In warfare, winning a battle is called a “tactical success”. To turn a mere tactical success into a “strategic victory” requires pursuing the beaten enemy; hacking down and scattering his fleeing troops, and preventing him from regrouping and renewing the struggle at a later date.

After the twin tactical victories at the battles of Jena and Auerstädt, Napoleon (a man who knew how to exploit a victory) unleashed the masses of his cavalry, under Marshal Murat, in an epic pursuit of the retreating Prussian army. Murat’s horsemen harried the broken Prussians relentlessly, rolling-up and capturing both men and fortresses in an epic 500 mile pursuit in 24 day! The Prussians were given no chance to catch their breath or regain the initiative; and the country soon capitulated to the Corsican conqueror.

It appears as if President Obama and the Democrats are taking a page from Napoleon’s playbook. Smelling blood in the water, they seek to turn a slender tactical victory on election night into a strategic political victory. Pursuing a relentlessly partisan, populist approach the President seeks to pursue the disordered and demoralized Republicans off the looming “fiscal cliff”.

After 3 weeks of leaving them hanging, the President has contemptuously placed before the Republicans an offer that is little more than insulting: a tax hike of $1.6 trillion; in return for an ephemeral promise of addressing essential entitlement cuts sometime in the future.

Sound familiar?

“I will gladly pay you Tuesday, for a hamburger today.”

To add injury to insult, the President is also demanding carte blanche in the future to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally; wresting this power from Congress, from debate or oversight. This would give this most profligate of Presidents an unlimited credit card to continue running up the national debt at his whim.


Such a naked power grab demonstrates the confidence the Democrats have in their ability to push the Republicans to the brink of the cliff; and wrest even the most outrageous of concessions.

An incredulous John Boehner, while stating, “This is not a game”, displayed all too clearly why he is out of his depth. A game is precisely what the Democrats are playing. The problem is, Boehner is playing checkers; the President chess.

The President has a very strong hand, given his proven ability to shift the blame for any crises or disaster onto the Republicans. Obama seems certain that he is in a “no lose” position; and he may be correct.

If the Republicans refuse this unacceptable offer, the President, who is already back on “the campaign trail” demagoguing this issue, will likely (successfully) paint the Republicans as only interested in protecting their “rich friends” and at fault for driving the nation off the fiscal cliff. The Democrats will, amazingly, be able to say that they were the champions of “middle class” tax cuts. And the “beauty part”? Letting us go off the fiscal cliff works just fine for Obama: it will entail automatic tax hikes, something the President deeply desires.

Tax hikes and Republicans to blame: what’s there not to love?

On the other hand, if Obama’s demands are met, he also wins. He will force the Republicans to accept massive tax hikes; contrary to everything the Republican Party has stood for since Ronald Reagan. Their very brand, that of tax cutters and opponents of “big government”, will be undermined as they break their “no new taxes” pledge and leave their supporters disgusted and demoralized. Worse still is that in the mid-term elections of 2014, the Democrats (and the Tea Party) will waste no time throwing this broken promise back in their collective faces, making them choke on it!

History doesn’t always repeat itself, but it often rhymes.

In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan made a similar bargain with the Democrats of his day; giving in to tax hikes in return for promises of future budget cuts. The taxes went into effect; the cuts never materialized. And despite the increased revenues, the Democratic-controlled Congress spent us into deep deficits. Reagan later said it was one of the worst mistakes of his Presidency.

Reagan successor, George H. Bush, made the mistake of making a deal with Congressional Democrats to “raise revenue”; thus breaking his infamous “READ MY LIPS: NO NEW TAXES!” pledge. In a brazen example of chutzpah, the Democrats made him eat that broken promise they had coaxed out of him in the ’92 Presidential election.

Republicans should be wary of falling for this again. As with Lucy always pulling the football out of the reach of a hapless Charlie Brown, the Democrat’s offer of bipartisan deals and promises of future budget cuts and entitlement reform are a trick that never seems to get old.

The President’s offer is not a serious one, if compromise were what he was seeking. It betrays his real purpose: to drive the Republicans and the nation over the fiscal cliff. In a move Napoleon would have approved, he is attempting to turn his narrow victory in November into decisive victory in January.

He may well succeed.



As the President and the Democrats in Congress debate raising our taxes, here is a video from Tim Hawkins sure to bring a smile to your face:


We face warriors whose contempt for peace and human life requires those who truly cherish peace and human life to kill them before they kill us.

November 16, 2012

(Reposted from Yoni The Blogger)
 by Prof. Paul Eidelberg, President
Israel-America Research Institute – Jerusalem & Philadelphia

  Part I. Analysis

The best analysis I have read of America’s foreign policy failings—and this applies to Israel—will be found in the writings of Ralph Peters, a retired American army intelligence officer who worked and studied in dozens of countries as well as in the U.S. Executive office.

If there is a single power the U.S. and Israel underestimates it is the power of collective hatred, meaning the hatred that animates the Arab-Islamic world.

Like their American counterparts, Israel’s ruling elites do not “understand the delicious appeal of hatred.” Steeped in humanism, they avoid the cruel fact that man is a killer. They have learned nothing from the genocidal wars and wholesale massacres of the twentieth century, not merely in Nazi Germany, but also in Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Bangladesh, Iraq, Sudan—to name only a few.

There are human beings who enjoy killing. Even if it be said they are a minority, it does not take many enthusiastic killers, says Peters, to trigger a genocidal war. The Arab Palestinian Authority directs many of these killers and deliberately educates Arab children to emulate them.

Like the United States, Israel plays by rules, some encoded in her own laws, others in international laws, and still others in a humane heritage which is an integral part of the West’s collective consciousness. But Israel’s enemies despise this heritage and Western civilization.

Again and again we find that treaties or agreements mean nothing to our enemies. While we are talk-oriented, our enemies are action-oriented. We mirror-image and think that our enemies are like us, that they want peace, even though they have repeatedly said, “peace means the destruction of Israel.” Israel’s leaders live in a state of denial—or should we say a state of fear and dissembling?

Even the terms we use to describe the enemy—whether we name them “terrorists” or “Islamic fundamentalists” or even “Palestinians”—are misleading. Such terms hinder Israel’s and America’s political and military echelons from developing an appropriate strategy against this implacable and arguably psychotic foe. Ralph Peters calls these terrorists “warriors” because he wants Americans to take terrorists seriously. He clears away the euphemisms by speaking of five different types of warriors—because if we do not understand the enemy, we will lose the war against them.

● One pool of warriors comes from the underclass, a male who has no stake in peace, a loser with little education and little legal earning power. It’s easy to recruit such warriors against the “Great” or against the “Little” Satan. These warriors are bloody savages.

● A second pool of warriors consists of young men who join and fight for the Arab cause. Their savagery increases with the duration and intensity of the conflict.

● A third pool of warriors consists of opportunists, entrepreneurs who profit from the conflict. They traffic in arms and drugs. Their great strength is their cynicism. The Palestinian kleptocracy, led by Mahmoud Abbas, belongs to this pool. This type of warrior is the most likely to be underestimated by wishful-thinking liberals, especially Jews.

● A fourth pool of warriors consists of true believers like Osama bin Laden, or like Abdullah Badran, the 21 year-old university student who blew himself up in a Tel Aviv nightclub. These warriors fight out of religious conviction and are infected with blood lust. They have been spawned by a failed civilization that would rather blame “Americans” or “Zionists” for that civilization’s own shortcomings, its inability to adapt to modernity and compete with the West. They burn with resentment and desire revenge. Perhaps they dimly realize the decadence of their Islamic heritage, and this inflames their fanatical hatred of the culturally superior West.

● The fifth pool consists of dispossessed or otherwise failed military men. Peters considers them the immediate and most dangerous pool of warriors. They become even more dangerous when working together with the true believer.

All of these warriors are habituated to violence; they have no stake in civil order. Unlike soldiers, they do not play by the rules of the Geneva convention; they do not respect human life; treaties mean nothing to them; and they regard compromise as equivalent to prostitution. Negotiation with warriors is sheer folly. We should not negotiate with them until they surrender. Until then, we must overcome sentimentalism. Until then they must be killed.

Unfortunately, Israelis, like Americans, believe that all men want peace, that all conflict can be resolved through compromise and “understanding.” But these killers have no stake in peace. Many would be bored by peace, and would lose honor or be out of a job. You find such men in the Palestinian Authority—in Fatah, Tanzim, Hamas, Hezbollah, and whatever appellations they use to adorn their Jihadic egos.

● American and Israeli opinion-makers refuse to believe that many human beings thrive and profit on disorder and on killing other human beings.

● Americans profit from peace; warriors profit from war, and Israelis suffer the inevitably lethal consequences.

● Both American and Israeli politicians talk facetiously about a war against “terrorism.” This has become a dodge for what should be called a “clash of a civilizations” as recognized by candid and courageous scholars like Professor Samuel Huntington and Syrian-born psychiatrist, Dr. Wafa Sultan, who does not even regard Islam as a civilization since it denigrates reason and tolerance of others.

Also, and as Ralph Peters points out, we refuse to understand that certain human beings cannot accept that their culture is failing. These people don’t realize that they are failing as individuals because of the mode of thought and behavior to which their culture has conditioned them. They want someone to blame, and they want revenge on that someone.

But our academics and intellectual elites—the educators of our politicians, judges, and journalists—are so conditioned by the moral relativism that permeates all levels of education in the democratic world, that they cannot think of Islam as a failed culture. This failure of Islam is acknowledged by the eminent Lebanese-born political scientist Fouad Ajami, author of The Dream Palace of the Arabs. Of course, the naive would accuse this writer of “racism”—but surely one need not be a racist to recognize that Israel’s enemies have some very nasty characteristics:

● They regard Israeli peace overtures as a sign of weakness.

● They have nothing but contempt for Jews who advocate “land for peace.”

● They will not honor any form of agreement a moment longer than it suits their interests.

● Their contempt for human life inevitably leads them to commit atrocities.

We face warriors whose contempt for peace and human life requires those who truly cherish peace and human life to kill them before they kill us.

Part II. What Must Be Done

The Netanyahu Government is following the failed and self-destructive policy of “land for peace” now bearing the mystical mantra “The Two-State Solution.” Hence, let us not succumb to sentimental words. Cold reason and the brutal murder of our loved ones by professional Arab Jew-killers logically and morally compels us to propose a policy of “Kill for Peace”—a harsh policy, but one that would actually reduce Arab as well as Jewish casualties.

The rationality and effectiveness of such a policy is substantiated not only by Ralph Peters but also by the greatest military theorists in history, Carl von Clausewitz and Sun Tzu. Moreover, the thinking of these military geniuses is supported by principles of statecraft enunciated by the great 19th century Austrian statesman, Prince Metternich on whom Henry Kissinger wrote his doctoral dissertation.


Accordingly, we shall now enumerate ten principles of statecraft and rules of warfare required for the policy “Kill for Peace” vis-à-vis Israel’s Janus/two-faced enemies—and these principles must be spelled out in clear cut operational terms:

FIRST PRINCIPLE: A CLEAR OBJECTIVE. A wise and courageous statesman must set forth a clear military goal. For Israel, this goal is the destruction of the entire Arab terrorist network in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. The statesman must tackle this goal vigorously. For this to happen it is necessary that the goal should not only be clear in the eyes of the cabinet, but it should also be made clear in the eyes of the public, and even clearer in the eyes of the enemy. They must recognize that they are facing an unrelenting lethal force that will break them.]

SECOND PRINCIPLE: CLARITY. In this age of publicity the first concern of government must be not only to be right, but, even more important, to see that everything is called by its right name. Israeli statesmen must stop talking about a “peace process” or about “peaceful coexistence”—certainly not about a Palestine state [which is an absurd anti-thesis to Israel’s biblical claim to a Jewish homeland]. Israel is in a war for its survival. In this war there is no substitute for victory.

THIRD PRINCIPLE: NO COMPROMISE. There is no compromising with an uncompromising enemy—an enemy that regards compromise as a sign of weakness.  Israel is confronted by the most evil of enemies—warriors who lust for Jewish blood.

FOURTH PRINCIPLEKILL THE ROOTS. Eliminate the evil at its source, that is, eliminate or sew dissension among the enemy’s leadership, its supporting gangs and infrastructure. Disarming the enemy must be the immediate object of hostilities, for as long as the enemy remains armed, he will wait for a more favorable moment for action.

FITH PRINCIPLE: NO HALF-MEASURES. Know that any strategy conceived in moderate terms will fail because the circumstances confronting Israel are extreme—its very existence is at stake. Therefore, where each of the possible lines of action involves difficulty, the strongest line is the best.

SIXTH PRINCIPLE: ACCEPT THE NEED FOR COLLATERAL DAMAGE. Tell the people of Israel that there will be casualties to Arab non-combatants or civilians. These civilians are not innocent. They elected a government know its goal is to annihilate Israel, a government that uses women and children as human bombs to kill Jews. (WORD WARRIOR’S NOTE: Just as the German people had to suffer for electing and following Hitler and the Nazis; so any do any people who elect and follow extremists leaders or parties. The enemy will use bloody images of their slain civilians, many of whom were put into harm’s way by their own government or leadership, to gain world sympathy and weaken our resolve. This must not be allowed to undermine Israel or the America’s will to win.)

SEVENTH PRINCIPLE: SANE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT. Impose rules of engagement that favor our soldiers, not the enemy. Bomb terrorist havens from the air, rather than endanger Israeli (or American) soldiers by house-to-house combat.

EIGHTH PRINCIPLE: SEIZE AND MAINTAIN THE INITIATIVE. Operate offensively, never passively or defensively, and operate continuously. Give the enemy no rest. Hence, no cease fires, for they allow the enemy to regroup, obtain more weapons, and prepare for deadlier attacks.

NINTH PRINCIPLE: AROUSE RIGHTEOUS FURY AGAINST OUR ENEMIES. Sun Tzu, who actually hated war, warns that “to kill the enemy, men must be roused to anger.” The statesman must exhibit (and inflame) hatred of Israel (and America’s) enemies. King David said, “I hate them, O God, that hate you” (Psalm 139:21). Here the haters of God means those who hate God’s people. (WORD WARRIOR’S NOTE: American and other Western leaders have done a poor job of either identiying our enemies or creating a national consenses to effectively fight back against them. A large measure of the blame for this must be laid squarely in the lap of the Left and the anti-war movement in our countries. They have continuously undermined our resolve, and pettyfogged the vital issues of who our enemies are and how they should be delt with.) 

TENTH PRINCIPLE: DECISIVE, VIOLENT ACTION. Focused and righteous anger, however, is futile if it does not issue in action. Therefore King David writes: “I pursued my enemies and overtook them, and returned not until they were destroyed. I crushed them so that they are not able to rise; …. I pulverized them like dust in the face of the storm …” (Psalm 18:38-43),

This is what must be done to Israel’s sworn and genocidal enemies. We therefore propose that the untried but rational policy of “Kill for Peace” replace the discredited and self-destructive policy of “land for peace.” Obviously this will not be done by the present government. Hence Israel needs a very different kind of government, which is why I-ARI has proposed a unitary executive undistracted by rival parties in the cabinet whose vision extends to nothing more than a larger share of the national budget.

“We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.” George Orwell


The CIA director resigns for a personal misjudgment, alas.

Wall Street Journal
November 10, 2012

This being the United States of America in the Year of Our Lord 2012, it goes without saying that David Petraeus had no choice but to immediately resign the directorship of the Central Intelligence Agency on Friday after revelations of an extramarital affair. As keeper of the nation’s secrets, Mr. Petraeus was uniquely susceptible to the sort of blackmail that knowledge of the affair might have exacted. And as head of an agency of government, he had a responsibility to set a first-class example in personal conduct.

Now remind us why these same considerations might not have applied equally to Dwight D. Eisenhower for his own marital indiscretions as Supreme Allied Commander in the Second World War?

We mention the comparison not to acquit Mr. Petraeus of exercising poor judgment. Nor should it relieve him of a full accounting of his role in the September 11 Benghazi debacle, significant details of which remain far from explained. CBS News reported Friday that Acting CIA Director Michael Morell would testify in Mr. Petraeus’s place at a closed Senate Intelligence Committee hearing next week. But the committee should have the testimony of the man in charge at the time, whatever his personal circumstances now.

Yet it’s also worth recalling that Eisenhower’s liaison with driver Kay Summersby was not treated as grounds for professional defenestration. Maybe our forbears weren’t so morally straightjacketed as we sometimes imagine. Maybe, too, there was more recognition that an indispensable man could be forgiven personal sins. Abraham Lincoln treated rumors of Ulysses S. Grant’s drinking with similar discretion:

Tell me what brand of whiskey that Grant drinks. I would like to send a barrel of it to my other generals.

Mr. Petraeus’s tenure at Langley was probably too brief to form any real judgment of his impact on the hidebound agency. But his record as a strategist and battlefield commander was every bit the equal of Creighton Abrams, Eisenhower or George Patton. His plan and execution for a counterinsurgency campaign, which became known as the Iraq surge, saved the U.S. from a humiliating defeat.

What a pity that his service should come to a premature end through the collision of personal error and a zero-tolerance culture that doesn’t always serve this country well.


Great nations are created and maintained by many factors: an industrious, disciplined, and devoted people; access to natural resources; accident of geography; and, perhaps foremost of all, great men.

One cannot imagine the United States becoming the great nation it remains today without the initial contributions of our amazing collection of Founding Fathers; George Washington most specifically. Nor would we have survived intact as a nation without the fortitude and wisdom of Abraham Lincoln at the helm of our ship of state during our darkest hour. Other great men have risen to meet the challenges of their times, and through their efforts and leadership guided America through difficult circumstances: Roosevelt during the Depression and WWII, or Reagan during the Cold War.

Similarly, one cannot imagine France as obtaining any level of greatness without the efforts of a Charles Martel, Charlemagne, Louis IV (the “Sun King”), or even Napoleon. Where would England have been without the barons at Runnymede, forcing a tyrannical King John to sign the Magna Carta? Would they have survived the crises of the Spanish Armada without a ruler as wise and resolute as Queen Elizabeth I on her throne? Would tiny island Britain have founded a global empire upon which “the sun never set”, without the contributions of less well-known but intrepid individuals, such as the 18th century general, Robert Clive, conqueror of much of India; explorers such as Sir Richard Burton; or fighting admirals such as Lord Horatio Nelson?

The decline and fall of great nations and empires can sometimes be traced (in some part) to the death or fall of their great men. Athens reached its “Golden Age” under the leadership of the statesman and visionary, Pericles. It began to decline (and to lose the Peloponnesian War) upon his death. The Macedonians went from being an obscure and petty kingdom in the barbaric north of Classical Greece to ruling the greatest empire the world had yet (at that date) seen under the leadership and because of the conquests (in 9 event-filled years!) of Alexander the Great. Upon his untimely death at the age of 32, his empire collapsed into warring kingdoms. Much later in history, a tiny German state (one of many what Churchill called “pumpernickel principalities”), Prussia, was propelled from ever-endangered obscurity to Great Power status by the military brilliance of one of her kings, Frederich the Great. It declined sharply after “old Fritz’s” death; until raised again to greatness by the political labors of her brilliant Chancellor, Otto Von Bismarck.

Nations are gifted with great men on rare occasions. Such gifts should not be discarded lightly. HIstory is replete with the grim lessons doled out to nations who mistreated their great leaders.

Belisarius, Byzantium’s greatest general, ended his life a blind beggar in the streets of Constantinople; victim of an ungrateful and jealous emperor’s spite. The Empire he helped to create and maintain by his brilliant campaigns declined sharply after his disappearance from the stage; and his conquests were soon lost entirely.

Bismarck’ crowning achievement was to unify the German states into one empire. His reward was to soon be dismissed from his office by an ungrateful Kaiser; a boorish and incapable statesman who was to lead Germany, disastrously, into WWI.

This week saw the departure, in disgrace, of our greatest living general, David Petraeus. His fall came not as a result of incompetence (as far as we yet know), but because of a personal indiscretion. He, like many great men in history, had a mistress.

If the strict, “zero tolerance” standards imposed by our PC society today had been in effect in previous generations, we would have been deprived prematurely of many of our greatest leaders and military commanders. Thomas Jefferson would never have been our 3rd President; Franklin Roosevelt would have had to resign his office before leading us through the Second World War; “Ike” would have had to resign, perhaps on the eve of the “D-Day” landings at Normandy; Mathew Ridgway, our brilliant commander in Korea, who made a habit of changing mistresses in every one of his wars, would have been pulled down before stopping the Chinese at the 38th parallel (a feat General Omar Bradley called “the greatest feat of personal leadership in the history of the Army”); and John Kennedy would have been dragged through front page mud over innumerable personal liaison’s (including with Marilyn Monroe).

Times have changed, no doubt; but even in today’s politically correct, hypersensitive-to-indiscretions environment, it seems hypocritical for General Petraeus to have to resign for the very thing (on a much more mild scale) than Bill Clinton got a pass on.

The loss of a man of such brilliance from public service should not be taken lightly. Such losses can have deep consequences, unforseen at the time. Future historians, perhaps commenting on the decline of the American Empire, will take not of Petraeus’ fall from grace; and note this milestone, a sign of that America is no longer a serious society capable of greatness, or worthy of Great Power status.


“We have an expression in prize fighting: Everyone has a plan until they’ve been hit. Well my friend, you’ve just been hit. The getting up is up to you.” Ghost and the Darkness (1996); Michael Douglas’ character, hunter Charles Remington, to Val Kilmer’s character, Col. John Patterson

There is no disputing that we conservative Americans took one on the chin last night. Our fond expectations of a Romney landslide victory went up like so much smoke. The best man did not win; but in the real world of adults, that sometimes happens.

Today, we must put aside our despair along with those hopes we nurtured; and get on with life.

The Republic will survive, as will we. Life moves on. History will be written and events will unfold as they will, and we will deal with these as they come.

What we cannot do is give up. We must never give up. Instead, we must adapt to the new realities this election laid out; we must overcome the barriers thrown up, and ultimately we must work for future victories.

I’m going to take a shower, cook a good meal, and start again tomorrow. For there is always another tomorrow.


This from a good friend of mine. He is a self-described “centrist”; who had great doubts about supporting either candidate. In the end, I think he made the right decision; and for the right reasons, as described below.

THE VOICE OF A CENTRIST: WHY I VOTED FOR ROMNEY by Brian Hider, Sand Diego, California

When I vote for an elected official I look at the main themes of their platform, their history, and how their leadership meshes with the needs of the nation. In 2008, I voted for Obama because I believed he could be a great spokesmen for the United States. Someone who could reinvigorate our foreign policy and give credibility back to the main function of the executive branch. I also believed that Obama appeared quite rational and willing to work across party lines to address the darkest days of our most recent economic depression. I detest voting for a party, and try to be as informed and comprehensive about who I vote for as possible.

Some of you may be shocked, but I voted for Romney in this last election.  Why? As much as I sympathize with Obama’s intent to bring in the next Great Society, the hard reality of America’s fiscal situation should scare, or terrify, most people my age who expect to live in these United States for the foreseeable future. Whether you want to admit it or not, Obama simply does not have the political will to address the 7,000 lb. elephant in the room which threatens to bankrupt our country – entitlements. Social Security, Medical, Medicaid, pension this, pension that, and indefinite unemployment extensions to name a few are going to turn this country into Greece in the next 4-8 years if nothing is done NOW. This is not hyperbole, this is reality. The deficit and the fiscal solvency of the United States is the singularly most important issue facing our country. I felt the best President to address the entitlement problem was Romney as Obama has shown 0 interest in the last 4 years of reforming entitlements and I doubt he will do so for his 2nd term. Entitlements are simply too intertwined with Democratic interests for such reform to be palatable. I also doubt Obama is willing to engage in another tough, risky, and difficult task after expending so much political capital trying to push through his faulty health care plan. Would Romney have put on the work gloves and made strides to fix our debt crisis? Perhaps, perhaps not, but I have little confidence Obama will even touch the issue for another 4 years. This makes me extremely concerned.

The 2nd most important issue that is closely tied to the first is economic vitality. Whether people want to admit it or not, corporations are the driving force behind this nation’s quality of life. A strong business and industry sector equals prosperity. Nearly every business owner or article I have read on President Obama complains that he fails to understand that world. In his last 4 years, Obama has provided contradictory policy guidance for our country’s businesses which has made them extremely reluctant to invest. Businesses need policy consistency, and Obama has not furnished this kind of environment for corporations. Secondly, Obama needs to realize that in order to be competitive with foreign nations, he is going to have to compromise on some of his environmental positions. I am an environmentalist; I love this country’s wilderness. But a President needs to balance his environmental positions with the needs of his nation.

 Is (was) Romney a perfect candidate? Certainly not; I despise his position on wanting to cut funding for Planned Parenthood and PBS. And his affiliation with the extremist Tea Party is worrisome. But I had more confidence in his ability to make the tough calls on the biggest threats to our country’s prosperity. I am nervous about the future. Hopefully Obama will be the pragmatist I voted for in 2008 and be willing to focus all of his efforts on the economy and our debt in his 2nd term.

 Great social initiatives mean nothing if your economy can’t support them.


The Truth about American Muslims: Half believe “parodies of Muhammad should be prosecuted criminally in the US, one in eight call for death penalty for insulting Islam, 40% say Sharia should be law of the land!  And 72% support Obama.

In a poll taken by Wenzel Strategies, a public-opinion research and media consulting company, found that a sampling of Muslim American voters hold some startling (though perhaps not surprising) views; way out of the mainstream of American public opinion.

Nearly half of 600 Muslim-American citizens polled (Oct. 22-26) who plan to vote in the 2012 Presidential election believe parodies of Muhammad should be prosecuted criminally in the U.S.; while one in eight say the offense is so serious violators should face the death penalty.

The poll also found 40 percent of Muslims in America believe they should not be judged by U.S. law and the Constitution, but by Shariah standards.

The poll found that more than 72 percent of Muslim Americans said they are definitely supporting Obama, and another 8.5 percent are leaning that direction. Only 11 percent are for Romney.

Nearly 55 percent of the American Muslim voters say the U.S. is on the right track, and another 13 percent are uncertain. Virtually all of the respondents (98 percent) are American citizens and 97 percent are registered to vote.

The most startling statistic in this poll was that almost half of those Muslims surveyed, an astonishing 46 percent, said they believe those Americans who offer criticism or parodies of Islam should face criminal charges; and one in eight respondents said they think those Americans who criticize or parody Islam should face the death penalty! (Another nine percent said they were unsure on the question.)

Wenzel’s poll said 7.2 percent of the respondents said they strongly agree with the idea of execution for those who parody Islam, and another 4.3 percent said they somewhat agree.

While 80 percent said that they somewhat or strongly disagree with the idea, when those who said they were not sure are added, one in five (1/5) Muslims across America cannot say they believe those who criticize Muhammad should be spared the death penalty!

Another interesting statistic: Four in 10 (40%) said Muslims in America should not be judged by U.S. law and the Constitution, but by Islamic Shariah law!

A small percentage said they think the U.S. should establish a separate court system to adjudicate matters involving Muslims.

While the respondents overwhelmingly lean toward the Democratic Party and like the direction Barack Obama, who repeatedly has praised Islam around the world, is leading this nation; they also have a fundamental conflict with American life, expressing objections to the freedom of speech and religion guaranteed in the Constitution. The poll shows that many American Muslims show signs of ambivalence toward the U.S. Constitution generally and the First Amendment specifically.These survey findings show a community in conflict with the foundations of our nation, as many Muslims favor and enjoy the freedoms offered by the U.S. Constitution, including participation in elections here; but at the same time significant percentages want to be treated differently than the average non-Muslim when it comes to legal matters.

39% of Muslims said they believe existing U.S. courts should “consult” Shariah law when adjudicating cases involving Muslims. 21%  the U.S. should establish separate courts based solely on Shariah law to adjudicate cases involving Muslims.

Answers to another question in the survey found that one-third of Muslims (32%) believe Shariah should be the supreme law of the land in the United States.

Another shocking finding from the survey is how Muslims view the religious freedoms of Christians. Asked whether U.S. citizens who are Christians have the right to evangelize Muslims to consider other faiths, 42% said they do not have such a right; while 28% said they were unsure on the question.

One in five (20%) believe in polygamy: Muslim men should be allowed to follow their religion in America and have more than one wife.

58% favored changing the Constitution to outlaw criticism of their religion or of Muhammad.

Nearly one in three (1/3) said Israel either has no right to exist or they were uncertain whether it does.

Robert Spencer, author of Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) said the poll’s results are a disquieting indication that Muslims in the U.S. support Shariah blasphemy laws and want to bring them to the U.S

“This should not surprise anyone”, said Spencer. “There is no reason to believe that Muslims in the U.S. believe in a different form of Islam from that which prevails everywhere else. But it underscores the need for Americans to defend, forthrightly and without apology, the freedom of speech, as it is increasingly embattled today, and to revive and enact anti-Shariah laws nationwide.”

Spencer has authored 12 books on Islam and has led seminars about jihad for the United States Central Command, United States Army Command, the FBI, the Joint Terrorism Task Force and others.