• naomir 08/18/2010 at 8:13

    Caroline, to those of us who don’t have our heads in the sand, Obama’s agenda has been very clear from day one. Even during the presidential campaign his choices of advisers were dubious if not outright Muslim oriented. The fact that he condones the mosque at Ground Zero and dares to call it civil rights, refuses to see terrorism for what it is and insists on dialogue with countries that would not hesitate to nuke us out of existence in the name of Islam is very telling. Every protest by the Obama government against Israel’s sovereign rights is another nail in Israel’s coffin, G-d forbid unless Israel takes the initiative. “If we are not for ourselves, who will be for us. If not now, when?”

  • Isis Wirth 08/18/2010 at 13:06

    Thank you very much!, Mrs. Glick.
    I am always reading you.

  • SteveJ 08/18/2010 at 19:31

    “They claim that Jews must be prohibited from building and even living in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria just because they are Jewish.”
    No. Anybody, including Jews, can build on land after receiving clearance from a government entity that actually owns the land.
    All people, including Jews, should be prohibited from building and living on land for which they do not have title.
    Singling the Jews out for special treatment cannot be tolerated — at least not if you are an American.
    If someone wants to build on a piece of land, they will have to gain legal title to that land just like everybody else.
    I realize that treating all people the same, and not giving a certain race special privileges may be a novel concept to some, but that is the way civilized people behave.

  • DaveP 08/19/2010 at 7:04

    At an Iftar dinner in the White House, Barack Hussein Obama proclaimed that he supports the building of the Ground Zero mosque as part of his “unshakable commitment to religious freedom”. Which of course sounds very noble and good, until you ask a single question, Where is the religious freedom in the Muslim world?
    Obama has made the case for Islam in America, on the grounds that America’s religious diversity promotes the religious freedom of all. Islam no less than any other belief system. Yet if introducing Islam into America promotes religious freedom, then why is there no religious freedom in the Muslim world? Why are churches firebombed in Malaysia because Christians presumed to use the word Allah? Why are non-Muslims forbidden to enter the city of Mecca, from which Jews and Christians were ethnically cleansed by Mohammed? Why are Coptic Christians being oppressed and humiliated by the Egyptian government? Why are Muslims murdering Buddhist teachers in Thailand? There are a thousand examples, all of which add up to a single conclusion– Muslims demand religious freedom, yet are not willing to give it to others.
    This has ominous implications for the prospects of religious freedom in America. Nor is this a theoretical issue. Jews are fleeing European cities in record numbers because of Muslim persecution. The recent case of Malmo, highlights the fact that Islam actually threatens religious diversity. Simply to protect themselves, Malmo’s 650 Jews were forced to spend half a million Kronor a year. The situation is much the same across Europe, as Jewish institutions are forced to become fortresses. What the Nazis did not succeed in accomplishing in Europe, the rise of Islam seems to be doing.
    Nor are Christians safe, they are simply in the majority for now. But Christians and other religions were once in the majority in the Middle East. Until they were massacred and repressed by the tidal wave of Islam. Today the religions that were once a majority, whether it is Jews in Israel, Christians in Byzantium or Zoroastrians in Persia, have become oppressed minorities. Some may take comfort in the notion that “It can’t happen here.” But the fate of Europe’s Jews, shows that it can happen here. And that it is happening here.
    Zoroastrians in Persia, or Christians in Byzantium, for all practical purposes, has been wiped out in their original native lands. Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh are going the same way.
    John Wesley, ” Such was, and is to this day, the rage, the fury, the revenge, of these destroyers of human kind”.

  • tripp 08/19/2010 at 12:56

    Ms. Glick, I never fail to glean regular common sense from your postings. More Americans need to read your column. Maybe something will sink in.

  • Bill K. 08/19/2010 at 16:28

    There is an excellent article by Paul Hsieh at the American Thinker with the title ‘The Real Problem Is Not the Mosque, but the Nukes’ :
    “All the energy devoted to this issue of the Ground Zero Mosque is distracting us from the far more serious problem of Iran’s nuclear weapons program. If this more fundamental problem is properly addressed, then the NYC mosque issue will become irrelevant. Conversely, if America doesn’t deal with this more fundamental problem, then any legal or political maneuvers to stop the NYC mosque — even if successful — will make little difference in the long run.
    “Opponents of the mosque argue that allowing its construction near the ruins of the World Trade Center would symbolize America’s weakness and would embolden anti-American, anti-Western Islamists around the world. While true, the reason why America is perceived as weak against the Islamists is because we are. And nothing illustrates this more than our current policy (or lack thereof) toward Iran’s nuclear program.”
    Hsieh cuts to the crux of the conflict between the West as typified by the United States and Islamism. By and large the Islamist’s are winning because of a policy of appeasement by the U.S. This is most evident in our policy towards Iran. The mullahs will have the bomb in short order, the United States is not lifting a finger to stop them and a scenario not unlike 1939 will start all over again. Hsieh has the solution:
    “Given this untenable situation, how should the U.S. respond?
    “Fortunately, Duke University professor John Lewis offers a solution in his article in the Winter 2006-2007 issue of The Objective Standard, “‘No Substitute for Victory’: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism.” In this article, he contrasts the current weak American approach towards Iran with the much stronger approach we adopted in World War II against Germany and Japan.
    “Lewis observes that “[a] strong offense does not create new enemies; it defeats existing foes. Were this not so, we would be fighting German and Japanese suicide bombers today, while North Korea — undefeated by America — would be peaceful, prosperous, and free.”
    “Drawing on past historical experience, Lewis concludes that
    “1) We have to explicitly identify the enemy as such — namely, the ideology of Islamic Totalitarianism.
    “2) We have to commit to victory over that enemy and its primary state sponsor, Iran.”


Leave a Comment