By Dr. Strangeseuss
(a/k/a Marsha B. Cohen)
When Iran gets the bomb
We’ll all need to worry.
Let’s sit down and think
What to do—we must hurry!
A bomb is a weapon
That drops down and explodes
On buildings and people,
On wheat fields and roads.
When a bomb knocks down houses.
The people inside
Whether children or grownups
Will be hurt or have died!
And nuclear bombs
Are the worst of the worst.
Spreading nuclear fallout
When they open and burst.
What a horrible way
To kill, maim and destroy:
Hiroshima, Nagasaki
And (almost!) Hanoi.
Such terrible weapons!
And they keep getting worse.
We mustn’t allow any
Spread of this curse.
That’s why the UN
Got most states to agree
Bombs like these are forbidden
By the 1968 N-P-T.
But the US and Russia
China, Britain and France
Had all tested their A-bombs
While they still had the chance.
And they got to keep them
On the condition that they
Wouldn’t use them, sell them
Or give them away.
Other countries that didn’t
Had to promise they’d try
To use “atoms for peace”
Not to make people die.
But a couple of countries
Didn’t think that was fair.
They wanted an A-bomb
And figured they’d dare
Make them in secret.
And hide them away
Where they wouldn’t be seen
By the I-A-E-A.
Israel, India,
Pakistan, as we know
All made themselves A-bombs
They’re all set to go.
South Africa had one
Then gave up with no fight.
(The hands that launch A-bombs
Should only be white!)
North Korea’s got nukes
That’s been sort of okay.
They simply wouldn’t listen
To the I-A-E-A.
Now IRAN wants the bomb!
Oh what shall we do?
Everyone else in the world
Will be wanting one too!
Arabs and Afghans,
Baluchis and Kurds,
Azeris, Turks, Tajiks
And Uzbeks! No words
Can describe all the havoc
In our world–now so calm–
When the day finally comes
that Iran gets the bomb!
Iran with a bomb
Would really be weird.
It’s a country whose leaders
Have all got a beard!
And you know what that means.
They’ll push us around.
They’ll shut off our oil
(Or charge by the pound).
They’ll make us all Shi’ites.
And make us speak Persian.
So le’s cripple them with sanctions
And perhaps an incursion!
So bring on the drones,
Assassinations, Stuxnet and Flame!
When Iran gets the bomb
Things won’t be the same!
The sun will not shine.
Our grass will not grow.
When Iran gets the bomb…
Where will free worlders go?!
In the first minutes of his speech Romney warned that the next four years could pose a series of potentially devastating foreign policy challenges. He predicted: Iran could hold the Middle East hostage with a nuclear weapon; Obama’s scale-down of U.S. forces in Afghanistan will bring the Taliban back to power; Islamic jihadists will acquire nuclear weapons from Pakistan; China will “brush aside” American naval “inferiority” in the Pacific; and Cuba and Venezuela will undermine the prospects of democracy in the region.
Watch it:
But in response to these dire challenges facing the U.S. — and more broadly the entire world — Romney suggests that the Pentagon increase the shipbuilding rate from 9 per year to 15 and permanently station an aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean.
Other than boosting defense spending — which is a terrible idea in its own right — Romney has few if any specific policy prescriptions. Instead, his response to the foreign policy challenges — whether real or imagined — facing the U.S. is laid out later in his speech. He says:
- This century must be an American Century. In an American Century, America has the strongest economy and the strongest military in the world. In an American Century, America leads the free world and the free world leads the entire world.
While the notion of an “American Century” is not new — a number of the foreign policy positions associated with the George W. Bush administration were first promoted by the Project for the New American Century — the lack of policy specifics in Romney’s speech is noticeable, especially in light of the existential threats he says are facing the U.S. Simplistic notions of American military power as a democratizing force in the world were put to the test in Afghanistan and Iraq during the George W. Bush administration. Even leading neoconservatives such as Richard Perle, David Frum, and Kenneth Adelman criticized the Bush administration for its execution of the war in Iraq and its loosely defined “freedom agenda.”
As Romney frames his foreign policy along similar lines, he may face tough questions about how he intends to combat the long list of threats he says are bearing down on the U.S.
]]>One of the featured “experts” in the new CAP “Fear, Inc.” report on Islamophobia, Frank Gaffney, appeared on a religious right program and called for renewed McCarthyism against not just American-Muslims but also those who support them or don’t do enough to stymie what [...]]]>
One of the featured “experts” in the new CAP “Fear, Inc.” report on Islamophobia, Frank Gaffney, appeared on a religious right program and called for renewed McCarthyism against not just American-Muslims but also those who support them or don’t do enough to stymie what Gaffney considers their pernicious influence.
Gaffney, who runs a well-funded Islamophobic operation, celebrated the House Un-American Activities Committee — the Cold War-era investigative committee that epitomized the overblown “red scare” of a Communist takeover of the U.S. — before calling for a new similar committee. The new “House Anti-American Activities Committee would look into American-Muslims, who Gaffney thinks are criminally “seditious” for observing their faith, and their witting and unwitting allies:
- Back in the Cold War as we talked about in our first program we wrestled with another totalitarian ideology that was determined to destroy us back when the McCarren Act was enacted, we had what was then called the House Un-American Activities Committee to explore what was going on, who was doing it, who was helping them do it, what the implications would be if it weren’t stopped. I think we need at the very least a new House Anti-American Activities Committee.
Watch the video:
The new “green scare” committee came up as Gaffney and the host, Christian right figure Rick Joyner, discussed prosecuting Americans for simply not reporting “treasonous” acts — known as “misprision of treason” — by American Muslims. Gaffney has previously accused Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) of this crime, which carries a seven-year sentence, for appointing a Muslim to a judgeship in New Jersey. Gaffney considers adherence to Muslim religious law to be “seditious“:
- A mosque that is used to promote a seditious program, which is what Sharia is…that is not a protected religious practice, that is in fact sedition.
While many regard the “red scare” and the McCarthyism associated with it as a less than savory period in American history, Gaffney seems to whole-heartedly approve of the program and calls for its revival — but targeted at religious beliefs instead of a political views. Some might argue that taking away the freedom of speech and religion are themselves “un-American” acts. (HT: Right Wing Watch)
]]>The Varet and Rosenwald family’s philanthropy — led by Elizabeth Varet, a director at American Securities Management and a granddaughter of Sears Roebuck founder Julius Rosenwald, David Steinmann and Nina Rosenwald — are identified in the Center for American Progress’ new report Fear Inc., as one [...]]]>
The Varet and Rosenwald family’s philanthropy — led by Elizabeth Varet, a director at American Securities Management and a granddaughter of Sears Roebuck founder Julius Rosenwald, David Steinmann and Nina Rosenwald — are identified in the Center for American Progress’ new report Fear Inc., as one of the top donors to the U.S. Islamophobia network. Their family foundations, the Anchorage Charitable Fund and William Rosenwald Family Fund, contributed $2.818 million dollars to organizations which fan the flames of Islamophobia.
The Varet family helps fund: Steve Emerson’s Investigative Project on Terrorism ($10,000); Counterterrorism & Security Education and Research Foundation ($15,000); Daniel Pipes’ Middle East Forum ($2,320,229.33); Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy ($437,000); the Clarion Fund ($25,000); David Horowitz’s Freedom Center ($11,000) and Brigitte Gabriel’s American Congress for Truth ($125,000).
David Steinmann — also a director at American Securities Management, a trustee for the Anchorage Charitable Fund and president of the William Rosenwald Family Fund, sits as a board member at Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy.
Nina Rosenwald, co-chair of the board at American Securities Management and a vice-president at the William Rosenwald Family Fund, is: chairwoman of of the board at the Middle East Media and Research Institute (MEMRI); vice president of the Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs (JINSA) and sits on the board of the Hudson Institute. She also serves on the board at the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC); Human Rights in China, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) and served as a delegate at the 1996 Democratic National Convention.
According to a 2007 New York Jewish Week article, Elizabeth Varet, who chairs the Anchorage Charitable Fund and serves as vice-president at the William Rosenwald Family Fund, gained inspiration for her philanthropy from her father, William Rosenwald, who she says:
- …was driven by an empathy for people at risk — people who were suffering — “and a feeling of ‘there but for the grace of God go I.’ And he believed in acting on it.”
Indeed, the Anchorage Fund engages in a broad array of philanthropy to various right-wing institutions such as the: Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD); Hoover Institution; Hudson Institute, America Enterprise Institute; and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.
Additional board members of the Anchorage Charitable Fund include Michael A. Varet, Sarah R. Varet, David R. Varet, and Joseph R. Varet.
In the 2008 tax year, the Anchorage Fund “suffered a complete loss of its investment through PJ Administrator LLC,” according to its 2008 tax filings. PJ Administrator was a client of Bernie Madoff, whose Ponzi scheme collapsed in 2008.
Charitable activity from both Varet related foundations has significantly decreased since 2008 but it’s safe to say that the Islamophobia network described in Fear Inc., wouldn’t have become such a formidable force without the deep-pocketed support of family foundations like the ones operated by the heirs to Julius Rosenwald’s Sears Roebuck fortune.
]]>Neoconservative blogger Ed Lasky takes issue with the Center For American Progress’s new report — “Fear, Inc.” — documenting the Islamophobia industry in America. He cites a Reuters write-up of a Pew poll surveying American Muslims that says, among other things, “that most Muslims [...]]]>
Neoconservative blogger Ed Lasky takes issue with the Center For American Progress’s new report — “Fear, Inc.” — documenting the Islamophobia industry in America. He cites a Reuters write-up of a Pew poll surveying American Muslims that says, among other things, “that most Muslims felt ordinary Americans were friendly or neutral toward them.” This prompts Lasky to ask:
- If Muslim Americans felt discrimination were rampant, would they express contentment and happiness with living in America? Would they be confident about the future of America and their own personal futures? Would they feel that most Americans are friendly or neutral towards them. [sic.]
Where is the Islamophobia that supposedly is proliferating across America? The charge is merely meant to line the pockets of activist groups and chill any criticism of Muslim actions, however insensitive (the 9/11 Mosque) or questionable (the adoption of aspects of Sharia law) they may be perceived to be by some Americans.
But the same Reuters article Lasky cited says that Muslims in America are content with their lives in the U.S. despite fairly widespread feelings of discrimination related to their faith, not because such feelings do not exist. Reuters writes:
- Since 2007, there has been little change in how Muslim Americans see how they are viewed by the rest of America, with 28 percent saying other Americans viewed them suspiciously and 22 percent saying they had been called offensive names. Only 6 percent said they had been threatened or attacked, while 38 percent were bothered by their sense that they were singled out for increased government surveillance.
In response to questions about being a Muslim in the United States since the Sept. 11 attacks, 55 percent said it is more difficult while 37 percent saw no change.
Almost two in five American Muslims, then, are distressed that their government may be spying on them. Perhaps Lasky should check out the moving recollection of Hamed Aleaziz, who writes about his unsuccessful experience trying to glean information from members of the congregation he grew up in after the mosque was targeted in an FBI sting operation:
- After my unsuccessful experience trying to shed light on the impact of this FBI sting on my former home, I wonder if anyone will ever be able to understand what life’s like after the FBI targets your community.
Furthermore, the Pew report itself sheds more light on those statistics Lasky conveniently ignored. More than half of Muslim Americans think “government anti-terrorism policies single out Muslims in the U.S. for increased surveillance and monitoring.” The report goes on:
- A quarter of Muslim Americans (25%) report that mosques or Islamic centers in their communities have been the target of controversy or outright hostility. While 14% report that there has been opposition to the building of a mosque or Islamic center in their community in the past few years, 15% say that a mosque or Islamic center in their community has been the target of vandalism or other hostile acts in the past 12 months.
Lasky, who rose to prominence by spreading smears about Barack Obama while he ran for president, ought to consider the breadth of the study he’s citing, or at the very least the article about it he selectively quoted from. If Lasky wants to distance the effect of Islamophobic rhetoric from the feelings of American Muslims, that’s one thing. But to simply pretend that American Muslims, despite their overwhelming satisfaction with life in the U.S., are not sometimes discriminated against or perceive discrimination is patently dishonest.
]]>