RICH LOWRY: PRESIDENT INCOMPLETE? ‘Are people better off than they were four years ago?” is hardly a trick question. It’s one of the most reliable clichés in American politics. So Governor Martin O’Malley, a Democrat from Maryland, should have been ready with some handy dodge when he was asked the question by Bob Schieffer of Face the Nation. […]


Islam vs. Man’s Best Friend?

Not long ago, I took my dog Shiba for an afternoon workout at our town beach on the Ottawa River, a lovely crescent of yellow sand and shade trees patronized by visitors from as far away as Montreal. A pure Siberian husky packing the energy of the Big Bang in her muscles, Shiba looks forward to these outings when she can entertain herself swimming furiously toward the horizon after lobbed twigs and tennis balls. With her striking white pelt, blue eyes, children-loving temperament and dolphin-like swimming motion, she is generally the center of attention and has made many admiring friends among the company of beach-goers.

Not everyone, however, is appreciative of Shiba’s playful and rambunctious presence. As I was about to launch another tennis ball for her to retrieve, I was approached by two attractive, deeply tanned young women who objected to Shiba’s performance, or, rather, to Shiba herself. They demanded that we cease and desist. When I inquired why I should comply, I was informed that dogs were unclean creatures and that Shiba prevented them from bathing since the water would be polluted by her thrashing about.

Needless to say, I was initially taken aback. After all, Shiba was a community favorite who posed no threat to anyone. Moreover, the women were not local residents but visitors from the big city. Additionally, my municipal taxes paid for the upkeep of the beach, which they enjoyed at no cost to themselves. The plain fact was that they had no stake in the matter and were, to put it somewhat wryly, completely out of their depth.

But, as my readers have surmised, they were of the Islamic persuasion. True, they were not garbed in traditional dress and seemed for all intents and purposes to be “modern” young women; yet they had no compunction against affirming their traditional and, indeed, alien values, which they attempted to impose as of right. I did my best to remain polite, but could not resist suggesting that they find some other beach to visit and that Shiba, whose license I had also paid for and who was more of a resident than they were, was far more entitled to the privilege of the river than interlopers from elsewhere.


“In May 2007 a small group of religious leaders met in the E.U. headquarters in Brussels with the three most significant leaders of Europe: Angela Merkel, German Chancellor and at the time president of the European Council; Jose-Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission; and Hans-Gert Pöttering, President of the European Parliament.

The meeting was one of those semiformal occasions at which little is said, and a great deal of time taken in saying it. Concerned at the return of anti-Semitism to Europe within living memory of the Holocaust, I decided that the time had come to break protocol and speak plainly, even bluntly.

I gave the shortest speech of my life. Sitting directly opposite the three leaders, I said this:

“Jews and Europe go back a long way. The experience of Jews in Europe has added several words to the human vocabulary — words like expulsion, public disputation, forced conversion, inquisition, auto-da-fe, blood libel, ghetto and pogrom, without even mentioning the word Holocaust. That is the past. My concern is with the future. Today the Jews of Europe are asking whether there is a future for Jews in Europe, and that should concern you, the leaders of Europe”….

So recalled the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of Britain and the Commonwealth, Lord Sacks, earlier this year, against the backdrop of Germany’s assault on circumcision. He went on:


Am I the only one who is disgusted by the rebranding of Bill Clinton? Well, perhaps just some of the victims of the Rwanda genocide agree with me. After all, this great humanist completely ignored the brutality, the violence, the horror in Rwanda. He did sort of apologize for that omission. This is also the man who had a chance to capture Obama in Khartoum but under the advice of stocking stuffer Sandy Berger and his comely Secretary of State he nixed the offer from Khartoum. Lo0k, cut him a little slack. He was too busy trying to corner Israel into signing a suicide note for Yasser Arafat at the Wye Plantation.

And there was that little dalliance..but never mind. Even John Edwards wanted to be President. That’s just the unending Spitzerama of the Democrats.

And, how about this nugget? You think only Obama falterS on Iran? Here is Bill in his own words in an interview by Charlie Rose during the 2005 Economic Forum in Davos:

Clinton: …” Iran’s a whole different kettle of fish—but it’s a sad story that really began in the 1950s when the United States deposed Mr. Mossadegh, who was an elected parliamentary democrat, and brought the Shah back in—] and then he was overturned by the Ayatollah Khomeini, driving us into the arms of one Saddam Hussein. Most of the terrible things Saddam Hussein did in the 1980s he did with the full, knowing support of the United States government, because he was in Iran, and Iran was what it was because we got rid of the parliamentary democracy back in the ’50s; at least, that is my belief.I know it is not popular for an American ever to say anything like this, but I think it’s true and I apologized when President Khatami was elected. I publicly acknowledged that the United States had actively overthrown Mossadegh and I apologized for it, and I hope that we could have some rapprochement with Iran. I think basically the Europeans’ initiative to Iran to try to figure out a way to defuse the nuclear crisis is a good one.”

And then he continued with this one:

But Iran is the most perplexing problem … we face, for the following reasons: It is the only country in the world with two governments, and the only country in the world that has now had six elections since the first election of President Khatami. [It is] the only one with elections, including the United States, including Israel, including you name it, where the liberals, or the progressives, have won two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote in six elections: two for President; two for the parliament, the Majlis; two for the mayoralities.

In every single election, the guys I identify with got two-thirds to 70% of the vote. There is no other country in the world I can say that about, certainly not my own.


“Whither goest thou, America, in thy shiny car in the night?” Jack Kerouac asked in On the Road That was the Fifties. That shiny car is pretty beat up these days. It’s supposed to get 100 miles to the gallon, so long as the temperature never drops below 75 and the gasoline has additives like the joy of children and the smiles of unicorns. And you can’t buy the car because you can’t get approved for that loan. Instead you ride a bicycle, pedaling furiously, dodging trucks delivering goods from factories in Shanghai, on your way to a job that may not last.
“What do we want” is the ritual chant of every political assembly. The RNC’s chant is jobs. The DNC’s chant is abortion. Both are solutions of a sort. There are two ways to tackle unemployment. You can either make more jobs or make less people. If you make more jobs then families will make more little people and be able to afford them. If you make less people, then singles will be more economically secure but unable to start families.

“Whither goest thou, America,” the pollsters and pundits asked the country four years ago. And the answer was a superwide highway lined with shovel-ready jobs and a new era in history. We drove on that highway and went as fast as we could, and still we could not escape the blight in every direction. The faster we drove, the worse it got. The gasoline cost a fortune and there were no jobs to be found to pay for it.

As night gave way not to morning but a sullen overclouded dusk, we realized that we had taken the wrong road. We were no longer in America anymore. Maybe we were in Mexico or Pakistan. It was hard to say where exactly the dark highway had taken us, but the place we were at now was not the place we wanted to be.

Down the road was a strange place rife with political corruption, everyone had a hand out for a bribe and there was no longer a highway, just a million dirt roads segregated by race and gender, by class and creed, where all the drivers are angry all the time and the traffic cops are there to spread the misery in equal proportion. It might be Russia or Ecuador, it might be anywhere, but it’s not America.



Forty years ago, on September 5, 1972, eight Arab terrorists broke into the Israeli apartments at the Munich Olympic village, murdered two athletes, and took nine hostage. After a day of failed negotiations, aborted rescue attempts, and a shootout at nearby Fürstenfeldbruck airport, not a single hostage survived. A month later, the Germans compounded what Simon Reeve, in his seminal book One Day in September, called their “criminally shambolic failure” to rescue the Israeli hostages: The terrorist group Black September hijacked a Lufthansa jet and demanded the release of the three surviving Munich terrorists; the Germans complied.

Good books have been written about the Munich massacre, but David Clay Large’s recent Munich 1972: Tragedy, Terror, and Triumph at the Olympic Games isn’t one of them. There is no triumph in this book, and not enough about terror and tragedy. Unlike Reeve’s book or Aaron J. Klein’s excellent Striking Back, Munich 1972 is about sports, not terrorism. Large thinks it a great shame that terror ruined the ’72 Games and overshadowed the great sporting events that took place there.

In this respect, Large is in tune with the times. The International Olympic Committee refused to honor the Israeli dead with a moment of silence at the London Games. (They refuse at every Olympics.) IOC President Jacques Rogge said “the Opening Ceremony is an atmosphere that is not fit to remember such a tragic incident.” The chairman of the Palestinian Olympic Committee thanked Rogge in a letter: “Sport must not be a cause for divisiveness and for the spreading of racism.”

Large describes the massacre and continues with the Munich Games (just as the Games were continued over Israeli objections). He doesn’t seem to grasp that America’s loss to East Germany in pole-vaulting (for example) is so unspeakably trivial in comparison to the terrorist outrage that the attention he gives it is embarrassing.

Large regards himself as a historian above history. He calls the Black September terrorists fedayeen (“self-sacrificers,” their own preferred name) and compares them to Zionists, who “frequently resorted to terror tactics in their own struggle.” He makes nothing of the Irgun’s having attacked military targets, while Black September targeted civilians. “Apologists,” Large writes, “will undoubtedly deny the claim [of] ‘innocence’ for the Israeli Olympians on grounds that no Israeli could ever be innocent.” Large does not endorse this view; neither does he reject it. Faults on both sides, tit-for-tat.

Large assumes the legitimacy of the Palestinian “grievance.” World opinion—even Israeli opinion—increasingly seems to agree. Where does the idea come from?


It was 1956 and the cost of a gallon of gas was .22 cents a gallon, the average price of a new home was $11,700.00 and the box office movie hit was “The 10 Commandments” starring Charlton Heston.

Interestingly, 1956 was the year that the U.N. dispatched the world’s first peacekeeping force and it was because of Egypt; it was due to the Suez crisis after Egyptian President Abdul Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal Company bringing Egypt, Israel, France and the U.K. to war.

The movie “The 10 Commandments” was the story of Moses who is commanded by God to return to Egypt to free the Hebrews from slavery. The most famous line in the movie is undoubtedly when Moses stands before the Pharaoh Rameses and demands “let my people go!”

That same story of “Exodus” can be heard each and every year the world over when Jews celebrate the Passover holiday which commemorates the emancipation of the Israelites from slavery in ancient Egypt.

Fast forward to 2012, gas is averaging $3.82 a gallon, the average price for a new home is $372,000.00 and the last functioning synagogue in Egypt has been closed.

It’s rare for me to have difficulty writing an article given the fact that I concentrate on Israel, the Middle East, terrorism and Islam. However when something news worthy occurs, but no news outlets report it, it is almost impossible.


The Jewish community of Boynton Beach Florida has sponsored an event on who the Jews might support in the upcoming presidential election. Boynton Beach is not alone. Jewish communities all over Florida are in the process of deciding how to cast their vote. Although I am not a Florida resident, let me explain the conditions an American Jew should consider in entering that November election booth.

Although President Obama has indicated he is a staunch ally of Israel and speaks passionately of the bonds that cannot be severed, his actions reveal a different sentiment.

When candidate Obama attended an AIPAC meeting, he said unequivocally that Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel. Recently his aides were asked to name the capital of Israel. They were unable (unwilling?) to do so.


David J. Rusin of the Middle East Forum recently published an article on Islamist Watch about the vandalizing of “anti-Islamic” ads. He reveals just how pervasive the phenomenon is worldwide.

When Cyrus McGoldrick, advocacy director for the New York office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), logged into Facebook on August 12 to hint at his desire to vandalize anti-jihad ads that may soon run on city buses, he did not simply underline CAIR’s troubling attitude toward free expression. McGoldrick’s words – and the subsequent actions of others – have illuminated an overlooked aspect of the Islamist assault on Western speech: the defacement, if not obliteration, of political and commercial messages.

Of particular interest is the destruction of print or commercial ads of scantily clad women. I find this interesting because of the near psychotic or pathological mindset about women that Islam inculcates in Muslim men.

This phenomenon has been especially prevalent in the UK. A Times of London article revealed in 2005 that Muslims Against Advertising (MAAD) had launched a website with instructions on how to vandalize ads and which ones to select. “There is no longer any need to cringe as you walk past a sleazy poster,” the group declared. “We’ll improve it.” Many answered the call, as ads pitching bras, beauty products, and even television programs were trashed. “Photographs of semi-dressed women are the most frequently targeted, with the offending body parts painted over or ripped off,” the Times observed. In a telling example, thugs destroyed images of scantily clad women on an East London billboard promoting the series Desperate Housewives, but fully clothed characters were untouched. Responding to the controversy, leading British Islamist Ahmed Sheikh argued that “freedom of speech should end when you offend others.”

Cultural jihad, or the de facto imposition of Sharia law on Western non-Muslims, is insidiously accumulative. In Britain it begins with such things as complaining about images or figures of pigs that Muslims might see in a bank or a shop. They are removed so that Muslims are not offended. Next will come a complaint about halal food not being served in restaurants and schools. Non-Muslims will be served it, as well, with or without their knowledge. Next will be a complaint that one must have some place to pray five times a day, and if an employer does not provide such a space, the street outside will do just as well, and damn the traffic jam caused by hundreds of Muslims mooning non-Muslims as they express their obeisance to a rock thousands of miles away.

Language must also be altered to preempt potential offense. Muslim criminal suspects are called “Asians.” Polygamy is taboo among non-Muslims, but Muslim men collecting welfare and enjoying subsidized housing may have several dependent wives and a dozen dependent children. The taxes collected to pay for their special welfare is a form of jizya, or a tax levied on conquered infidels. Muslims may demonstrate en masse, displaying signs that damn freedom of speech, sneer at British culture, warn of violence if non-Muslims resist, and predict the Islamization of Britain, and not be charged with hate speech. Any other group behaving in such an obnoxious manner would see its members hauled into court.

Criticism of Islam is forbidden and regarded as “defamation,” “bigotry,” or “racism.” Muslim activists are aggressive in this respect, going after not only titillating ads but serious discussions of Islam. Rusin writes:

Islamists also have adapted to the information age, recognizing that much of the Western speech they despise now exists online. Al-Azhar University scholars, representatives of the highest religious authority in the Sunni Muslim world, even crafted a fatwa in 2008 that sanctions hacking for the purposes of jihad. Therefore, those who criticize Islam or otherwise offend its followers often find that their freedom of expression is no safer on the internet than it is on a Tower Hamlets billboard.

Arab News sympathetically profiled one such hacker, a Saudi native, in 2011. “An Alkhobar woman studying in the United States is taking credit for destroying 23 Danish websites that denigrated the Prophet Muhammad,” the piece begins, relaying material originally published by an Arabic-language source. “Nouf Rashid told the Arabic newspaper she was hacking into Danish websites having references to cartoons of the Prophet along with other sites that had questionable content in her view,” including pornographic ones.

The focus here, however, is the pseudo-ironic and psychotic symbiosis between a creed/ideology that finds bare female anatomy offensive, yet is lured to it in spite of the proscriptions against it.

There is a link between such vandalizing and the rape and often disfigurement of non-Muslim women in Europe by Muslims, the “sex slave” rings recently exposed in Britain, and the honor-killings of Muslim-born women and girls who break Islamic rules and “go Western.” This has everything to do with the Muslim dictum compelling women to cover themselves up as much as possible in burqas, veils or some other form of self-effacing garb, depending on the Islamic sect.

The phenomenon swings wildly, like bipolar dysfunction, between the vigilante censorship described by Rusin and incidents such as the rape of Lara Logan in Cairo, in which her clothes were ripped from her and even part of her hair torn out during the assault. That was not the only such incident endured by Western women in Cairo, but it is the most notorious. Her attackers wished to extinguish Logan, to wipe her out of existence.

This is the behavior of nihilists.

However, these incidents are all connected to the same criminal psychosis (or pathology) that is part and parcel of strict and even “moderate” Islamic upbringing. It is a concerted ideology that wishes to blank out women’s existence, to negate it, to obliterate it. On the surface, this “gendercidal” wish seems based on the Islamic perception of men as uncontrollable demons who lose all reason and restraint at the sight of a bare ankle or arm or coiffed or perfumed hair or inviting lips or seductive eyes. Hide these things, and the libidos of Muslim men will not be triggered to launch criminal assaults.

If they are not hidden, a Muslim man cannot be held responsible for his criminal actions. If a woman is attacked, it is her fault, because her “immodesty” is regarded as the invitation of a whore or prostitute. Unveiled or uncovered women are just “meat” to be consumed by sex-starved Muslim maniacs. They can’t help it, and so are forgiven. So goes the anti-reasoning. For an overview of the incidence of rape by Muslims of infidel women, see Jamie Glasov’s Front Page article from a year ago in which he discusses the attitude of a Muslim rapist in Australia.


Assad’s war has claimed four times as many victims in 20 months as have been killed in the Israel-Palestine conflict in the last 20 years.

Last month, a group of Scandinavians pulled up anchor from a Swedish port and set off toward the Middle East under the pretense of delivering humanitarian aid. The Nordic fog may have clouded their choice of destination. The moral compass of these self-proclaimed human-rights activists steered them to the Gaza Strip, not Syria.

The fleets of flotillas, ferries, yachts, sailboats, canoes and catamarans and that have set sail for Gaza in recent years rival the size of the Spanish Armada. Yet one might argue that humanitarian flotillas are needed just a bit more urgently in Syria, where more civilians have been murdered by the Assad regime than those killed during Japan’s 2011 earthquake and tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, and 9/11 combined.

The conflict in Syria has also claimed roughly four times as many victims in the past 20 months as were killed in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the past 20 years. The residents of Gaza continue to enjoy more international assistance than virtually any other population on the planet, but almost no aid is reaching the two million people displaced within Syria—roughly 10% of the country’s population.