Daniel Greenfield / Sultan Knish Articles at DanielGreenfield.org

"The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him." Al Bukhari, quoted in the Hamas Charter Let there be no mistake about it. This is about genocide. This is what it has always been about generations back, when Hamas forefather, Hassan al Banna was writing fan letters to Hitler . A Non-violent Gaza Flotilla Activist This in a single paragraph is Hamas. This is what it stands for. And this is what anyone who talks about "the People of Gaza" really supports. The "People of Gaza" is a euphemism for Hamas which won the last PA election and rules with popular support in Gaza. Israel responded to this takeover by a genocidal terrorist group by closing its border with Gaza. Hamas cynically responded by lying and claiming to be out of power and starving . That allowed t

Over the last two weeks, a liberal scholar and pundit named Peter Beinart got a lot of attention by arguing that liberals could no longer be pro-Israel because the country and its people had moved too far to the right. The reality however is just the opposite. In every way, from national defense to the role of religion in public life, Israel has actually watered down its principles and liberalized. But it could not and cannot keep up with the pace at which liberals have slid far to the left. The key factor in falling liberal support for Israel is not inside the country, but outside it. As liberals have become more radicalized, what used to be the left is now simply liberal. And the delegitimization of Israel is part of a larger package of radical beliefs which extends across the spectrum into every area of domestic and foreign policy. For example the anti-Communist liberal who was not at all hard to find in 1967 when Israel fought the Six Day War, is nearly extinct today. And libera

Last week, just in time for Everybody Draw Mohammed Day, Apple decided to ban iSlam Muhammad , an app that featured some rather revealing passages in the Koran. Meanwhile Apple chose to leave in place BibleThumper , an app that attacked the bible. Of course those very same Koranic quotes can be found in the numerous Koran apps created by Muslims. But the double standard doesn't stop there. Before that Apple had decided to ban a campaign App by California congressional candidate Ari David , which criticized his opponent, Congressman Henry Waxman, for being "defamatory" . But naturally you can find Robert Gibbs' latest "defamatory" statements on the White House App. This shouldn't be particularly surprising as Apple does have Al Gore as one of its board members. Apple CEO Steve Jobs is a Democratic donor who has contributed to Rahm Emanuel and Nancy Pelosi. Apple fields one of the largest lobbying efforts among computer companies, spending 1.5 millio

One of the more stunning bits of insanity to come out of 2008 is that during an economic crisis caused by "Buy Now, Pay Later" fiscal planning, a candidate whose entire economic philosophy was built on "Buy Now, Pay Later" was voted in. The difference is that Obama's "Buy Now, Pay Later" plans weren't there for capitalism, but to fund socialism. And now with the national debt tripled, and his approval rating lower than a skunk's at an aromatherapy session, he's pushing out ObamaCare's "benefits" ahead of schedule. Still Buy Now, Pay Later. Buy Now, Pay Later had already done a stunning job of undermining the basic financial competence of large numbers of Americans over the years. What had been a country where people understood the value of saving money, because a country of consumers who were talked into running up credit card debts and taking out loans they couldn't afford. But this was a mirror image of what they saw h

The media is having a field day mocking J.D Hayworth over his statement about WW2. The truth as usual is a lot more complicated than can be encompassed in a soundbite fed out by talking heads who think Pearl Harbor is a jewelery store at their local mall. To begin with, Hayworth accurately pointed out that the US entry into WW2 faced similar criticism that the present day of War of Terror does. Both FDR and George W. Bush were frequently accused of an Imperial Presidency and of overstepping their bounds. Both men were also accused of conducting an illegal war. Before WW2, Roosevelt's critics frequently claimed that the administration was dragging America into a war.  Lindbergh, the most prominent spokesman against the US entry into WW2, expressed that belief in a speech several months before Pearl Harbor. The Roosevelt administration is the third powerful group which has been carrying this country toward war. Its members have used the war emergency to obtain a third president

The Obama Administration may have abandoned the space program and the search for life on other planets, but it is determinedly searching for moderate Islamic terrorists all across this planet. So far it has tried to identify "Moderate Taliban" (these would be Taliban who only chop off your feet, not your head) and "Moderate Hizbullah" (who only support bombing Ashkelon but not Haifa). It has yet to get around to trying to locate any "Moderate Al Queda", but we have to assume that's next on their shopping list. If the same people running foreign policy in the US and Europe had been in charge in 1941, when Rudolf Hess, the third in the line of succession after Hitler and Goring, flew to the UK with a peace offer-- Hess would have  been wined and dined, and the Allies would have prematurely aborted the war in joy at having finally discovered a "Moderate Nazi." Instead Churchill churlishly had Hess thrown into the Tower of London, where he

France and Switzerland are proposing a ban on the Burqa, a garment especially for women that covers the head, the body and even the face, leaving its wearer looking like a klansman who forgot to do his laundry. Belgium and the Netherlands are close to banning the Burqa. Lefty movements have responded typically enough by accusing those in favor of the ban of being bigots, arguing that the ban is counterproductive and that all women who wear Burqas do it by choice-- because all historical and global evidence to the contrary, " Muslims wouldn't dream of forcing the Burqa on anyone ". But what is really behind the Burqa? Islamists have carefully positioned this as a civil rights issue and their lefty allies are trotting along gamely trying to make the case for them. Meanwhile the Islamists have staged confrontations over women with Burqas going to the bank or trying to vote or getting driver's licenses. All of this is empty theater, when you consider that the promoters