Ben Weingarten

Reader. Writer. Thinker. Commentator. Truth Seeker.

Category: National Security (Page 9 of 12)

ESPN Silenced Curt Schilling, So What Would It Say to This Arab Writer Who Compared Hamas to the Nazis?

According to the invaluable MEMRI, an Arab writer named Majed Hadib recently published an article in a PLO-affiliated publication in which he compared Hamas to Hitler and the Nazis.

In particular, he argues that the terrorist group’s tactics are going to lead those under its control to destruction akin to that of the Germans during WWII:

[Hamas’] measures resemble those taken by Hitler when he sought the permission of the Germans to lead Germany and its people towards years of glory. [However,] Hitler led Germany to collapse and division, after murdering, arresting and oppressing the German people. The laws he passed were meant to protect his regime on the one hand, and on the other hand to rally the people behind him and lead Germany towards the ‘glorious skies,’ as he called it. If Hamas continues to march on his path and try to rally the people around it without any comprehensive and unified national strategy, and under the pretext of letting the resistance win – it will lead our people to doom and to the end of its lengthy historic struggle, which is soaked in the blood of martyrs…

The author continues:

Hamas must understand now, before it is too late, that its adherence to the principle of attempting to eliminate the other, the steps it is taking to silence others, its increasing oppression of Palestinian national forces and of the people of Gaza, the legislation of the so-called ‘Mutual Responsibility [Tax] Laws’[2] and the taxation that preceded them, the restriction of general liberties… and the hobbling of all media that oppose its activity – all this will not cause the Palestinian people to rally behind it. This, because the Palestinian people is not a herd, but rather a people with a national cause [which has shown] creativity throughout its lengthy struggle. The attempts to eliminate the national forces of the Palestinian people or suppress them will not enable Hamas to lead [the Palestinians] to victory and to the establishment of a Palestinian state. Rather, [Hamas will lead them] where Hitler led the German people – namely to defeat and years-long destruction.

He concludes:

… Will Hamas learn a lesson and cease seeing the other components of the people as something that must be uprooted in order to strengthen [itself], under the pretext of ‘resistance’ and of leading the people towards victory? Or will it insist on following in Hitler’s footprints by levying taxes, legislating harsh laws, and taking increased security measures – [which] will lead the people to the brink of disaster and cause it to deteriorate for many years, even decades, has happened to Nazi Germany?

Now I grant that the rationale behind the comparison of Nazi Germany to Hamas-controlled Arab is not the one I would have made.

Hamas seeks the annihilation of the Jewish state of Israel, and I think that pretty much says it all. Not to mention the fact that we could loosely trace Hamas’ ideology to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini, one of Hitler’s close allies.

But given the comparison of Hamas to the Nazis, one wonders what ESPN would say.

In the case of current ESPN anchor and former pitching great Curt Schilling, he might have had a more compelling case than this Palestinian author, and his comment was far less pointed.

The image Schilling tweeted, deleted and paid for — with ESPN canceling his telecast assignment for the Little League World Series — made the comparison of Islamic supremacists to Nazis.

(Image Source: Twitter)

(Image Source: Twitter)

Read More

99 Things Worth Reading Every Day If You Possibly Could

One question I get asked frequently by friends and colleagues is, “What do you read?”

CHECK OUT MY “BIG IDEAS WITH BEN WEINGARTEN” PODCAST FEATURING COMPELLING CONVERSATIONS WITH EXCEPTIONAL THINKERS AND DOERS

Without fail, this leaves me fumbling for my phone as I pull up my RSS feeds on Feedly — perhaps a good reflection of the fact that we care more about content these days than brands, plus are incapable of memorizing anything thanks to the moral hazard of smartphones.

Instead of fumbling, I have decided to compile some of my favorite sources into one post that from this point forward I can easily share.

Here are the sources:

Newsletters

1) Ben Domenech’s The Transom
2) Jim Geraghty’s Morning Jolt
3) Matt Levine’s Money Stuff
4) Omri Ceren’s Email Distribution

Websites

1) Abnormal Returns
2) Ace of Spades HQ
3) Algemeiner
4) Althouse
5) American Thinker
6) Andy McCarthy
7) Ann Coulter
8) Breitbart
9) Business Insider
10) Cafe Hayek
11) Caroline Glick
12) Commentary Magazine
13) Conservative Review
14) ConservativeHQ
15) Daniel Greenfield (FrontpageSultan Knish)
16) Debkafile
17) Diana West
18) Drudge
19) Eli Lake
20) FiveThirtyEight
21) Free Banking
22) Free Republic
23) FT Alphaville
24) Gates of Vienna
25) Gatestone Institute
26) Gateway Pundit
27) Gavin McInnes
28) George F. Will
29) Ginni Thomas
30) Hot Air
31) Instapundit
32) Jeffrey Lord
33) Jihad Watch
34) Johnson’s Russia List
35) Josh Rogin
36) Judicial Watch
37) Kurt Schlichter
38) Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion
39) Lucianne.com
40) Melanie Phillips
41) MEMRI
42) Michelle Malkin
43) Monica Crowley
44) Mosaic Magazine
45) National Review Online
46) New York Sun
47) New York Times Editorial Page
48) New York Times Upshot
49) Noisyroom
50) Pajamas Media
51) Patrick Poole
52) Patterico’s Pontifications
53) POLITICO Magazine
54) Powerline
55) RealClear Books
56) RealClear Markets
57) RealClearPolitics
58) Reason Magazine
59) RedState
60) Richard Epstein
61) Roger Kimball
62) Seeking Alpha
63) Small Wars Journal
64) Spengler
65) Steve Coughlin
66) SteynOnline
67) Tablet Magazine
68) The Altucher Confidential
69) The Big Picture
70) The Daily Caller
71) The Daily Reckoning
72) The Daily Signal
73) The Federalist
74) The Freeman
75) The Hill
76) The Long War Journal
77) The Pragmatic Capitalist
78) The Reformed Broker
79) The Times of Israel
80) The Volokh Conspiracy
81) The Washington Times
82) The Weekly Standard
83) The XX Committee
84) TheBlaze
85) Thomas Sowell
86) Townhall
87) TrevorLoudon
88) Truth Revolt
89) Twitchy
90) Wall Street Journal Editorial Page
91) Walter E. Williams
92) Washington Examiner
93) Washington Free Beacon
94) Watchdog.Org
95) Zero Hedge

Brad Thor Talks “Code of Conduct,” Islamic Supremacism vs. the West and Rick Perry 2016

Full Interview

Read More

America’s See-No-Islam Problem Exposed With Boston Jihadism

The Boston Globe published a column in the wake of the shooting of an Islamic State-linked jihadist from Rosindale, Massachusetts that is a quintessential example of why the West is losing to Islamic supremacists.

In “Are Boston terrorism cases a trend?” two Globe authors reach out to several “antiterrorism specialists” and ask why it is that Boston appears to be so “vulnerable to violent extremism.”

Some submit that Boston’s “emergence as an international hub may leave it exposed to strains of radicalized behavior.”

Others find the existence of Boston-based jihadists curious given these jihadists “cannot be traced to one network, and individuals and groups do not appear to be connected.”

One such expert who has written on the Islamic State, J.M. Berger, acknowledges that “There is some degree of social network here that seems to be involved in radical thought.”

Halfway through the Globe article, the reader is left utterly unaware of any link between Boston jihadists and…jihadism. In fact, readers will not find the word “jihadist” in the column.

What readers do see is the lexicon of our see-no-Islam national security establishment, including euphemisms such as “violent extremism,” “homegrown terrorist,” and “radical presence.”

Continue reading at TheBlaze…

Former Fed Prosecutor Andrew McCarthy on Islam and Free Speech, the Patriot Act and Foreign Policy

Full Interview

Read More

Hillary Clinton’s Hypocritical and Totalitarian War on Free Speech

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has suggested that a key litmus test in evaluating prospective Supreme Court appointees would be their willingness to challenge “the right of billionaires to buy elections.”

Presumably, a suitable judge would indicate a desire to overturn the Citizens United decision that struck down a ban on political expenditures by corporations and unions ruled to violate the First Amendment protection of free speech – a case coincidentally centered on Citizen United’s attempt to advertise for and air a film critical of none other than Clinton.

Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks to the reporters at United Nations headquarters, Tuesday, March 10, 2015. Clinton conceded that she should have used a government email to conduct business as secretary of state, saying her decision was simply a matter of "convenience." (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks to the reporters at United Nations headquarters, Tuesday, March 10, 2015. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

In light of recent allegations swirling around the presidential favorite, Clinton’s support of such a position is highly ironic.

For while the former secretary of State may oppose the rights of the wealthy to spend money on politics, she seems to have no such concern with the wealthy spending money on the Clinton Foundation and her husband Bill – all while Hillary served in the Obama administration.

Would Clinton seek a Supreme Court justice who would protect the rights of the likes of Carlos Slim and James Murdoch to contribute to the favored cause of a politician and shower the politician’s spouse with millions for speaking engagements?

If so, this apparent hypocrisy can be read in one of two ways:

  1. Clinton believes that money does not have a corrupting influence so long as it is funneled through “indirect” channels
  2. Clinton believes that the wealthy and powerful ought to bypass funding elections and simply pay politicians outright.

Appearances of impropriety aside, there are a few substantive questions around political speech that Clinton should be required to address.

Why does Clinton believe that the government has a compelling interest in stifling the political speech of any American, rich or poor?

How does Clinton square her supposed advocacy of human rights with her belief in inhibiting the right to free speech — which facilitates the robust and vigorous debate essential to a liberal society?

More generally, given a system in which millions of dollars are spent on losing causes each election cycle on both the left and right, what have Americans to fear about spending so long as laws are enforced equally and impartially regarding “pay-to-play” schemes and other politically corrupt activity?

Continue reading at TheBlaze…

Refugee Resettlement in America: The Nexus of Leftism, Corporatism and the Global Jihad

Full Interview

Read More

Why We Are Losing to Jihadists: In-Depth With The Pentagon’s Leading Expert Stephen Coughlin on Islamic Law/National Security

Full Interview

Read More

America’s Progressive Foreign Policy Imperils Her Survival

Today the men and women who walk the morally decrepit corridors of the White House and State Department of our Republic-turned-social democracy are aiding, abetting and enabling evil.

We find ourselves at a time in history when all of our foes from Islamic supremacists to the Russians and Chinese are ascendant, while America at best retreats and at worst sides with the most dangerous of them.

Barack Obama delivers his statement on the interim Iran deal. (Image Source: Whitehouse.gov/YouTube screengrab)

Barack Obama delivers his statement on the interim Iran deal. (Image Source: Whitehouse.gov/YouTube screengrab)

Our enemies do not fear or respect us, our allies do not trust us and little indicates that the American people are cognizant of the size and scope of the perils that face us.

We are reliving Winston Churchill’s gathering storm in an era when it is questionable whether the majority of American citizens even know who Churchill is, let alone what he did. Many of those who do likely see him first and foremost as a dead white European male.

And unlike in World War II, today we are challenged by Nazis (insofar as Islamic supremacists are genocidal, Jew (and Christian) hating monsters who seek to dominate the world) and Communists (in their Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping-led manifestations.)

In the face of all this, America’s left exhibits two traits that together are fatal: hubris and ignorance.

Leftists have the hubris to believe that they can and should create a world according to their progressive vision – for the good of the people and their own aggrandizement.

Leftists have the ignorance of history and man’s nature that renders them unable to anticipate the dire consequences of their course.

Underlying their actions is the belief that all people are animated by the same goals and aspirations.

Yet different peoples are different. Evil cannot be appeased or assuaged. The world must be seen as it is, not as we wish it to be.

Continue reading at TheBlaze…

20 Foreign Policy Questions For the 2016 Republican Presidential Field

With the race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination officially under way, I thought it apt to share a set of questions on foreign policy — an area in which it is vital that each candidate distinguish himself given the size and scope of the threats we face.

Below are 20 questions the next commander-in-chief will likely be grappling with, and should be able to answer cogently, consistently and comprehensively.

The responses to these queries would serve to elucidate the first principles of each of the potential nominees, and create a clear contrast in terms of their goals, strategies and tactics with respect to protecting and furthering America’s interests both at home and abroad.

1) Define your general foreign policy doctrine, and explain how it will differ from that of President George W. Bush.

2) How should America respond to the metastasization of Sunni and Shiite jihadists in the Middle East?

3) What do you believe would be the consequences of a hegemonic Iran in the region, and what steps might you take to counter her?

4) In the event of a nuclear arms race triggered by Iran, what if anything would you do as president?

5) Will you stand in the way if Israel acts unilaterally to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities?

6) What is in America’s national interest with respect to Syria, and how do you intend to achieve it?

7) Do you believe it a sound policy to arm Muslim groups in the Middle East given the historically negative consequences for the West?

8) What is/are the key lesson(s) of the Iraq War?

9) What is/are the key lesson(s) of Libya?

10) Do you believe the Muslim Brotherhood and its violent and non-violent proxies both in the Middle East and the West pose a direct threat to the United States and her interests, and how will you counter the group’s growing influence?

Continue reading at TheBlaze…

Page 9 of 12

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén