Saturday, November 24, 2007


Reminder from 2000:

American-Jewish voters will make their decision whether to cast their ballot in New York's Senate race for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, or for Republican candidate Rep. Rick Lazio. If Israel's security is a deciding factor in their considerations, then a review of their respective positions BEFORE they became candidates and began running after the key Jewish voting bloc reveals basic differences between the two.

An in-depth study of Congressman Rick Lazio's eight-year track record voting in the House of Representatives on issues related to Israel shows that he has been a 100% supporter of Israel. A member of the Republican Israel Caucus and a member of the House Budget Committee, Lazio has been a consistent supporter of foreign aid bills and the continuation of US aid to Israel. He has also been an outspoken supporter of American recognition of Jerusalem as the undivided Capital of Israel ¬ including signing a Congressional letter to the President urging the transfer of the US Embassy to Jerusalem, and not signing a Congressional letter calling on the President to pressure Israel to stop construction of Jerusalem's Har Homa neighborhood. Lazio has also co-sponsored two pieces of legislation that call for official U.S. recognition and construction of an embassy in Jerusalem. If Israel is the issue, then his record - which is on the record - speaks for itself.


And Hillary Rodham-Clinton? Well, in May 1998, she told a youth conference on Middle East peace in Villars, Switzerland, that she supports the eventual creation of an independent Palestinian state. Her spokesperson, Marsha Berry told reporters: "These remarks are her own personal view." Then, in November 1999, while on a purported State visit to the Middle East, she publicly appeared with Yasser Arafat's wife Suha. With Hillary at her side, Suha Arafat made the deliberately false allegation that "Our [Palestinian] people have been submitted to the daily and intensive use of poisonous gas by the Israeli forces, which has led to an increase in cancer cases among women and children." Mrs. Arafat also accused Israel of contaminating much of the water sources used by Palestinians with "chemical materials" and poisoning Palestinian women and children with toxic gases.

Instead of reacting with outrage, Hillary Clinton sat by silently - and gave her a hug and a kiss when she finished speaking. Later, many hours after the event, and only after a media furor put her on the spot for what many view as a bit more than a mere political "faux pas", Mrs. Clinton called on "all sides" to refrain from "inflammatory rhetoric and baseless accusations" - including Israel, whose leaders made no such accusations. Glossing over this remarkably repugnant affair, Mrs. Clinton has yet to specifically contradict and denounce the monstrous lies uttered by Yasser Arafat's wife in her presence.


Hence, it is no wonder that the American Muslim Alliance chapter in Massachusetts held what it called a "successful fundraiser" for First Lady Hillary Clinton at the Park Plaza Hotel in Boston on June 13, 2000. AMA Massachusetts Chair Tahir Ali said afterwards, "We are attempting to send an important message to all AMA chapters: we must support all who have [Muslim] interests at heart, regardless of what part of the country they are running in."


According to Steve Emerson, a well-known investigative journalist specializing in militant Islamic organizations, the AMA's leaders "have sanctioned terrorism, published anti-Semitic statements, and repeatedly hosted conferences that were forums for denunciations of Jews and exhortations to wage jihad." Faced with pressure on the matter, Mrs. Clinton announced on Oct. 25th that she was returning the $50,000 in campaign contributions raised for her by the AMA. She failed to give a credible explanation as to why it took her more than four months ¬ from June 13th until October 25th ¬ until she saw it necessary to return the money.

Mr. Emerson, in a recent Wall Street Journal article, noted: "As first lady, Mrs. Clinton began in 1996 an outreach program to Muslim leaders in the U.S. With America's Muslim population at some six million and growing, an effort to include the community's leaders in the mainstream of American politics is unquestionably a worthy undertaking. But curiously, nearly all of the leaders with whom Mrs. Clinton elected to meet came from Islamic fundamentalist organizations. A review of the statements, publications and conferences of the groups Mrs. Clinton embraced shows unambiguously that they have long advocated or justified violence. By meeting with these groups, the first lady lent them legitimacy as "mainstream" and "moderate"."

But this should not be unexpected, considering Mrs. Clinton's past radical affiliations. During the 1980's, ultra-liberal lawyer Hillary Rodham-Clinton served on the board of the New World Foundation, which funneled money to the Palestine Liberation Organization, at a time when the PLO was officially recognized by the United States as a terrorist organization.

Similarly, in February 1996, Hillary hosted a reception at the White House for leaders of Hamas-supporting groups such as the American Muslim Council and the Council on American-Islamic Relations. And in January, 1998, Hillary hosted another White House reception honoring Muslim leaders and the Muslim Public Affairs Council who defended militant Islamic fundamentalism and also supported radical Islamic groups.


This, then, is the real Hillary Rodham-Clinton. An ambitious woman willing to utter any banal cliche on behalf of "Israel's security" to placate unaware New York Jewish voters, but one whose pre-Senate race record on Israel is appalling. It's a record of supporting the terrorist PLO, even before the 1993 signing of the first Oslo Agreement on the White House lawn, of ignoring blatant calumny heaped on Israel by Suha Arafat, of supporting the creation of a Palestinian PLO State, of hosting and legitimizing extremist Islamic groups in the United States. Most recently, it included taking campaign contributions from these very same evil, anti-Semitic organizations - until being caught with her hand in the extremist Islamic cookie jar. This is the very same Hillary Rodham-Clinton who now claims to be Israel's friend.

Her record says otherwise.


1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Emerson, a Jew who gets it
A perspective of a moderate Muslim

At the risk of sounding anti-Semitic, I want to say this: either American Jews are completely clueless about the internal struggle inside Islam or they are so cowardly, that they are even afraid to voice their opinion. Or maybe it's a combination of both.

Every time there is a development that involves radical Islam, be it a Mayor of New York attending an Islamist parade, DOJ's officials attending an Islamist conference, or a protester being sued for having the balls to expose an Islamist-sponsored event at an amusement park, the American Jewish community is as quiet as a church mouse. It's like it is not even there.

The effect of this silence is devastating. Not for the Jewish community, not yet. That time is still to come. The silence affects the American Muslim community. Every time moderate Muslims are ignored and Islamists are legitimized (by either direct support from government representatives or silent support of the ADL), radicals gain ground. In the current PC climate, moderate Muslims have pretty much no choice but to keep their mouths shut.

Luckily for us, not everyone in the Jewish community is like that. There are some Jews that are speaking out. One of them is Steven Emerson, who has been warning the West about the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism since before PanAm 103. Most of his current work is focused on exposing the radicals masquerading as the moderates – those radicals who are embraced by the DOJ and the Pentagon, by the mayor of New York Bloomberg (Rudy would never get into bed with terrorist supporters) and the Treasury Department, by the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security, by the Congress and the White House.

There is a war of ideas within Islam, and moderate Muslims are losing. Most of Muslim clergy and Muslim establishment are paid for by the Wahhabis. Moderate Muslims are being run out of Mosques and community centers, and in many cases are physically threatened. Moderate Muslims have no place in the media or public debate, because the place reserved for Muslims is filled by Islamic radicals, who attempt to make criticizing anything Islamic a taboo. According to the Islamists, a Muslim can do no wrong.
1. When a non-Muslim criticizes Islam or Muslims, he/she is an Islamophobe.
2. When a Muslim criticizes Islam or Muslim, he/she is not a real Muslim, therefore see #1.

This is a tactic used by "moderate" Muslims, the darlings of the government and the media. But how can you call someone who praises bin Laden, or has ties to Hamas, or calls for the elimination of Israel, or wants to replace the Constitution with the Koran a moderate? They are anything but moderates, however nobody except for a few people like Steven Emerson seems to notice that. But even when the Emersons of America appeal to the public, they are often being dismissed as alarmists and racists. Well, they are anything, but. You don't have to be a clairvoyant to predict the future when it comes to expansion of radical Islam and extinction of moderate Muslims. All you need to do is get your heads out of the sand.

Why our government is so forgiving and forgetful when it comes to individuals or organizations with known terrorist ties and anti-American views is beyond me. Why the Jewish leaders are so timid when it comes to the subject of radical Islam is incomprehensible.

I thank God every day for people like Steven Emerson, because they are the last glimmer of hope for moderate Muslims.


Original post