking new talent in a hurry. Romney and his team should have recognized Sharpton for the race and religious baiter that he is and not given it a second thought.

If Romney’s goal was to run for president on his substantial and impressive record in politics, business, and family life without having to pass a religious “litmus test,” he could not have chosen a worse course of action than publicly complaining about Sharpton's statements. This was a religious debate in New York City between a raving racist self-proclaimed “reverend” (Sharpton), and an avowed Atheist (Christopher Hitchens). If Romney intends to decry every disparaging remark made about his religion by anyone of prominence, he will ultimately spend far more time doing so in his campaign than describing his views and convincing voters he would make a good president.

What did Romney hope to accomplish by entangling himself in a religious tug of war with Sharpton? Why, if he did not want his religion to be a determining factor for voters, did he engage in religious discussions he knew would draw national attention? Some may argue that Romney was shrewd to allow himself to draw fire from a known bigot and an Atheist, as doing so would arouse the sympathy of religious conservatives (and it did, including Ralph Reed, who staunchly defended Romney on Hannity & Colmes last night). While this may seem a plausible explanation in the immediate aftermath of the incident and continuing verbal exchanges between Sharpton and Romney, it is more likely that this questionable decision will harm Romney’s campaign by making religion the defining issue, or at least the issue receiving the most media coverage.

Sharpton will not back down. He will never sincerely apologize. He will only continue to do what he has already done, which is to escalate his rhetoric against Romney’s faith by raising questions about his church’s restriction on blacks receiving the priesthood, which was discontinued in 1978. Simply by acknowledging Sharpton and commenting to the press, Romney opened himself to attacks publicized in the national media questioning whether his faith is truly Christian (which it clearly is) and whether it practiced discrimination (which it did not, if one accepts the LDS Church’s official declaration issued in 1978). Few will remember what Romney’s stances on terrorism and the economy are while the media focuses on his faith and its mysterious or misunderstood past, depending on one’s point of view.

Romney granted extensive media access to his family and addressed his religious views and the role of religion in his life in Hugh Hewitt’s book, A Mormon in the White House?: 10 Things Every American Should Know about Mitt Romney. As I read the book it seemed that Romney was hoping that Hewitt's work, written as it was by a popular radio host, blogger, and Evangelical, would satisfy national curiosity and answer any question as to whether a candidate’s faith should influence his perceived qualifications for the presidency. Instead of letting the book serve that purpose, aided by his low-profile responses to questions about his faith, Romney has now allowed others to frame the debate over his religion and he finds himself responding defensively. If the best defense is a good offense, then Romney made a tactical error by stepping into a defensive role in a national arena.

Romney would have been well served to do what most Americans do: ignore Sharpton’s vitriolic attention seeking. The "reverend" does not represent the beliefs and values of even a tiny fraction of African-Americans, and Romney could have further marginalized Sharpton by refusing to take his bait. Instead, Romney has now become the only GOP candidate who voters will mentally connect with Sharpton. In mudslinging, the innocent party is often splattered but needs not remain in range of further salvos or join his adversary in the mud. Romney can expect more attacks and will deserve them, not because they are fair, but because, like a matador, he could have side-stepped a perpetually charging Sharpton but chose instead to be gored.

"Sanctuary" Nearly Fatal For Fort Dix

At first glance, the plot by six recently converted Islamic terrorists to attack Fort Dix in New Jersey with automatic weapons seemed like a ridiculous idea. Why attack a target that was defended by armed security and had, within the confines of the military base, tactical response teams that could respond with significant force and firepower to repel the attack? How did they decide to target Fort Dix?

Media coverage of the foiled plot has offered a mixture of praise for the FBI and condemnation of everyone from President Clinton (for intervening in the former Yugoslavia and sheltering uprooted ethnic Albanians in New Jersey) to President Bush (for encouraging terrorism by our presence in Iraq). However, three sources offered even-keeled and informative reporting and analysis.

The first was a good general account of the plot and the arrest operation in the Washington Post yesterday that detailed each participant as well as how an alert video store clerk tipped off the FBI in 2006 after the co conspirators requested that a VHS videotape be converted into DVD format. The file contained video of the group training at a firearms range while calling for Jihad and importuning the name of “Allah.” The article also provided links to the criminal complaint and affidavit filed by the U.S. Attorney’s office and the FBI. Those documents present a complete description of the defendants, their actions, and their intentions.

The second source was a blog I read regularly, In From the Cold, the author of which often has unique perspectives, particularly on issues involving the military or military intelligence. In a post Tuesday titled “Terror Plot Thwarted,” the author, Spook86, addressed the knee-jerk question many likely had when they first read that the terrorists intended to attack a “secure” military base. Spook86 described some of the inner workings of military bases like Fort Dix, and focused on the security weaknesses that are common to all such facilities. Food delivery drivers bringing eagerly anticipated meals are a welcome and mundane sight at military bases and federal buildings for that matter, and entering the base under the guise of pizza delivery was a well selected tactic. Taxis, shuttle buses, food delivery, all of these are so common that they are rarely screened properly, especially if the driver is recognized by security guards. If you thought a military base on American soil was too secure to be a viable target for terrorists, you will reconsider that position after reading In From the Cold’s analysis of the plot’s potential success.

The third source, and certainly the most disturbing, was yesterday's Fox News story that reported the immigration/citizenship status of the terrorists. According to Fox News interviews with a federal law enforcement source, three of the terrorists were living illegally in the United States. While it may not be unusual for known terrorists to enter the United States illegally, the immigration pattern of these previously unknown terrorists will sound familiar to those who are concerned about America's porous borders. Three of the terrorists, the Duka brothers, were apparently smuggled into the United States near Brownsville, Texas in 1984, when they were children between ages 1-6, along with other family members. The family settled in New Jersey, and, to fit the hotly debated stereotype of so many illegal immigrants, worked various blue collar jobs into adulthood. Of the six terrorists arrested for plotting to assault Fort Dix, one was a cab driver, three were roofers, one worked as a 7-11 clerk, and one worked at his father's pizza restaurant. It was as a delivery driver that one of the terrorists obtained extensive knowledge of base operations. These blue collar hard working illegal aliens were seemingly assimilating into American society, just trying to find a better life than the one they left behind in their home country. Stop me if this story sounds familiar.

These young, hard working blue collar illegal immigrants, however, became enamored with the ideology and "heroism" of al Qaeda and were inspired by the recorded last "wills" of the 9/11 hijackers and according to the Fox report, the group watched video footage containing terrorist training instructions, including simulated and actual attacks on U.S. military personnel. In time, the group progressed from embracing ideology to actively plotting attacks on a variety of nearby targets, eventually escalating to the point where they attempted to purchase automatic weapons from an FBI informant who had infiltrated this illegal immigrant terrorist cell. That is when the FBI made its move. The outrageous aspect of this story is that these terrorists were known to local law enforcement (not as terrorists of course) long before they mutated into al-Qaeda wannabes, but because of city ordinances prohibiting police officers from questioning an individual's immigration or citizenship status, they continued living, working, and plotting in their neighborhood rather than being arrested, included in illegal immigrant databases, or deported. Fox News reported:

FOX News has also learned that there were 19 traffic citations against the Duka brothers, but according to a federal law enforcement source, because they operated in so-called "sanctuary cites," where law enforcement does not routinely tell the Homeland Security Department about illegal immigrants in their towns, none of the tickets raised red flags.

The terrorists in this case scouted multiple targets before choosing Fort Dix because of their familiarity with and proximity to it. If you live near a military base or government installation, be extra vigilant and report any suspicious activity immediately, because if you live in a "sanctuary" city, your city government has tied the hands of law enforcement and placed you in danger. It is no exaggeration when the President states that we must be right 100% of the time to prevent an attack, while the terrorists only have to get it right once. This group might have gotten it right had it not been for the DVD request and an alert store clerk’s willingness to take action. In this case, a Circuit City store clerk did more to protect homeland security than the local government. Rather than protect its citizens, local governments instead offered "sanctuary" to America-hating illegal immigrants who came alarmingly close to slaughtering many of America's finest at Fort Dix.

Debunking The Deified Lee

I was born with a lifelong passion for history, as reflected by my choice of undergraduate and graduate degree programs. I received my M.A. from a university in Virginia, a state in which General Robert E. Lee is worshipped as the embodiment of Jesus Christ and George Washington combined into one hallowed figure. At times I was convinced Lee ranked above both in the minds of some Virginians. Anyone with even a basic history education has been fed the traditional portrayal of Lee: Reluctant to war against his Union brothers; brilliant tactician; beloved by troops and citizens alike; a deeply religious and righteous man; impeccable integrity and southern honor; considered slavery evil. So revered is Robert E. Lee among historians, southerners, and especially Virginians, that nearly every historical portrayal, fact or fiction, has accepted the Lee myths as gospel truth. To criticize Lee is to criticize southern honor and nobility, and few have attempted the Herculean feat of separating Lee’s actual behavior from the larger-than-life stories told of him through print and film.

Having visited Gettysburg again recently after viewing the Turner production “Gettysburg” (1994), starring Martin Sheen as the "venerable" Lee, I was struck by the portrayal of Lee as a pious, tired general who was to be pitied because of his long sacrifice for what he believed to be a noble cause (states rights versus federalism). This states rights issue was the smokescreen put up by southerners to obscure the real issue of racism and preservation of slavery and its accompanying lifestyle of comfort and affluence for the slaveholder. At long last a historical biography is available that did not intentionally seek to destroy the image of Lee as a reluctant warrior and despiser of slavery, but by publishing his own letters and correspondence from his friends and family, the book reportedly allows his own words to demonstrate that Lee was not as noble or saintly as southern apologists insist.

NY Sun reviewer Eric Ormsby reported in today’s issue that Elizabeth Brown Pryor’s Reading the Man: A Portrait of Robert E. Lee Through His Private Letters sheds light on certain aspects of Lee’s personality and belief structure that Lee worshippers, if they are even aware of them, would prefer to keep in the dark. Two paragraph’s from Ormsby’s review capture effectively where history and reality diverged when it came to casting Lee as one who believed slavery was evil or who valued the lives of his troops:

The most disturbing chapters deal with Lee's views on slavery. He thought slavery an evil system not because it stripped slaves of freedom and dignity but because it was such an awful burden on slave owners. For Lee, slavery formed part of some inscrutable providential design through which slaves might someday rise to a higher condition (though never to the level of whites). He was a brutal slave owner, destroying families to make a quick profit. "By 1860 he had broken up every family but one on the estate," Ms. Pryor writes. Once he had a runaway slave given 50 lashes, urging his constable to "lay it on well," and then had brine poured onto the victim's flayed back — this was a slave who had been manumitted at Lee's father-in-law's death but whom Lee refused to free. Despite Ms. Pryor's best efforts to put all this in context, Lee stands revealed as both cruel and hypocritical.

Lee had wit and grace in abundance, as his letters prove. And they display other unsuspected aspects of his personality. He was a lifelong flirt, indulging in startling sexual innuendo with female friends and relatives. He was a domestic tyrant who adored his children, lavishing them alternately with caresses and commands. But despite his considerable charm, something cold, some abstractly calculating tendency, characterized Lee. His troops regarded him as a father, but he let them be butchered by the thousands without so much as a backward glance; most conspicuously at Gettysburg, when even his own generals stood appalled. As Ms. Pryor shows throughout, Lee was simply unable to imagine the lives of others, whether slaves torn from their families or young soldiers squandered in suicidal charges. In crucial ways, Lee the man was more hollow — and more heartless — than the icon he became.

Ordinarily I am an outspoken critic of “revisionist history," as that genre has produced many volumes tearing down the reputations of the Founding Fathers, Abraham Lincoln, and other historical icons for which it is healthy for Americans to hold high opinions. There is something inherently wrong about debunking men who, though hampered by human weakness or error, wore out their lives in service to righteous ideals such as life, liberty, and constitutional government. I am much more forgiving when historians debunk iconic figures who wore out their lives defending evil practices such as slavery, as Lee did. It is never noble to fight for an evil cause. While many of the Founding Fathers were slaveholders, most of them abandoned the practice within years of constitutional ratification. Further, they laid the foundation for a system of government that could later be amended to eliminate slavery, discrimination, and a host of other inequalities over time. The northern colonial representatives in particular recognized that an accommodation for slavery would be necessary if the United States was to be established, and the mechanisms for future change were incorporated.

Lee, however, was firmly entrenched as a slave owner and was willing to kill other Americans and wage war to preserve his right to white supremacy and a life of luxury at the expense of other humans. The Founders fought a war with Britain to establish a free nation. Lee fought a war to keep other humans permanently enslaved. To revere him on a par with the Founders is to denigrate their ideals and accomplishments. Perhaps Pryor’s new book will help Americans better understand why statues of Lee and other Confederate “heroes” stir sentiments of anger and resentment within local African-American communities. They should stir those same sentiments within each of us regardless of race. Lee should not be considered a historical figure worthy of enshrinement in statue and laudatory biography. If more Americans were aware of Lee’s actual attitudes toward and personal treatment of his slaves, historical justice would be served. The next time you hear someone invoke “southern honor” or “states rights” to describe what the South fought for in the Civil War, you can point to Lee, the ultimate “southern gentleman,” and dispel the historical myths.

Iranian Youth Set Example For Congress

There is more enthusiasm and support for Middle East Democracy among college students in Iran, where such support is a capital offense, than in the U.S. House and Senate, where such support should be expected. While Democrats and some Republicans in the House and Senate continue pounding the incessant drumbeat of surrender and withdrawal from Iraq, effectively abandoning a fragile Arab democracy, university students in Iran are risking life and limb to install and participate in on-campus democracy. The United States has long hoped that such sentiment could one day lead to another Iranian revolution, with Iranian students leading the charge toward democracy and modernization and away from radical Islamic rule and suppression of human rights. Young Iranians are fulfilling their role by pushing Ahmadinejad and the mullahs for more pro-western and democratic policies, but the elected leaders of the land of the free and the home of the brave are not offering much by way of example when it comes to embracing Middle East democracy.

Compare the “timetable for withdrawal” and “this war is lost” attitudes of the Democrat controlled House and Senate with the courage of Iranian university students as reported in today’s New York Times:

Amir Kabir University has long been a center of student political activity. Students there chanted against Mr. Ahmadinejad when he visited the university late last year and set fire to posters bearing his likeness.

A student leader, Mehrdad Khalilpour, was arrested Monday by security officials, but two of his comrades managed to escape. Among other student leaders, Babak Zamanian was arrested late last month and Ahmad Ghassaban was arrested on Friday.

However, the student democracy advocates said they scored a victory on Monday when they managed to hold their annual elections.

“The students reached the conclusion that the only way was to resist,” said Ehsan Mansouri, a student leader who has been banned from attending classes. “The students guarded the ballot boxes as they were attacked and clubbed severely by the university security guards.”

The drive for freedom is inherent in the human spirit, and while these Iranian students fight what some might consider a minor skirmish in the war on oppressive ideologies, they are willing to risk beatings, torture, and execution simply for the right to choose their own student government on-campus. If under oppression for several years, they will continue this fight because it is a fundamental struggle, and when new students arrive they too will engage in the battle. In stark contrast are America’s liberals, who cannot stomach a brutal fight to protect Iraqi freedom from terrorists seeking to return the country to oppression simply because the war has lasted longer than they expected. The Bush administration is somewhat to blame for the unrealistic expectations of rapid success, but in the face of setbacks and fierce resistance from organized terrorists in Iraq the administration has pressed forward with a dogged determination to win. Not so for the Democrats in the House and Senate, who are not as committed to democracy and victory as they are to elections and regaining the White House in 2008 at any cost, including freedom for the Iraqi people.

The courage and democratic leanings of Iran’s students is one of the primary reasons that military action against Iran’s nuclear program or as a reprisal for Iran’s role as a terror sponsor is so problematic. America continues to hope and pray for Iranians themselves to rise up and overthrow the mullahs and Ahmadinejad, but the mullahs’ race for nuclear weapons essentially places a limit on how long the world can be willing to wait for an internal revolution before military action becomes an absolute necessity. This situation is further complicated by the minimal intelligence capabilities the U.S. and its allies can rely upon in Iran. If the intelligence is accurate, America can afford to wait and fuel the fires of revolution among pro-western elements within Iran. Yet assuming the intelligence is accurate is in itself a risky proposition.

Is it possible that the Iranian university students and America’s current congressmen and senators were accidentally switched at birth? Other than brazen political chicanery or complete ignorance of geopolitics, no other explanations account for the admirable backbone displayed at Iran’s universities and the complete absence of spine in the U.S. house and senate on the same issue: democracy in the Middle East.

Thompson Juggled Abortion Hot Potato

In the 1994 National Political Awareness Test (NPAT), then-candidate for Senate Fred Thompson completed a survey detailing the policies or programs he would support if elected. As reported by the New York Sun’s political blog yesterday, NPAT has released Thompson’s survey responses for comparison with those already in the race for the 2008 GOP nomination. It should be remembered that policy positions change over time, such as the evolution of Mitt Romney’s views on abortion. These survey responses from Thompson were offered in 1994, the same year Mitt Romney bravely ran against Senator Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts. Just as Romney’s experiences as Governor of Massachusetts changed his views on the government’s role in abortion and preserving traditional marriage, Thompson’s experiences in the Senate and subsequent private life may have evolved since both were GOP candidates for the Senate in 1994.

Having allowed for the possibility that Thompson has changed his views on some issues since 1994, I call attention to his NPAT survey results on certain issues, particularly abortion. The NPAT web site listed the survey question on abortion and Thompson’s responses. According to the web site, candidates were asked only to identify which items they would support, not what they would oppose. Thompson’s responses on abortion were as follows:

9. If elected to Congress, which of the following general principles or specific proposals will you support concerning abortion?

X Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy.

0 Abortions should be legal only when the life of the mother is endangered.

0 Abortions should be legal only when the pregnancy results from incest or rape, or when the life of the mother is endangered.

X A woman under the age of 18 should be required to notify a parent or guardian before having an abortion.

0 A woman should be required to notify her spouse before having an abortion.

X States should be allowed to impose mandatory waiting periods before abortions are performed.

X Congress should eliminate federal funding for clinics and medical facilities that provide abortion services.

X Congress should eliminate abortion services from any federally funded health care plan.

X Congress should leave legislation on this issue to the states.

0 Other

The most glaring omission in the NPAT survey was the failure to ask the candidates whether they support the overturn of Roe v. Wade. The most noticeable item Thompson indicated support for was “Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy.” These is a sweeping statement, that will not be easy for him to explain away, particularly when critics examine the items he did not express support for above.

Thompson clearly supported every item that guaranteed a woman’s right to choose abortion rather than carry a baby to term. A closer look at the items Thompson did not express support for reveals a rather radical pro-abortion position for someone who is being touted as a potential heir to Ronald Reagan conservatism:

1. He did not support the item “Abortions should be legal only when the life of the mother is endangered.” This answer indicated that Thompson felt women should have the choice to abort for convenience rather than as an emergency procedure used as a last resort.

2. He did not support the item “Abortions should be legal only when the pregnancy results from incest or rape, or when the life of the mother is endangered.” This answer was a further affirmation of a woman’s right to choose abortion for any reason, whether for mere birth control convenience or for coping with the results of horrible crimes. By not supporting this item, Thompson revealed that in his mind abortion was no last resort measure but rather a fundamental female right.

3. He did not support the item “A woman should be required to notify her spouse before having an abortion.” This response was truly remarkable for someone who is now hyped as a staunch conservative. The idea that two people join in a procreative act that results in the conception of a child, but that only one, the woman, has the right to determine whether that life will be terminated because she will bear the brunt of inconvenience is the epitome of selfish liberalism. The woman chose to participate in the act and the baby’s DNA is an equal contribution of man and woman. Wherein lays the supremacy of the female right to that of her husband or partner except in the liberal feminist mind? Thompson came down solely for the inviolable rights of the woman, but ignored the man and most importantly, ignored the baby’s right to life. Thompson approved of terminating a baby without telling the baby’s father. Marginalizing men is a curious position for a candidate revered for his “tough talk” and manly demeanor.

Now we move to the political hot potato juggling act performed by nearly all candidates for national office in all campaigns, the survey item: “Congress should leave legislation on this issue to the states.” Thompson supported this item, and in doing so joined the ranks of thousands of other candidates over the years who claim that this position restores such social policy decisions to the states where they allegedly belong under the constitution. The pro-life movement will be pleased with Thompson's desire to end all federal funding of abortion and leave abortion for states to tackle. This is a very popular response, but it is the ultimate pass the buck cop out position when candidates simply do not want to deal with the topic of abortion or offend any potential voters.

What does it really mean when a candidate states that this issue of abortion should be left up to the states? Do they mean that states, with their differing ethnic and cultural traditions, should have the right to determine, on a local level, whether abortion is consistent with their values and thus legal or illegal? The chaos resulting from that situation would be inevitable. Yet it also skirts the real issue: The federal government, not state governments, is empowered to preserve the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with life listed as the first sacred, inviolable right the national government should protect. States are not encumbered by this requirement, and are thus wholly inadequate for the task of uniformly preserving life for all Americans, whether they live in liberal California or conservative Utah.

This nation witnessed the result of leaving slavery in the hands of individual states. It took a civil war and a victory by the federal government’s position to free the slaves. The civil rights struggles in the 1950s and 1960s were further evidence that leaving civil rights legislation to individual states would never achieve equality, but would rather allow permanent discrimination according to local traditions. Only when the federal government intervened by enacting civil rights legislation to overrule state governments were civil rights established and protected. Abortions will not disappear if left to individual states any more than segregated lunch counters or drinking fountains did. If the right to life is to be championed, the federal government must lead that fight. The disingenuous “Congress should leave legislation on this issue to the states” answer to questions of life and civil liberties is used by candidates and incumbents alike merely to dodge a controversial topic while sounding statesmanlike.

For the GOP and conservative Independents who oppose abortion, Thompson’s stated position on abortion in 1994 presents a significant obstacle to embracing him with open arms as so many appear wont to do. Romney had the opportunity to demonstrate his convictions through his veto pen as governor, leaving a clear record of pro-life activism that gives credibility to the evolution of his stance on government intervention on behalf of life. Thompson will have no such executive veto record to prove the credibility of whatever position he eventually attempts to claim once he announces his candidacy. All we know for sure is what his views were as a Senate candidate in 1994. As an effective politician, however, he will surely continue to juggle the abortion hot potato until it begins to burn and then attempt to toss it to the states.

Hamas Runs Mickey Mouse Operation

If you dislike forking over your hard earned income for Disney entertainment knowing the company’s embrace of gay rights and other controversial issues, it will outrage you to learn that the United States government has been donating millions of dollars to a Palestinian terrorist group that uses Mickey Mouse to teach children hatred for Israel and America, as well as Islamic world domination under Islamic rule.

In fairness to Disney, it is not the real Mickey Mouse. As liberal as the Disney Company has become, however, this is not a Disney sponsored or condoned phenomenon. In a blatant theft of Disney’s trademark and intellectual property, Terror group Hamas, which, through direct funding by the U.S. government to the Abbas Palestinian government and Fatah militia, has invested in Hamas Television and helped create Farfur, a blatant imitation of Mickey Mouse. Farfur is no ordinary cartoon character for children. Hamas Television is a propaganda arm of the rabidly anti-Israeli group responsible for most suicide bombings that occur in Israel. Bombings at Jerusalem’s Sbarro’s restaurant, discos and other gathering points for Israeli civilians and visiting tourists have been the scenes of Hamas’s campaign of terror in recent years. Farfur is now winning the hearts and minds of Palestinian youth through cute vignettes and songs, such as the following inspirational anthem. Clap and sing with Farfur if you know the words:

"Oh Jerusalem, we are coming…
Oh Jerusalem, we will never surrender to the enemy,
We will never be humiliated,
It is beloved Palestine that taught us what to be
And taught us to be the soldiers of the Lord of the Worlds
We will destroy the chair of the despots, so they will taste the flame of death.
We will lead a war."[Al Aqsa TV, April 30, 2007]

Destroying Israel is not enough for the beloved Farfur, who, along with his youthful girl co-host named Saraa’, merrily teaches Palestinian children to fight until they win:

Farfur: “Yes, we, tomorrow’s pioneers, will restore to this nation its glory, and we will liberate Al-Aqsa, with Allah’s will, and we will liberate Iraq, with Allah’s will, and we will liberate the Muslim countries, invaded by murderers.”

Saraa’: “Yes, they are children occupied by the Jews, but with the will of Allah, we will resist and protect against the Zionist occupation.”

Farfur: “Until we win, with the will of Allah, we will resist until we win.”[Al-Aqsa TV, April 16, 2007]

The existence of this program, as reported by Free Republic, was exposed by Palestinian Media Watch, an organization that offered a chilling assessment of the content and appeal of the Mickey Mouse clone:

The writing in this show is quite sophisticated. Farfur's performance is unquestionably funny and entertaining, as is the character’s comic timing. For example, as he rhymes off a list of world figures, he chirps: “We will win, Bush! We will win, Condoleezza! We will win, Sharon!” Then, without missing a beat, he quips, “Ah, Sharon is dead” (sic), reinforcing his message that the plan for world domination is progressing.

Using a character based on an appealing, world famous and beloved icon like Mickey Mouse to teach Islamic supremacy and resistance as Islamic duty is a powerful and effective way to indoctrinate children.

The effectiveness of this program is heightened by including child viewers, who phone in to the show and recite poems with images of hate and violence; for example, “We will destroy the chair of the despots, so they will taste the flame of death;” and, "Rafah sings ‘Oh, oh.’ Its answer is an AK-47. We who do not know fear, we are the predators of the forest."

Is it any wonder that terrorist groups are having increasing success recruiting younger and younger children to strap on suicide vests, or in the case of al Qaeda in Iraq, driving vehicle-borne IEDs into security checkpoints and detonating? Bush administration critics are quick to condemn the Iraq War and the War on Terror in general, but are slow to recognize the nature of the enemy the entire free world faces. In America, Hollywood and a free press lead the charge against President Bush, and are free to do so, although it should be mandatory for them to declare their bias as a disclaimer rather than incorporate it into their movie scripts and news stories as if it were truth. Nevertheless, their counterparts in Palestinian media are utilizing the same (literally, in this case) eye catching entertainment techniques to brainwash children to become future terrorists and eventually martyrs.

Considering our self-imposed limitations on what we will and will not accept in our fight against terrorism, it seems that our very scruples may hasten our demise when faced, as we are, with an enemy that clones Mickey Mouse and uses his charming appearance and voice to recruit for future battles. In America’s noble desire for peace, America has lavished monetary aid upon the Palestinian Abbas government despite widely accepted reports that the money is used to purchase weapons for Hamas and apparently also to broadcast cute little Farfur terrorist recruitment programs to impressionable children.

I am proud that our culture rejects such methods, but it is instructive to note the absolute desire to win expressed through Farfur’s message. Driving the Jews out of Israel is not enough. Driving the U.S. out of Iraq is insufficient. The message is one of world domination and the imposition of Islamic rule and law upon all peoples and cultures. America’s enemy is not terrorism. America’s enemy is any ideology that utilizes terrorism to achieve its goal, in this case global Sharia, which is the antithesis of democracy. We are fighting terrorists in Iraq to preserve a new democracy, but we are sending money to the Abbas Palestinian government that is used to wage war and terrorism against a long-standing ally and democracy, Israel. Under such conditions, winning a war against terrorism seems an unlikely goal.