Barack Obama, and his Democrat Gang of Village Idiots (Better known as Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Schumer, and the rest of the Congressional Democrats), has an uncanny ability to do exactly the opposite of what is the right thing to do when a solution, or change, seems necessary to them. For example, a discrepancy between the percentage that can be written off as a tax deduction between the wealthy and the not-so-wealthy in regards to giving to charity caused Obama and gang to decide the percentages needed to be made the same. So, to solve this perceived inequity, Obama decided to reduce the percentage that can be written off on taxes to 28 percent for families making more than $250,000 - which is in line with the percentage the lower incomes receive for charitable donations. As a result, the possible consequence is that the new limits on charitable tax deductions for wealthy people could dampen the willingness to give to charities at a time when charities are under severe strain because of the economic downturn. In fact, Several billion dollars could be lost in charitable gifts because of the tax proposal, say philanthropy scholars. So, to make the percentages even and fair (fair is one of the left's favorite words when it comes to their dreams of a utopian society), why didn't the Democrats leave the percentage that can be written off for taxes for the wealthy where it was, and raise the percentage of the amount the lower incomes could write off instead? Wouldn't that have had a more stimulative effect? In turn, more people would donate more, and with the increase of donations, in the long run, charitable organizations would have more resources, thus reducing the government's perceived need to do whatever they think they must do for the poor and the homeless. Simply stated, Tax incentives stimulate more giving, encourages involvement of private organizations, and allows the government to reduce spending by getting out of the charity business and into the business of protecting this nation instead. Considering the challenges facing the nonprofit sector in 2009, I am compelled to suggest that this is indeed a good time to provide additional incentives, rather than reduce the value of the tax deduction for high-income households, so that the donors with the greatest capacity to give have more reasons to do so.
The same, do-the-wrong-thing, actions are now being applied by Obama and the "do-the-wrong-thing" gang of Congressional idiots when it comes to the war against the Islamic Jihad. Now, they are even going so far as to deny the existence of the evil behind the Global War on Terror by suggesting that the term be changed to "Overseas Contingency Operation." I realize that the liberal left believes that conflict is the result of misunderstandings, rather than the possibility that the Islamic ideology is poising itself for more terror based on an evil belief that Israel must be eliminated, and The West must be destroyed.
Believe it or not, I understand the argument against the term, Global War on Terror. After all, it is argued that calling this conflict the war on terror would be like calling the Pacific Theater against Japan during World War II the war on aviation since that is the method they used to attack us at Pearl Harbor. But Islamic Terrorism is a unique animal. Over 90% of terrorism against America (and worldwide) is launched by Islamic Jihadists. Terror is the weapon of choice of these radicals. Global War on Terror, in my opinion, is an appropriate term.
Why then, would the Obama Administration desire to not call this ongoing war what it is? Why change the name to some politically correct, warm and fuzzy term that could mean anything, and let the terrorists off the hook in regards to what they are really about?
I do not believe President Obama realizes, or is willing to admit, that Islamic Radicalism is evil, nor that its only desire is to cover the Earth with its Sharia Law madness. In fact, shortly after taking office, President Obama sent a letter to the Iranian Leadership expressing a willingness to open diplomacy in the hopes of easing the tensions between our nations. Under the circumstances of dealing with such a radical leadership, I believe this was not only wrong, but extremely dangerous.
The response was not encouraging, and the Iranian leadership has indicated that President Obama insulted the Islamic Republic of Iran from the first day of taking office. Obama has disregarded the harsh words of Iran's leaders, pursuing what he calls "constructive ties," and noting that he would not allow the process to be advanced or hindered by threats.
In other words, Iran will come to the negotiation table, and like it, whether they like it or not, but with a peaceful smile on Obama's face.
This is not the first time the Iranian leadership has considered Obama's plans to be a sign of U.S. failure. In January the Iranian leaders considered Obama's offer of diplomacy to be a sign that Western ideology is becoming passive, and that the western system has failed.
In August of 2008 Michael Medved even commented on how Iranian leaders were enraged when the Vice President of Tourism, Esfandiar Rahim Mashai, said that Iran is a friend of all the people of the world. The Iranian Parliament voted by an overwhelming margin to denounce these words as an unforgivable mistake, and Ahmadinejad dismissed the official immediately. The reason for the outcry is because the words of friendship included Israel and America. Hardly an attitude that sounds like a willingness to negotiate.
Even here in America Aasiya Z. Hassan was founder and chief executive officer of Bridges TV of which he launched in 2004 hoping it would portray Muslims in a more positive light. Last month, however, the Orchard Park resident beheaded his wife who dared file for divorce. Yet another powerful lesson to those that believe this ideology can be peacefully negotiated with.
I understand that not all Muslims are radical, and there is a cross-section of the culture that does not condone the actions of the Islamic Jihad. However, understand this - I agree with Walid Shoebat when he told me on my radio program that there are indeed peaceful Muslims out there, but they are peaceful despite Islam, not because of it.
So how can we even consider negotiating with an ideology steeped in the use of terror that wants to destroy us and our closest ally, Israel?
Europe, as we speak, is being overrun by Islam. Brussels is a quarter Muslim, and anti-Israeli mobs have been taking to the streets of European cities. Hamas has openly and proudly proclaimed that they are committed to the destruction of Israel, and Hamas is thrilled that Obama is so committed to the two-state solution. Palestine, however, has rejected statehood in the past. But why?
Palestine exists for one reason and one reason only - the destruction of Israel. The anti-semitism in Islam was part of the root of the anti-semitism of Naziism, and that kind of pure hatred still exists, and only negotiates to buy time. Obama's set of policies is emboldening our foes, and weakening the position of the United States in the war on terror.
As far as Islam is concerned, there is no solution but through Jihad. The very existence of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Taliban (not to mention the goal of every Muslim Nation) is to eliminate the Jewish "Pirate" State - Israel. The violence in the Middle East is a never ending cycle that won't end until Israel and The West has been destroyed.
Who do I believe when it comes to the tyranny of Islam? The Liberal Left who is unwilling to recognize pure, unadulterated evil? Or folks like Walid Shoebat, Brigette Gabriele, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Faisal Malick, and other individuals that were once a part of the Muslim world (or living among the Muslim World), and fully understand the depth of the hate bred into the Muslim people through an indoctrination that begins from the day of birth?
Fact is, even with proclaiming diplomacy until we are blue in the face, Islamo-Fascism will never voluntarily end this cycle of violence and destruction. We must, through military strength, bring them to the point that they have no choice but to do so. Harsh or not, history teaches us that standing up to the enemy of radical Islam, and defeating them, is the only way to stop them.