Progressive Immigration Failure in Sweden

Progressives love to point to Sweden as an example of the type of utopian society they believe their agenda creates, but this past week’s riots in Sweden are a direct result of the continuing denial such an agenda demands. In the face of these riots, that denial continues as the press tries hard not to report that the overwhelming majority of rioters are Muslims.

Starting in the 80’s, Sweden began admitting a large number of third world immigrants, creating a generous welfare system to help them settle and assimilate. Economic and political upheaval in countries such as Somalia, Eritrea, Afghanistan and Iraq brought a huge number of Muslims to welcoming Sweden. Rather than assimilate, however, they created their own communities mirroring the values and traditions of their Muslim homelands.

The progressive, non-judgmental attitude prevalent in Sweden not only allowed these communities to shun assimilation, it allowed, and encouraged, an entire generation of Muslim immigrants to grow dependent on the welfare system while being infused with values and traditions that clash with Western societies. The violence towards the West found in the Middle East Muslim world, therefore, became part of their upbringing.

As Sweden tries to address the economic burden of their welfare system and revamp immigration policies, accusations of discrimination abound from those who have benefited most from those progressive policies. The autonomous communities that have been allowed to form are becoming offensive to many and as refusal to change continues, discrimination will undoubtedly occur.

There is much confusion on the part of officials in Sweden concerning the riots. Fully engrossed in progressive idealism, they do not understand how the recipients of their generosity could do such a thing. For those without progressive blinders, it is an inevitable result of being conditioned to welfare and treated with non-judgmental deference.

There is a lesson to be learned from this, but it is highly doubtful progressives here will see it. They have the same idealistic blinders on, believing open immigration and unlimited welfare works. The mainstream media agrees and will continue to conceal the rot such policies bring. They are much too invested to turn back now and will not allow riots in Sweden to be an omen.

David J. Hentosh

Spinning the Boston Bombing

The Washington Post wants us to believe that we are incapable of coming to grips with the Boston bombers because they “don’t neatly fit into pre-existing boxes”. Since they are not dark skinned, our limited brains cannot connect any dots. Race being an obsession of the left, it is the yardstick all are expected to use – for everything.

Also, the fact that the bombing brothers had Muslim affiliations is to be overlooked. Had the brothers been Christians, their religion would certainly have been fair game, but we are to make nothing of their association with a “religion of peace”. As an Atlantic headline chastised all: “The Boston Bombers Were Muslims. So?”

Had the brothers been the first or only Muslims to use terror and random murder for their “cause”, one might agree with the Atlantic. However, only blind, foolish adherence to an agenda allows someone to embrace pretense rather than the reality that another terrorist attack has been perpetrated by Muslims; not Buddhists, Christians, Jews or Scientologists.

The far left’s severe disappointment that the bombing brothers are not white, right-wing, anti-Obama fanatics is being compensated with accusations that “we” are the ones somehow in the wrong. Let down again by their failing idealism, they are spinning as fast as they can to validate an agenda dependent upon denial.

Chris Matthews, a hard core liberal, jumped the gun wondering if Tax Day was a motivation while planting the idea (wish?) that domestic terrorists always come from the right. Once it became known the bombers were Muslims, he spun around and wondered why it was necessary to find out the reason they did it. He not only wants to deny the truth, he wants to bury it to keep his dream alive.

The Obama administration has presented a false sense of security for political gain. Obama’s drone war in a far-away land allows him to pretend he has defeated terrorism. Terrorist threats on US soil are a political liability that shatter the illusion and interfere with his “transformation of America”.

The spin starts at the top.

David J. Hentosh

Obama’s Dangerous Campaigning

Obama’s prime occupation for the past year has been campaigning for re-election. Refusing to ask hard questions, the biased media has been a willing partner in Obama’s attempt to hide his failures in order to get re-elected. Rather than investigate the administration’s glaring missteps and blunders, the media has focused on finding fault with Romney while echoing administration spin. This obsession with re-election has become a danger to the country.

Afghanistan, Obama’s “right” war, is failing and the American death toll is approaching 2000 at a current rate of approximately one per day. That’s slightly less than half the toll from 8 years of the Iraq war, and neither Obama nor the press mentions it. This is a far cry from the nightly reports of war deaths during the Bush administration. Afghanistan, for Obama’s sake, has become a silent, hidden war – and it is failing.

The economy, a definite smear on the Obama administration, continues to be spun as “recovering” in spite of all data and statistics, and voters are being told Obama has saved us from disaster. One need only look around to see the fallacy in this, yet, the spin continues in the hope of repetition becoming fact in voters’ minds.

Perhaps the most dangerous failure of Obama has been on the international front. Iran sneers at Obama and is on the verge of having nuclear weapons. Recent embassy attacks and deaths have been determined to have been planned terrorist actions and the administration is still immersed in blaming them on a video clip. The cover-up is part of a re-election campaign considering danger to the country as irrelevant.

We have had an absentee president for the past year and it is taking a toll. There is no national budget, immigration reform has been ignored, the Middle East is exploding, the economy is failing, class warfare is raging, the race card is alive and well, “green” policies hamper economic recovery, the deficit is increasing, and the media has lost all credibility

Obama’s solution is fund-raising, appearances on “The View” and “David Letterman”, ignoring national leaders, cover-ups, Romney bashing, and empty rhetoric. Four more months of this kind of irresponsible neglect is frightening. Four more years would be disastrous.

David J. Hentosh

1st Amendment Clashes With 7th Century

Egypt’s Islamic and Muslim Brotherhood president, Mohamed Morsi, said the US needs to “fundamentally change its approach to the Arab world, showing greater respect for its values”. Furthermore, he said it was “up to Washington to repair relations with the Arab world and to revitalize the alliance with Egypt”. By “revitalize”, he means keeping the money flowing.

Respect for “values” that include beheadings, honor killings, terrorism, a real war on women (as opposed to US liberals’ twisted version), imposed religion, hating Jews, Christian-bashing, and other such behaviors is not going to happen. Until Morsi, along with the Arab world, stops trying to resurrect 7^th century values from the ash heap of history, there will be no respect.

The Arab world harmed its relations by attempting to force its values and religious beliefs into universal acceptance. Unfortunately, Obama, sympathetic to Arab demands and intent on diminishing US influence, began a policy of appeasement, bolstering confidence in those trying to force changes that mirror 7^th century values. This policy has succeeded only in fanning the flames of fanaticism and unrest in the Middle East.

Thus, Muslim leaders, once again, petitioned the UN to institute universal laws against “blasphemy” in an attempt to force all to bow to their beliefs. Religious fanatics, using a YouTube video as a tool, deliberately fomented riots and violence to assist their agenda. Those blinded by the idealistic notion of moral equivalence believe the ruse and continue to blame the video for this round of violence, thereby, assisting the fanatics in their cause. It is insane.

Religious fanatics are fueled by hate, intent on destruction, and unwilling to compromise. Our 1^st Amendment must never bend to 7^th century values or be affected by the hypersensitivity of these fanatics. The “change” Morsi seeks needs to start with him, his country, and his “Brotherhood”. Blaming the US for the consequences of Arab behavior has become a transparent ploy.

David J. Hentosh

Obama’s Foreign Policy Farce Exposed

Reminiscent of a Baghdad Bob performance, White House press secretary Jay Carney told the press on Friday that the violence occurring around the world at US embassies is “…in response not to United States policy, and not to, obviously, the administration or the American people, but it is in response to a video”.

This, of course, has to be the White House position because Obama told us he was “uniquely qualified” to bring stability to America’s relationships in the Muslim world. Many voters were fooled into believing that his charisma, alone, was enough to calm down Muslim fanatics and that his foreign policy of “throw away the stick and speak softly” was the answer. Worse than that, Obama fooled himself into believing it.

After one term of Obama’s foreign policy, the US has not only lost respect around the world, it has lost influence, credibility, and allies. In the Middle East, fear of US reprisal is no longer a concern for violence-prone fanatics who respect nothing but strength. Obama’s willingness to throw Israel, once a strong ally, under the bus is welcomed by most Middle East Arabs, but it is also a sign of weakness. That weakness is blood in the water for terrorist sharks, as is appeasement.

Iran has certainly taken advantage of Obama’s weakness and is fast approaching a viable nuclear weapon. Having arrogantly announced his intent of wiping Israel off the map, Armajinedad openly sneers at Obama and the UN, knowing there is nothing to fear from continuing his efforts. Without the “stick” of the US, the UN is even more useless than it has been. Israel, abandoned by Obama’s foreign policy, fully understands the danger and is on the verge of a military attack which will explode the Middle East.

Obama’s foreign policy farce is now being exposed, as were his other failed policies. He has nothing but to campaign on contraceptives, taxing rich people, abortion rights, gay marriage, and issues that prey on emotions. It would be very dangerous for voters to be fooled again.

David J. Hentosh

Media Spins Embassy Attacks

Stop the foolishness and charade. The attacks on our embassies in the Middle East were not caused by a stupid movie. The root cause is hatred of the US that has been deliberately planted and nurtured by Islamic militants wanting to control not only the Arab world, but the entire world.

Their goal is to eradicate both Israel and the US, the two biggest impediments to their mission, and erase centuries of world progress that reduced Arab influence. The desired result is the forced implementation of their distorted version of Sharia Law.

Blaming a filmmaker, as blaming a cartoonist, for violent protests is a smoke screen. Apologizing for an individual’s freedom of expression in a free society is not an appropriate official, or media, response.

The movie was just another excuse for violence against the US. Yes, many Muslims were offended by the movie and decided, or were coerced, to protest. However, the current media debate about whether violence was premeditated or not is just a politically correct attempt to spin reality. Bringing RPG’s to a “peaceful” protest does not require a deep analysis of intent. Doing so on 9/11 is too obvious to be a coincidence.

Furthering the media’s folly has been the intense focus on Romney’s remarks rather than on the administration’s response, or lack of. Turning this into an all-out Romney-bashing event is a transparent low for the media. Attempts to appease Islamic sensitivities are the main thrust of so-called “journalistic” queries that do not center on Romney. Protecting Obama from pre-election negativity is foremost.

There are now rumors circulating about foreknowledge of the attacks by the administration, but the biased media will not tarnish Obama. Those rumors will have to be vetted by independent investigators and, if true, forced onto the mainstream media for reporting. Until that time, we will be subjected to more appeasement attempts, praise for Obama, and Romney-bashing rather than journalism. In other words, the same old daily news casts.

David J. Hentosh

Progressive’s Ignorant Moral Equivalence

For years, progressive liberals have considered moral equivalence a basic tenant of their ideology. President Obama, nurtured by that ideology, brought moral equivalence into the White House as a guiding principle for his personal mission to “transform” America. World events, however, repeatedly show that moral equivalence is not only foolish,it is dangerous.

The events of 9/11 clearly showed the danger radical Islamists pose. However, many treated 9/11 as an opportunity for demanding sympathy for other cultures. Political correctness, coupled with liberal guilt, has produced apologists wrapped in moral equivalency idealistically trying to rationalize uncivilized behavior.

What, exactly, is equivalent in our current culture to rioting and killing over offense at a cartoon or a movie? How many embassies were stormed and how many diplomats were killed when a Saudi cleric offensively claimed on TV that Jewish people used human blood in holiday pastries? How many violent Christian riots broke out when gunmen in Pakistan went door-to-door killing Christians and burning their homes?

Muslim honor killings, where daughters or sisters are killed for shaming the family (sometimes by just being raped) do not equate with our so-called “war on women” that forces a 31-yr-old woman to pay for her own contraceptives and stops a pregnant woman from aborting because the fetus is of the wrong sex. The legal requirement for woman to wear a stifling burka at all times bears little resemblance to laws requiring exotic dancers to wear pasties.

Adherence to moral equivalence breeds the kind of stupidity displayed on MSNBC by Time magazine’s Rana Foroohar. She made a comparison of the clerics and mullahs fueling violent outrage in Egypt to Glenn Beck. Really? How many violent riots and murders has Beck caused? Which embassy was stormed at Beck’s urging?

The more uncivilized behavior is tolerated, the more it occurs. That is the inherent and inevitable danger moral equivalency creates. One can honorably strive to be non-judgmental, but there must be a limit. With our embassy being stormed and personnel being killed in Egypt, a limit certainly has been reached and it would be reasonable to stop the flow of billions of US dollars being given to that hostile nation. Is that too judgmental? How about just firing Time magazine’s Rana Foroohar for blatant stupidity?

David J. Hentosh

Obama International Failure Worse than UN Failure

The total failure of the UN concerning Iran, terrorism, and human rights issues is glaringly evident. The UN has been useless for years, internationally accepted as being little more than a stage for blustery rhetoric and hollow threats. Obama’s failure, however, has emboldened aggressive nation’s leaders, making it much more dangerous.

Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has benefited the most from Obama’s failure, bringing his nuclear weapons program to near fruition with impunity. Obama’s “multi-lateral approach” has failed to enforce US sanctions against Iran and, instead, has granted exemptions from those sanctions to all of Iran’s oil-trading partners.

Speaking at Tehran University, Ahmadinejad arrogantly proclaimed: “The existence of the Zionist regime is an insult to all humanity” and confronting Israel is an effort to “protect the dignity of all human beings”. Israel is on the brink of attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities to prevent an Iranian nuclear attack, but Ahmadinejad seems confident Israel will not get needed support from Obama to do that. Obama’s weakness is responsible for Ahmadinejad’s confidence and increasing aggression.

Not so coincidently, Saudi cleric Salman Al-Odeh declared on an Arab TV station that the Holocaust is an “exaggeration” and that Jewish people consume the blood of children. He elaborated seriously on this despicable Arab-propagated myth, deliberately stirring up hatred. This comes from a cleric in a supposedly US-friendly nation, preparing followers for active aggression against Israel. No US response is expected.

Obama’s failure to act during the Arab Spring takeover of Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood has doomed that country. There are now reports that radical Muslims in Egypt are actually crucifying opponents of their president, Mohammed Morsi, on trees outside the presidential palace. There is no fear of reprisal from Obama.

Obama was weaned on a far-left agenda treating all cultures and nations with moral equivalence, except the United States, which is judged to be malevolent. Obama’s international failure is a direct result of that agenda. Heavily invested in Obama, the liberal media has tried to hide that failure, but the consequences are now too evident.

We are on the brink of a Middle East explosion, and Obama helped light the fuse. The UN’s incompetency pales in comparison.

David J. Hentosh

Islamists Calling for Destruction in Egypt

Egypt under the new Muslim Brotherhood president, Mohamed Morsi, could end up looking very different than the Egypt the world knows. Morsi may be the Arab world’s first elected leader, but he is being pressured, and even expected by some, to follow the militant Islamic vision. It may be very wishful thinking to say that democracy is coming to Egypt.

In Timbuktu, militant Islamists destroyed two ancient tombs that were classified as a world heritage site by UNESCO. Other ancient mausoleums in the city viewed by the militants to be “idolatrous” have also been destroyed. This wanton destruction of religious and historic landmarks, condemned by much of the world, is being desired by some in Egypt.

There have been recent reports of prominent Muslim clerics calling for the destruction of Egypt’s Great Pyramids because they, too, are “symbols of paganism”. Sensing that the time may be ripe for further changes because of a Muslim Brotherhood president, calls are also being made to legalize Islamic sex-slave marriage and to institute “morality police”.

Egypt’s Tourism Minister, Muneer Fakhry Abdul Nour, seems to be deaf to those calls. With the country’s tourism industry already suffering badly, he says he is very optimistic, expecting an “unprecedented” increase in tourists in the second half of this year. Perhaps tourists would actually come to watch the difficult task of destroying the pyramids, but militant Islamists running wild and morality police on the prowl would tend to dampen that attraction.

Change in Egypt may come swiftly, but change for the better is an entirely different matter. The Islamic militant’s idea of progress hinges on a nostalgic look backward. That past era of repression has no place in today’s world, but that doesn’t stop the militants from trying to carve out a place for it using violent force. Unfortunately, Egypt may have become ripe for carving.

David J. Hentosh

Egypt’s “Liberal” Presidential Candidate

Abdel-Moneim Abolfotoh, once a leading figure in the Muslim Brotherhood, has been labeled a “liberal Islamist” and is one of the front-runners in this week’s presidential election in Egypt. His “liberal” view that a Christian should be able to run for president of Egypt has brought controversy to the race.

Abolfotoh also holds the “truther” view that the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States were the result of a conspiracy because “it was too big an operation” to be carried out without inside help. This, too, puts him in a somewhat unique position and should endear him to some here who believe the same.

He has tried to soften his stance on Christian presidential candidates by stating that Egypt “cannot have a president who does not have an Islamist orientation.” This, of course, tries to appease those who hold a much harder line, but the damage may be done. Popular opinion in Egypt is certainly not on the side of Christians.

There is little hope, however, that Egypt would bring positive change for the Middle East if Abolfotoh is elected. He considers Israel an enemy, calling the peace treaty with Israel a national security threat. He has also been endorsed by a known terrorist organization and favors implementing Shariah law which polls show appeals to the majority.

Egypt will elect a new president and it may well be the “progressive” candidate, Abolfotoh. Unfortunately, any progress Egypt makes as a result may end up backwards.

David J. Hentosh