Posted in: Anti-Semitism, Jihad & Terrorism
Published on Oct 15, 2008 by Phyllis Chesler
No One Talked About Jihad in the Last Great Debate
Granted: Our leaders, both Democrats and Republicans, have allowed the American economy to fail. The pain this has caused and will continue to cause is incalculable. Maybe We, the People should fire everyone in the House and the Senate, hang Wall Street out to dry, and start from scratch--only we can't, that game is rigged against us.
Maybe this dreadful economic failure was the "October surprise" that Obama's people kept promising. A handful of policy pundits have opined that the Arab Oil Cartel and possibly George Soros had a hand in this economic meltdown. I wouldn't be surprised but I'd need to see the smoking gun on this one.
But then there was the matter of the camel in the room. Neither candidate seemed to notice the "rough beast whose hour has come round." Three debates--and neither Obama nor McCain seriously wrestled with the imminent danger of Islamic jihad, Obama because he does not see it that way, McCain because he has chosen not to make an issue of what is possibly the Mother of all issues.
As McCain would say: My friends, America has not only endured 9/11 and its complicated aftermath, we are now faced with a silent jihad, a soft, stealthy, slow and patient imposition of shari'a law in America.
All over our country, Muslim students and leftist professors are being funded to showcase the Big Lies of Palestinian Victimhood and Israeli Evil. And above all, to hate America. Tommorrow, at Georgetown University, the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center
for Muslim-Christian Understanding, is hosting a conference titled: "Is There a Role for Shari'ah in Modern States?" The infamous John Esposito will be speaking and none other than Harvard's Noah Feldman will be delivering the keynote address.
In addition, Muslim students are demanding and receiving separatist halal kitchens in college; heretofore, they shared the kosher facilities with Jewish students but no longer, at least not at Columbia University. Footbaths are being demanded in public spaces, more and more women are walking around fully sheeted or in hijab, one encounters an increasing number of prayer services in the street which have the feel of an aggressive political protest and not a humble, private surrender to God.
All this is accompanied by charges of "Islamophobic racism."
As I sat down to share my thoughts about this final debate, I received an email from a blogger known as "YidwithLid." He did a quick piece of research about one of the men whom Obama, in this last debate, said would be advising him when Obama is in the White House: Senator Richard Lugar. Although Obama has said he is pro-Israel, according to my blogger informant, Lugar is one of the most anti-Israel Senators.
"When, on May 22, 1998, the Senate, by a vote of 90 to 4, passed the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act, imposing sanctions on foreigners who help Iran's missile program, Mr. Lugar fetched up among the four senators who voted against the measure.
On July 24, 2001, the Senate voted 96 to 2 to renew the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act to help deny Iran and Libya money that they would spend on supporting terrorism or acquiring weapons of mass destruction. The only two senators who opposed the measure were Obama's buddies Lugar and Hagel.
On April 6, 2001, 87 members of the Senate sent President Bush a letter saying Yasser Arafat should not be invited to meet with high-level officials in Washington until he renounced terrorism against Israel. Lugar declined to sign the letter.
On April 18, 2002, when the Senate, by 88 to 10, voted to ban the import to America of Iraqi oil until Iraq stopped compensating the families of Palestinian Arab suicide bombers, Messrs. Lugar and Hagel were among the handful who voted to bring in the oil.
In a July 10, 2003, editorial headlined "Ayatollah Lugar," have already reported on how Mr. Lugar watered down the Iran Democracy Act that was introduced by Senators Brownback, Schumer, Kyl, Inouye, and others."
Obama was relaxed, urbane, eloquent, he seemed to be enjoying himself. But Obama kept smiling, even smirking, each time McCain caught him in a lie. I am not sure whether such smiling is sheer arrogance on Obama's part or whether it suggests that this is how he has learned to deal with attacks, pretending that they don't matter, that he's not hurt.
McCain displayed true principle, especially when he talked about his non-ideological ("no litmus test") requirements for Supreme Court nominees, and the fact that he voted for both Breyer and Ginsberg for the highest court in the land. And yet, his heart was not that of a fighter, willing to go that extra distance to draw blood.
Let me close by quoting a member of one of the many Focus groups shown on television tonight. "We are not electing the best debator. We are electing the President of the United States."
Let's try to remember that when we cast our votes.
We are not accepting comments at this time, please go to the Facebook page to generate discussion!