Daniel Greenfield / Sultan Knish Articles at DanielGreenfield.org

Not that long ago, Joseph Robinette Biden was supposedly gravely insulted by Israel announcing that potential housing to be built in Jerusalem had passed one stage of a multi-stage approval process. Biden was so insulted by this dastardly act that he stood up the Prime Minister of Israel for 90 minutes and that he and various Obama Administration officials proceeded to lambaste Israel for "insulting" Biden. Hillary Clinton proclaimed; "it was not only an insult to Biden, but an insult to the United States ." " There was an affront, it was an insult ", huffed Senior Obama advisor David Axelrod. Hundreds of newspapers immediately penned editorials denouncing Israel's grave insult. The essence of it was that Israel had insulted Biden by laying claim to Jerusalem during his visit. There's just one problem with this. In 1995 Biden himself served as a co-sponsor of S. 1322, known as the Jerusalem Embassy Act. (Additional Senate co-sponsors included such

Several hundred years ago when the forces of Islam wanted to capture Vienna, they came with the sword and the cannon and laid siege to the city walls. Today they simply take a plane. While Vienna was able to resist repeated sieges, it was not able to resist Islamic immigration, and as a result the city looks a good deal more the way it would have had it fallen to an actual siege. Today as much as a third of Vienna is of foreign origin. And as many as 50 percent of Viennese schoolchildren have a non-German language as their mother tongue. Gates of Vienna Battle Austria itself is projected to have as many as half a million Muslims. This would be catastrophic enough in a country with a smaller population than the state of New Jersey, but it is far more catastrophic considering how much of that population skews youthful. The Muslim birth rate is nearly double that of the Protestant and Catholic birth rates. This results in a demographic shift in which statistics may deceptively peg th

Multiculturalism is one of those political words that liberals have successfully added to the day to day lexicon. It's become so that no business or political party can describe itself without employing multicultural language. One of liberalism's major crusades in the last generation has been to incorporate multiculturalism into everything, and make its lack seem like guilt or evidence of a crime. And all this championing of multiculturalism appears to make liberals seem friendly and interested in promoting different cultures. But in fact that's a fraud and a lie. To begin with let's remember that America was always a collection of different cultures. Even in its earliest days, the Scot, the Englishman, the German, the Irishman, the Jew, the Russian, the Dutchman, the Frenchman and many others were part of the stew bubbling in the American kettle. As immigration expanded beyond a few European companies and states, the number of cultures in the mix expanded as well. This

Democratic Party Changes Name to Undemocratic Party In compliance with Truth in Advertising regulations, the Democratic party has announced that it will be changing its name to the Undemocratic party. "We've done the research and crunched the numbers," said party Chairman Tim Kaine, "and people don't want to run their own lives. They want a bunch of lawyers who take bribes in order to get elected to run their lives for them. And that's what the Undemocratic party is all about. No one wants democracy anymore, except the majority of Americans, and who cares what they want anyway?" In line with the new name change, the Undemocratic party has announced a new election strategy which will consist of pointing nuclear weapons at swing states, until they agree to swing their way. Bin Laden Announces Plans to Run for President From an undisclosed cave near Kandahar, Osama bin Laden became the first candidate to announce his plans to run for Pre

The forces of tyranny are strong around the world, as Chavez completed his crackdown on the independent media with the arrest of the President of Globovision Television. Globovision was Venezuela's equivalent of CNN, the country's first 24 hour news network. Chavez had previously shuttered Radio Caracas Televisión, resulting in student protests and a violent crackdown that foreshadowed the actions taken by Chavez's Iranian ally, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Unsurprisingly this hasn't resulted in much in the way of media coverage. Apologists for the Chavez regime typically claim that the stations being targeted were engaging in attempts to overthrow the regime (while naturally ignoring the fact that Chavez had been doing the same thing). This was the same defense used by liberals who defended Stalin's Moscow Trails. Meanwhile the same Western media which gave extensive coverage to the non-coup in Honduras against Chavez ally Manuel Zelaya, and sympathetic coverage to t

Comrade Workers, Peasants and Welfare Recipients of America, For four long years we have battled the economy, and now I am pleased to announce that the economy is finally ready to surrender. Representatives of the economy have met with the party leadership and signed a preliminary surrender agreement. This means that our prolonged War on the Economy has been successful, and the complete destruction of the economy is at hand. And with these newly liberated resources from the private sector, we believe that it may actually be possible to drive unemployment down beneath 50 percent. Throughout the long years of battling against the economy, there were many who thought that we would not prevail, that an economic recovery would somehow occur and the American people would be forced to return to their private sector jobs, instead of spending all day waiting in the unemployment line. But under the inspired leadership of the party, the collective organizers engaged in the people's strugg

The debate over how to handle Islamic terrorism essentially comes down to those who advocate managing Islam in order to control its propensity for violence, and those who believe that instead we should be managing anything and everything that might provoke Muslim rage. While controlling violence by managing Islam is the logical and direct approach, the weight of the establishment in numerous countries has come down on the side of suppressing all things that might provoke Muslim rage. This disturbing position expresses itself in numerous ways, whether it was the censorship of the Mohammed cartoons, the ongoing attempt to blame Israel for attacks on US troops, or the entire grand theory of the left which blames all Muslim violence on the domestic and foreign policies of their targets. Given the choice between blaming the criminal for his crimes, or his victims for having provoked him-- the political and cultural elites of the very countries targeted for terror have chosen to turn the

One of the unreported aspects of Obama's manufactured insult over an Israeli housing project in Jerusalem is the way in which the administration has targeted Jewish refugees from Muslim countries. While media reports frequently denounced Interior Minister Eli Yishai, as a "Right Wing Extremist", for approving one stage of the planned housing project-- what they did not report was the larger story. Eli Yishai is the head of the Shas party, one of Israel's largest political parties, which represents the interests of Sefardi and Mizrahi Jews from Muslim countries. And the housing project would have benefited Jerusalem's sizable population of Jews from Muslim countries. In the 20th century a vast exodus took place in which as many as a million Jews from Muslim countries fled or otherwise departed, often leaving behind homes and valuables. Some came to America and Europe. Many more came to Israel instead. Today three million Mizrahi Jews live in Israel, indeed the majo

What exactly was the difference between the United States and the USSR? Both were political unions occupying large land masses. Both believed themselves to be unique political experiments which would redefine the nature of human governance around the world. Both even believed that government existed for the benefit of the people. Yet beyond the specifics, there was one fundamental difference between the two. Not simply in how they were governed, but why they were governed. In the United States, government existed through the consent of the governed. Government was simply a mechanism through which the people ruled themselves. In the USSR by contrast, government derived not from the people, but for the people. Not "Of" or "By", just "For". With the typical logic familiar to the nanny state, Communism existed to benefit the people, and so did not require their actual input, only their support. And their support was assumed to be a given, because after all t