<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Reno Hayek Symposium &#187; Foreign Policy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://renohayek.com/category/foreign-policy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://renohayek.com</link>
	<description>Articulating conservative solutions to current issues &#38; supporting their intelligent champions</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2010 00:35:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Understand Islam, Fail To At Your Peril</title>
		<link>http://renohayek.com/2010/08/understand-islam-fail-to-at-your-peril/</link>
		<comments>http://renohayek.com/2010/08/understand-islam-fail-to-at-your-peril/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Aug 2010 20:15:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tom</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Europe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Foreign Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Homeland Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law, Morality & Religion in the Public Square]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Statism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://renohayek.com/?p=1742</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I recently received a You Tube video entitled &#8220;Three Things About Islam.&#8221; It is long but provides good source references at the end. In sum, it makes three points: 1. Islam has not been hijacked. Westerners have been told and assume that it has been hijacked by violent jihadists, how otherwise could a religion be so violent. The [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I recently received a You Tube video entitled &#8220;Three Things About Islam.&#8221; It is long but provides good source references at the end. In sum, it makes three points:<strong> 1. Islam has not been hijacked.</strong> Westerners have been told and assume that it has been hijacked by violent jihadists, how otherwise could a religion be so violent. The Qur&#8217;an has both peaceful and jihadist verses often thought contradictory but it provides a rule for resolving apparent conflicts, the last in time governs. Unfortunately, the violent jihadist verses are later in time than the peaceful verces.</p>
<p><strong>2. Sharia Law is a duty for all Muslims.</strong> Sharia is the anthesis of separation of church and state, indeed the anthesis of freedom. It combines religion and political aspects into one totalitarian society commanded by the Qur&#8217;an. The law is ancient commanding eye for eye justice, stoning, and dismemberment for proscribed offenses. It governs contracts and commerce. The world will not be at peace until all nations are governed by Shria Law. So creeping Shria as in the UK where Shria courts already exist is indeed a danger. At current birth rates Europe will be majority muslim within our children&#8217;s lifetimes. So whether through the bed room and creeping Shria or through 911 type jihad, Muslims are installing Shria worldwide.</p>
<p><strong>3. Muslims lie to non-Muslims.</strong> The Qur&#8217;an sanctions these lies in order to convert infidels and advance Shria Law. This principal is called TAQIYYA. To say one thing to non-Muslims and the exact opposite to Muslims is frequently used in the Arab world today. This is the very means of calling Islam the religion of peace!</p>
<p>Hussein Obama has curried favor in the Arab world bowing to its leaders and apologizing for the United States. He is an advocate of the &#8220;religion of peace&#8221; view of Islam. He even urged the NASA director to reach out to Muslim countries. Methinks Hussein&#8217;s Muslim roots are getting in the way of his job as president!</p>
<p>The YouTube video is long and made for a British audience so I did not embed it in this post. If you are so inclined to further study, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib9rofXQl6w&amp;feature=player_embedded">the link is here</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://renohayek.com/2010/08/understand-islam-fail-to-at-your-peril/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Gingrich on the Islamic Terrorist Threat</title>
		<link>http://renohayek.com/2010/07/gingrich-on-the-islamic-terrorist-threat/</link>
		<comments>http://renohayek.com/2010/07/gingrich-on-the-islamic-terrorist-threat/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Jul 2010 00:26:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tom</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Foreign Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Homeland Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://renohayek.com/?p=1736</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sZiw3qVdFzw&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sZiw3qVdFzw&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://renohayek.com/2010/07/gingrich-on-the-islamic-terrorist-threat/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>America&#8217;s Twilight? Or, Is There Anyway Out?</title>
		<link>http://renohayek.com/2010/07/americas-twilight-or-is-there-anyway-out/</link>
		<comments>http://renohayek.com/2010/07/americas-twilight-or-is-there-anyway-out/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 05:14:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tom</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Foreign Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military Policy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://renohayek.com/?p=1716</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Niall Ferguson&#8217;s discussion of the Future of America&#8217;s Economy was recently given at the 2010 Aspen Ideas Festival. It is brilliant and I would embed it here but am unable to do so, thus I link it and strongly commend it. As a financial historian teaching at Harvard, he asks whether the Western Ascendency is [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/07/08/niall_ferguson_on_the_future_of_americas_economy.html">Niall Ferguson&#8217;s discussion of the Future of America&#8217;s Economy </a>was recently given at the 2010 Aspen Ideas Festival. It is brilliant and I would embed it here but am unable to do so, thus I link it and strongly commend it. As a financial historian teaching at Harvard, he asks whether the Western Ascendency is finished. He reviews the empirical evidence supporting that proposition. And, it is strong.</p>
<p>&#8220;My working assumption is that the financial crisis that began in the summer of 2007&#8230;has accelerated a fundamental shift in the economic balance of power. Even before the crisis, Jim O&#8217;Neill and his team at Goldman Sachs were forecasting that China&#8217;s gross domestic product would exceed that of the United States in 2027 at half past four on October the 15th, which is just a little pinch of salt to remind you that all such projections need to be taken with a pinch of salt. Still, whether it&#8217;s 2027, &#8216;28, &#8216;29 or &#8216;30, the interesting thing is the first time they made that projection, they thought it would be 2040. Every time I see Jim, I say, &#8220;Have you moved the date forward yet?&#8221; because he made that 2027 call before the financial crisis.</p>
<p>&#8220;The financial crisis unquestionably has hit the United States much harder than China. Their stimulus worked much better than ours&#8230;The first point I just want to put out there is: it&#8217;s hard to believe, under these circumstances, that the acceleration, the shift, if you&#8217;d like, from West to East hasn&#8217;t been speeded up by this crisis.</p>
<p>&#8220;The second point is: Of course, power is not just about GDP. It&#8217;s not just about the economy. Power is also about the ability to project hard power through military means. And some people in Washington like to comfort themselves by saying, &#8220;We can still do that way more than they can. Count their aircraft carriers, count ours.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;But one point that follows from the financial crisis which is terribly, terribly important is that by combating our crisis of private debt with an extraordinary expansion of public debt, we inevitably are going to reduce the resources available for national security in the years ahead. Because as the debt grows, so the interest payments you have to make on it grow, even if interest rates stay low. And on current projections, the federal debt is going to be absorbing around 20 percent, a fifth of all the taxes you pay, within just a few years. The item of discretionary federal expenditure most likely to be squeezed is, of course, defense. And there are lots of historic precedents for that. So, I fear that the financial crisis doesn&#8217;t just impact on the economy. It actually impacts on American power in the hardest sense.&#8221;</p>
<p>This is just a taste, and he does offer some hope, so I won&#8217;t spoil his offering but suggest you link to the talk.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://renohayek.com/2010/07/americas-twilight-or-is-there-anyway-out/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>NASA&#8217;s New Role: Diplomacy</title>
		<link>http://renohayek.com/2010/07/nasas-new-role-diplomacy/</link>
		<comments>http://renohayek.com/2010/07/nasas-new-role-diplomacy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jul 2010 17:05:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tom</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Diplomacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Foreign Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://renohayek.com/?p=1708</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Stretch goals are important, they compel reaching, thinking outside the box, innovation, risk-taking; yes and ultimately excellence. Where better to expand U.S. horizons than at the space agency, NASA? Kennedy challenged a shot for a man moon landing in 1961, a dramatic stretch goal. This to answer the Russians unmanned landing in 1959. The challenged [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stretch goals are important, they compel reaching, thinking outside the box, innovation, risk-taking; yes and ultimately excellence. Where better to expand U.S. horizons than at the space agency, NASA? Kennedy challenged a shot for a man moon landing in 1961, a dramatic stretch goal. This to answer the Russians unmanned landing in 1959. The challenged worked: on July 20, 1969 Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the moon.</p>
<p>What&#8217;s Obama&#8217;s stretch goal for NASA? Well &#8230;, er &#8230;., it&#8217;s diplomacy. Yes, you heard right, diplomacy. Obama wants better relations. With whom you ask. The Muslims! Not the English, the Poles, the Germans, nor the Israelis; no, the Muslims.</p>
<p>According to <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/05/nasa-chief-frontier-better-relations-muslims/">this Fox News item</a>, &#8220;NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said in a recent interview that his &#8220;foremost&#8221; mission as the head of America&#8217;s space exploration agency is to improve relations with the Muslim world.&#8221; Bizarre! Mars? No, the Muslim world!</p>
<p>And, note the contrast with Kennedy. JFK was answering the USSR. It was an &#8220;in your face&#8221; response to an enemy seeking to burry us. Obama confronts Islamists seeking to burry us. What&#8217;s he do? Well, he goes about the Middle East bowing, scraping and apologizing for the United States. Oh, and he gives NASA a charge to improve relations with Muslims.</p>
<p>Hussein Obama is well named!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://renohayek.com/2010/07/nasas-new-role-diplomacy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Unprotected Against Jihad</title>
		<link>http://renohayek.com/2010/06/unprotected-against-jihad/</link>
		<comments>http://renohayek.com/2010/06/unprotected-against-jihad/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jun 2010 04:41:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tom</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Foreign Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Homeland Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Individual Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law, Morality & Religion in the Public Square]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Character]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://renohayek.com/?p=1698</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hussein Obama&#8217;s counterterrorism tzar, John Brennan trivializes the danger of Islam according to Andy McCarthy in today&#8217;s NRO post, An Islam of Their Very Own. The article is a must read with only two conclusions possible: Obama is stupid or naive or he is converting the U.S. to sharia, that is Islamic law. In essence, become Muslim [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hussein Obama&#8217;s counterterrorism tzar, John Brennan trivializes the danger of Islam according to Andy McCarthy in today&#8217;s NRO post, <em><a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/435292/an-islam-of-their-very-own/andrew-c-mccarthy">An Islam of Their Very Own</a></em>. The article is a must read with only two conclusions possible: Obama is stupid or naive or he is converting the U.S. to sharia, that is Islamic law. In essence, become Muslim or die, so ruled Mohamed after his militant successes.</p>
<p>&#8220;Brennan admonished that we must not “describe our enemy as ‘jihadists.’” Why not? “Because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam.” Right again. There is no gainsaying that jihad is deemed to be a divine injunction in Islam. If one regards all forms of Islam as “legitimate,” then jihad, too, must be legitimate. Yet “legitimate” is a slippery concept. It could mean that something is good. Or it could just mean that something is authentic — something that really exists, for good or ill.</p>
<p>&#8220;Islam falls into the latter category. It exists. In many of its iterations — not just al-Qaeda’s ideology but Islamist ideology, which is quite mainstream — Islam means the West existential harm. This is why we are supportive of <em>reformist</em> Muslims, however pessimistic some of us may be about their prospects. The point, though, is that Islam is not going away. It is part of the hand we are dealt, like it or not. We don’t need to trash-talk it gratuitously, but neither should we pretend that it is an asset on our security ledger. It’s not.</p>
<p>&#8220;Alas, the Hope administration doesn’t see it that way. For Brennan, as for Obama, Islam is immovably in the first category: “legitimate” as in “good” — end of discussion. To sculpt this alternative reality, two things are required. First, we must ignore Islam’s many troublesome elements — e.g., its supremacism, inequality, intolerance, denial of freedom of conscience, endorsement of violence, etc. Second, to the extent that the resulting atrocities can’t be ignored, we must pretend that what ails the Islamic world is our fault, not Islam’s.&#8221;</p>
<p>Andy&#8217;s point echos the points made during Herman Pirchner&#8217;s presentation and discussion at our last Reno Hayek dinner, namely that radical Islam and its Jihad is closer to the Koran than any reformist/secular branch of that &#8220;religion.&#8221; I put that in quotes to denote that it is more than just our concept of &#8220;religion;&#8221; it is government, society and religion in the sense that Mohamed imposed upon his conquests.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s my empirical observation: not many, if any, Moslems have condemned the Jihads, the terror, the 911 carnage, the call to exterminate Israel.</p>
<p>These people are backward, immoral, intolerant, and violent. They advocate or tolerate &#8220;supremacism, inequality, intolerance, denial of freedom of conscience, endorsement of violence, etc.&#8221; For them, the end justifies the means, no matter how distorted either end or means in reality are. They blow themselves up in hopes of &#8220;virgins in heaven.&#8221; Pity those few virgins in number! But, that is the level of their intelligence.</p>
<p>Hussein Obama apparently ignores &#8220;man caused disasters.&#8221; Islam is good because he wishes it so. This is contrary to the reality that we witness every day. Islam is bad.</p>
<p>&#8220;Our political leaders can continue to trivialize jihad as if it were some benign struggle to brush after every meal. They can continue to ignore the core tenets that make sharia antithetical to a free, self-determining society. But they can’t do that and do the only job we need them to do: protect our lives and our liberties.&#8221; Andy McCarthy&#8217;s article is a must read.</p>
<p>Hussein Obama is hell-bent-for-leather to &#8220;hope and change&#8221; the United States into an Islamic nation under Sharia law. Be very fearful for our nation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://renohayek.com/2010/06/unprotected-against-jihad/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Super Power to Super Wimp</title>
		<link>http://renohayek.com/2010/05/super-power-to-super-wimp/</link>
		<comments>http://renohayek.com/2010/05/super-power-to-super-wimp/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 May 2010 05:58:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tom</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Diplomacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Foreign Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Character]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://renohayek.com/?p=1656</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How weak can we be? Charles Krauthhammer answers the question in today&#8217;s NRO post, The Fruits of Weakness. The Iran-Brazil-Turkey nuclear deal is a ruse. Iran retains more than enough enriched uranium to make the nuclear bomb and continues accelerated enrichment. Even the French say the deal will help Iran continue its nuclear program. The [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How weak can we be? Charles Krauthhammer answers the question in today&#8217;s NRO post, <em><a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/434644/the-fruits-of-weakness/charles-krauthammer">The Fruits of Weakness</a>. </em>The Iran-Brazil-Turkey nuclear deal is a ruse.<em> </em>Iran retains more than enough enriched uranium to make the nuclear bomb and continues accelerated enrichment. Even the French say the deal will help Iran continue its nuclear program. The joint hands up photo is the collective finger to the weak Hussein Omama.</p>
<p><a href="http://renohayek.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Nuke-In-Your-Face.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-1657" title="Nuke In Your Face" src="http://renohayek.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Nuke-In-Your-Face.jpg" alt="" width="571" height="226" /></a></p>
<p>&#8220;That picture — a defiant, triumphant “take that” to Uncle Sam — is a crushing verdict on the Obama foreign policy. It demonstrates how rising powers, traditional American allies, having watched thisadministration in action, have decided that there’s no cost to lining up with America’s enemies and no profit in lining up with a U.S. president given to apologies and appeasement.&#8221;</p>
<p>Iran Obama overtures and appeasements rejected, Obama acquiescence to Russia&#8217;s reformation of its USSR sphere of influence, Obama appeasement of Syria even as it tightens its grip on Lebanon, are all examples of our weakness, our desire to withdraw and disarm.</p>
<p>&#8220;This is not just an America in decline. This is an America in retreat — accepting, ratifying, and declaring its decline, and inviting rising powers to fill the vacuum.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;Given Obama’s policies and principles, Turkey and Brazil are acting rationally. Why not give cover to Ahmadinejad and his nuclear ambitions? As the U.S. retreats in the face of Iran, China, Russia, and Venezuela, why not hedge your bets? There’s nothing to fear from Obama and everything to gain by ingratiating yourself with America’s rising adversaries. After all, they actually believe in helping one’s friends and punishing one’s enemies.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://renohayek.com/2010/05/super-power-to-super-wimp/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>U.S. Foreign Policy: Provocative Weakness</title>
		<link>http://renohayek.com/2010/05/u-s-foreign-policy-provocative-weakness/</link>
		<comments>http://renohayek.com/2010/05/u-s-foreign-policy-provocative-weakness/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 May 2010 18:29:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tom</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Diplomacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Foreign Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Character]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://renohayek.com/?p=1648</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Our kudos and thanks go out to Herman Pirchner, Jr. President of the American Foreign Policy Council in Washington DC for an excellent presentation and discussion last evening on America&#8217;s foreign policy. Herman took us around the world with using radical islam as the unifying link. It was truly enlightening and very sobering to hear [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Our kudos and thanks go out to Herman Pirchner, Jr. President of the American Foreign Policy Council in Washington DC for an excellent presentation and discussion last evening on America&#8217;s foreign policy. Herman took us around the world with using radical islam as the unifying link. It was truly enlightening and very sobering to hear his observations. Among them:</p>
<ul>
<li>Russia is extending its &#8220;sphere of influence&#8221; toward former satellites to counter radical islam and re-assert itself by keeping the U.S. off balance in the Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. In some respects our interest are aligned like controlling radical islam, and in others they are opposed like reforming the white USSR.</li>
<li>China is due for a generational change that leaves a big question-mark. Unlike the current leadership which grew amid the turmoil of the cultural revolution, the next generation is being raised in relative wealth and security and being educated in the best universities around the world. It thus understands world values. China is the only major nation without a significant islamic population.</li>
<li>Europe will have a majority islamic population within two generations. Already there are community pockets of society governed by Shia law. There is a distinct possibility that Europe will break apart financially.</li>
<li>Israel is gravely at risk since the U.S. has permitted Iran to go nuclear. The odds are against its survival.</li>
<li>Arab world nations fear Persian hegemony and will thus arm themselves with nuclear weapons.</li>
</ul>
<p>U.S. foreign policy under Hussein Obama has been one of being nice rather than right. We have given up numerous positions without getting anything in return. We have shown ourselves to be weak, frustrating our allies and emboldening our enemies. We are inviting trouble in both aspects.</p>
<p>The doctrine of &#8220;provocative weakness&#8221; enunciated by Fritz Kraemer in the Nixon years is that the only effective foreign policy was one backed by the realistic threat of using military force to achieve its goals; the failure to use this realistic threat was a provocative invitation to our enemies to use aggression against us.  This variation of Teddy Roosevelt&#8217;s &#8220;speak softly and carry a big stick&#8221; is antithetical to Hussein Obama&#8217;s administration. Obama is disarming and withdrawing from defensive alliances. He relies on bowing, scraping, apologizing and addressing dictators like Chavez as &#8220;mi amigo.&#8221; Here&#8217;s a picture to refresh memories:</p>
<p><a href="http://renohayek.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/2009-04-21-ObamaChavez.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-medium wp-image-1650" title="CORRECTION APTOPIX CB Trinidad Americas Summit" src="http://renohayek.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/2009-04-21-ObamaChavez-300x196.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="196" /></a></p>
<p>Yes, provocative weakness is Obama&#8217;s order of the day!</p>
<p>One chilling observation brought up during the discussion was that the radical islamic version of Islam was more true to the Koran than the secular, passivists&#8217; version. In either version the goal is to conquer non-believers and convert them either peacefully by out populating them or violently with the sword as Mohamed did from Medina. So we will see more September 11ths. Obama has invited them.</p>
<p>Again we wish to thank Herman Pirchner for the excellent presentation and discussion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://renohayek.com/2010/05/u-s-foreign-policy-provocative-weakness/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;I am Ann Frank&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://renohayek.com/2010/04/i-am-ann-frank/</link>
		<comments>http://renohayek.com/2010/04/i-am-ann-frank/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 2010 04:50:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tom</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Foreign Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Individual Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Character]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://renohayek.com/?p=1616</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This, one of the powerful ending lines in Jeffrey Lord&#8217;s American Spectator article, Jon Stewart Flunks His Spartacus Test, in which Stewart&#8217;s position on Comedy Central&#8217;s censorship of South Park&#8217;s episode on Islamic fanatics is slammed. Lord sets the courage test in terms of Kubrick&#8217;s Spartacus, the iconic film of the Greek gladiator at Capua [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This, one of the powerful ending lines in Jeffrey Lord&#8217;s American Spectator article, <em><a href="http://spectator.org/archives/2010/04/27/jon-stewart-flunks-his-spartac/">Jon Stewart Flunks His Spartacus Test,</a> </em>in which Stewart&#8217;s position on Comedy Central&#8217;s censorship of <em>South Park&#8217;s</em> episode on Islamic fanatics is slammed. Lord sets the courage test in terms of Kubrick&#8217;s <em>Spartacus</em>, the iconic film of the Greek gladiator at Capua and his courage to the last. With that in mind he fast forwards to United Airlines Flight 93 on 911 where ordinary Americans were confronted with their Spartacus moment and proudly passed the test earning our tribute or what the ancient Greeks would call <em>arete</em>, courageously living up to their full potential, excellence.</p>
<p>Faster forward to today and the edgy, over-the-top, iconoclastic <em>South Park</em> created by Trey Parker and Matt Stone who decided to take on Islamic Fascists but gently by disguising the Prophet Mohammed as a bear. A web site called &#8220;Revolution Muslim&#8221; warned the creators that they would end up like Theo Van Gogh, the Dutch film maker killed by Islamic terrorists after he made a film on the treatment of Muslim women. This <em>fatwa </em>put the fear of Allah into Comedy Central which promptly bleeped a 35 second speech warning of &#8220;fear and intimidation.&#8221;</p>
<p>Now to Jon Stewart, darling of the leftists, brave defender of Democrats, epitome of all moral good. Jon gets his chance to stand up for Free Speech. Jon get his &#8220;Spartacus test.&#8221; What say, this paragon of leftist virtue, when confronted with intimidation based censorship by Comedy Central?</p>
<p>&#8220;It&#8217;s their right,&#8221; he said of Comedy Central in a verbal shrug of indifference. &#8220;We all serve at their pleasure.&#8221; In other words, they sign the checks!</p>
<p>The problem is that these Islamic terrorists want to bury us. &#8220;American and Western culture &#8212; the good, the bad and the ugly of it over a few thousand centuries, from Plato to Parker and Shakespeare to Stone &#8212; can thrive only in an atmosphere of intellectual freedom. That freedom, as has been made abundantly clear since 9/11, is under full scale assault.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;The right answer is never to pretend that if you somehow were transported back in time, say to a house in Amsterdam in August of 1944 and the German <em>Grüne Polizei</em> were pounding at your door, you could get away with saying: &#8220;Hi. Fox News can %$#@@ themselves. You guys sign the checks. Seig Heil. Ann Frank is upstairs, third door to the right, the room behind the bookcase.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;The right answer would be, the right answer is always: I am Ann Frank.&#8221;</p>
<p>The clever, liberal leftist, Jon Stewart gets an F on his Spartacus test. For all practical purposes, his Obama Hussein idol with his fawning Mideast diplomacy has also flunked the Spartacus test. A great article by Jeff Lord.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://renohayek.com/2010/04/i-am-ann-frank/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hussein Obama Is Anti-semitic</title>
		<link>http://renohayek.com/2010/04/hussein-obama-is-anti-semitic/</link>
		<comments>http://renohayek.com/2010/04/hussein-obama-is-anti-semitic/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:04:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tom</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Foreign Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military Policy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://renohayek.com/?p=1568</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Investors Business Daily editorializes on Obama&#8217;s bullying of Israel today in a convincing piece, Israel Or Terrorists.  &#8220;Are we Israel&#8217;s staunch ally? Or, do we blame the Jewish state for Islamist violence? An increasingly anti-Israel U.S. government cannot have it both ways.&#8221;
The article goes on to show Obama&#8217;s attempt to make the West Bank and Gaza [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Investors Business Daily editorializes on Obama&#8217;s bullying of Israel today in a convincing piece, <em><a href="http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=530422">Israel Or Terrorists</a></em><a href="http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=530422">. </a> &#8220;Are we Israel&#8217;s staunch ally? Or, do we blame the Jewish state for Islamist violence? An increasingly anti-Israel U.S. government cannot have it both ways.&#8221;</p>
<p>The article goes on to show Obama&#8217;s attempt to make the West Bank and Gaza the equivalent of the Nazis&#8217; Buchenwald. A grossly false comparison, which unfortunately our president is wont to do.</p>
<p>But the real punch is the stupidity of the Obama policy. Instead of returning the Mideast to a Garden of Eden, a Palestinian settlement  would only embolden terrorists to push harder for a Sharia world.</p>
<p>Again, our Neville Chamberlain president shows his true bias. He is anti-semitic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://renohayek.com/2010/04/hussein-obama-is-anti-semitic/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama: the &#8220;peace in our times&#8221; president</title>
		<link>http://renohayek.com/2010/04/obama-the-peace-in-our-times-president/</link>
		<comments>http://renohayek.com/2010/04/obama-the-peace-in-our-times-president/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Apr 2010 05:59:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tom</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Foreign Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://renohayek.com/?p=1559</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Like a broadway scripted play Obama is into his foreign policy-defense act. (This, the act that follows Obamacare!) It is, to paraphrase Shakespeare&#8217;s Macbeth, a policy &#8220;Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.&#8221; (Act 5, Scene 5)
No, that is to naive but not too harsh. As I think Clifford May&#8217;s tax day NRO [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Like a broadway scripted play Obama is into his foreign policy-defense act. (This, the act that follows Obamacare!) It is, to paraphrase Shakespeare&#8217;s Macbeth, a policy &#8220;Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.&#8221; (Act 5, Scene 5)</p>
<p>No, that is to naive but not too harsh. As I think Clifford May&#8217;s tax day NRO post, <em><a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/431357/the-obama-doctrine/clifford-d-may?page=2">The Obama Doctrine</a>, </em>points out well, Obama has showcased his photo-op national security initiatives: the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (STARTT), new National Security Strategy (NSS) and his international Nuclear Security Summit with 40 heads of state.</p>
<ul>
<li>STARTT: Reduce US/Russian nukes by 30% for good example to others. &#8220;That’s a lovely vision, but which do you think is more likely: that rogue regimes will see these reductions as virtuous and emulate them? Or that they will see these reductions as an opportunity and exploit them?&#8221;</li>
<li>NSS: We pledge not to use nukes against non-nuclear nations. But we fail to define our non-nation enemies. Obama strips terms like &#8220;islamic extremism&#8221; from the document for fear of offending! We&#8217;re back to &#8220;man-caused disasters&#8221; and &#8220;overseas contingency operations.&#8221; &#8221; Imagine if President Roosevelt had decided not to speak about German Nazism, lest he offend Germans who were not Nazis, nor utter the words “Italian Fascism” since not all Italians were of the Fascist persuasion, and of course refrained from mentioning Japanese militarism . . . you get the idea.&#8221;</li>
<li>Obama&#8217;s Nuclear Security Summit made little progress on cleaning up &#8220;loose nukes&#8221; and ignored Iran and North Korea.</li>
<li>NPR: Obama will not modernize our nuclear weapons nor will he use nukes against enemy attacks against us with chemical or biological weapons. In other words, deterrence is a thing of the past. The policy will &#8220;actually provide our adversaries with an incentive to accelerate development of offensive capabilities. They clearly do nothing to strengthen deterrence.&#8221; Deterrence is what has kept us safe since 1945. The concept that attacks on us or our allies will not bring measured response but extreme, disproportionate devastation is what prevented such attacks. In this regard, Obama is the equivalent of the Russian in Dr. Strangelove who kept the doomsday machine secret, Obama wants to eliminate deterrence&#8211;really dumb!</li>
</ul>
<p>Finally, our own Neville Chamberlain has decided to eliminate necessary missile-defense! &#8220;President Obama has scrapped a missile-defense system for eastern Europe, cut the number of planned deployed ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California from 44 to 30 (these provide the only protection to the U.S. homeland against long-range ballistic missiles), cut $1.5 billion from the missile-defense budget (then, curiously, restored about $600 million), and nominated a missile-defense opponent, Philip Coyle, as his top missile-defense adviser.&#8221;</p>
<p>In sum, the &#8220;Obama Doctrine&#8221; postures against non-existant threats, fails to treat real threats, and removes and reduces our defense capability. He&#8217;s an articulate empty-suit and a danger to our security.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://renohayek.com/2010/04/obama-the-peace-in-our-times-president/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
