- The Washington Times - Friday, February 17, 2006

Sheik Al-Gore

“Al Gore … was in Saudi Arabia, bad-mouthing the United States. Was Gore’s motive money and political ambition?

“Gore told a Saudi audience … [that] Arabs had been ‘indiscriminately rounded up’ … and held in ‘unforgivable’ conditions.

“Gore did not mention that 15 of the 19 terrorists who carried out mass murder on September 11 in the United States were Saudis. …

“Muslim money … is becoming an influential factor in America’s presidential elections. …

“In 2004, Kerry’s campaign marked a shift by Democrats away from their traditional Jewish constituency towards a subtle ‘anti-Zionism’ that could appeal to a global constituency of oil-rich Muslims. This shift is being driven by demographics, money, and anti-Israel/anti-American activists who have taken control of the Democratic Party.”

— Lowell Ponte, writing on “Al Gore’s Arab Pander,” Tuesday in Front Page at www.frontpagemag.com

Sex haters

“[I]n its desire for equality, or maximizing the reach of government, the Left has put every individual at war with their own sexuality, our own nature as male and female beings. This causes unbelievable heartache in married life, especially around child-rearing.

“Social scientists have repeatedly observed that couples committed to gender equality find the arrival of their first child to be very disruptive and upsetting. Why should that be? Because parenthood is not a gender-neutral activity. …

“The Left hates sex. Do not be deluded by the fact that the Left is hyper-active about sexual activity. Far too many on the Left are profoundly uncomfortable by any evidence of sex differences between men and women. They won’t be happy until we all believe that gender is an irrelevant category, for marriage, child-rearing, and even sex itself. Of course, we will make ourselves miserable trying to achieve this wrong-headed ideal.”

— Jennifer Roback Morse, author of “Smart Sex,” interviewed Tuesday in the National Review Online at www.nationalreview.com

Nothing to say

“You’ve seen the coverage of angry Muslims around the world demanding the beheading of newspaper cartoonists who drew images of Mohammed.

“You’ve heard the State Department’s shameful response condemning the artists. Or seen the signs held by ‘moderate’ Muslims in London reading ‘Freedom. Go to Hell!’ and ‘He Who Offends the Prophet Must Die!’

“What you haven’t seen — except in a handful of American papers — are the actual cartoons. …

“NBC has (as of this writing) refused to show its viewers the cartoons that launched a thousand jihads. CNN has chosen to show them, but blur them to make the images unrecognizable.

“And what about the big papers? The courageous New York Times? Nope. The Washington Post refuses to publish them because, according to the editor, the cartoons violate the standards of ‘good taste.’ This from the same paper that just ran an editorial cartoon featuring a U.S. soldier with his arms and legs blown off being mocked by Defense Secretary [Donald H.] Rumsfeld. …

“Our brave, principled journalists are ready to stand and fight against any threat … that doesn’t actually exist. But now that speaking out really matters, our ‘defenders of free speech’ suddenly have nothing to say.”

— Michael Graham, writing on “And some guts wouldn’t hurt, either,” Tuesday in the Philadelphia Daily News

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide