And that brings us to this article, Heroes Took Huge Risks To Save Others. Not only are we learning more about Hasan as time passes by, but we are learning more about the actions of that tragic day on Fort Hood, and others who acted selflessly. No doubt, the big hero is Sgt. Munley, and I will get to her in just a minute Here is another hero:

Pfc. Marquest Smith, on his way to Afghanistan in January, was completing routine paperwork about a bee-sting allergy when the sounds erupted.

A loud popping noise. Moans. The sudden, urgent shout of “Gun!”

Smith poked his head over the cubicle’s partition and saw an extraordinary sight: An Army officer with two guns, firing into the crowded room.

The 21-year-old Fort Worth native quickly grabbed the civilian worker who’d been helping with his paperwork and forced her under the desk. He lay low for several minutes, waiting for the shooter to run out of ammunition and wishing he, too, had a gun.

After the shooter stopped to reload, Smith made a run for it. Pushing two other soldiers in front of him, he made it out of the Soldier Readiness Processing center — only to plunge into the building twice more to help the wounded.

Smith had survived the worst mass shooting on an American military base, a rampage that left 13 dead and 30 wounded, including the alleged shooter, Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan.

It could have been much worse, but for the heroics of Smith and others — including the diminutive civilian police officer who single-handedly took down Hasan.

Of course, that would be Sgt. Munley. More on her below as the picture of what happened on Fort Hood gets filled in. A big piece of that is we are getting some information on where the shooting began:

Decisive Action

At the processing center on the southern edge of the 100,000-acre base, soldiers returning from overseas mingled with colleagues filling out forms and undergoing medical tests in preparation for deployment.

Around 1:30 p.m., witnesses say a man authorities later identified as Hasan jumped up on a desk and shouted the words “Allahu Akbar!” — Arabic for “God is great!” He was armed with two pistols, one a semiautomatic capable of firing up to 20 rounds without reloading.

Packed into cubicles with 5-foot-high dividers, the 300 unarmed soldiers were sitting ducks (emphasis mine). Those who weren’t hit by direct fire were struck by rounds ricocheting off the desks and tile floor.

Let’s just reflect on that for a minute. Hasan chose an area in which the soldiers were close together. It was like shooting fish in a barrel. That’s pretty much what he did after he jumped up onto the desk and started firing. Just picture the logistics of that – man on desk firing on unarmed soldiers (only the MPs and contracted civilian police officers carry guns), 5 foot dividers, 300 soldiers. The potential for mass casualties was set in motion:

When he decided the shooter wasn’t close to being out of ammo, Smith made a dash for the door. He’d made it outside when he heard cries from within.

“I don’t want to die.”

“This really hurts.”

“Help me get out of here.”

Smith rushed back inside and found two wounded. He grabbed them by their collars and dragged them outside.

Around this time, Fort Hood Police Sgt. Kimberly Munley got the call of “shots fired.” The SRP isn’t on Munley’s beat; she was in the area because her vehicle was in the shop.

Munley, 34, was on the scene within three minutes.

Just over 5 feet tall, Munley is an advanced firearms instructor and civilian member of Fort Hood’s special reaction team. She had trained on “active shooter” scenarios after the April 2007 mass shooting at Virginia Tech. She didn’t wait for backup.

As she approached the squat, rectangular building, a soldier emerged from a door with a gunman in pursuit. The officer fired, and the uniformed shooter wheeled and charged.

Munley was hit at least three times in the exchange — twice through the left leg and once in her right wrist. Hasan was hit four times.

From the first shots to the last, authorities say the whole incident lasted less than 10 minutes.

Sgt. Munley’s fast response time, not waiting for backup (I wonder if she’ll get lectured about that?), and her willingness to put herself in harm’s way saved who-knows-how-many lives. Clearly, her training kicked in, and she did what she was trained to do. This article, Hero ‘Civilian Cops’ Emerge After Fort Hood Shooting: Sgt. Kimberly Munley Lost So Much Blood Doctors Feared She Wouldn’t Survive, goes into even more detail as to what Sgt. Munley did that day (H/T to American Girl in Italy for this article), as well as another police officer, Sgt, Mark Todd:

After Sgt. Kimberly Munley helped stop the Fort Hood massacre by shooting Major Nidal Malik Hasan several times, she collapsed from her wounds and doctors who treated her were afraid she wouldn’t survive.

“She was fading in and out of consciousness. She wasn’t saying much,” medic Francisco de la Serna, who began treating Munley when the shooting stopped, told ABC News.

Munley, a 34-year-old former soldier who became a civilian cop on the Fort Hood base, was shot twice in both legs during Thursday’s confrontation. Two powerful “cop killer” rounds allegedly fired by Hasan tore through her left thigh, exited and blasted through her right thigh as well. She was also struck in the wrist.

Sgt. Mark Todd, 42, a retired soldier who also works as a civilian police officer at Ford Hood, also engaged in a firefight with Hasan that lasted less than a minute, according to The Associated Press. Todd was not wounded.

Army officials say that an investigation is under way about whose bullets brought down Hasan as there was much confusion following the shooting. Munley’s supervisor initially credited her with the shot that stopped Hasan.

Todd told The Associated Press Saturday that he was unsure if Munley had wounded the suspect, because “once he started firing at me, I lost track of her.”

After firing his Beretta at Hasan, Todd said the suspect flinched, slid down against a telephone pole and fell on his back. Todd recalls hearing people say, “two more, two more.” He first thought they were referring to more shooters, but he realized that the bystanders were urging him to fire two more rounds, Todd said.

Todd said he approached the suspect and saw that he still had a gun in his hand, which he kicked away. Todd told the AP, “He was breathing, his eyes were blinking. You could tell that he was fading out. He didn’t say anything. He was just kind of blinking.”

Munley, the mother of two girls, was sped to Metroplex Hospital several miles away where doctors say she lost so much blood that they feared she would not make it.

I suppose we will have to wait to find out exactly whose bullet brought down Hasan – Munley’s or Todd’s, but there is no dispute that had she not started firing on Hasan, he would have inflicted more damage on the soldiers.

Her wounds were clearly severe, especially after being hit by “cop killer” bullets:

Munley proved to be as tough in the operating room as she was while confronting Hasan in their close-range shootout.

Dr. Kelly Matlock, who treated Munley at the Metroplex Hospital, said her first words in recovery were concern about Hasan’s victims.

“She opened her eyes and said, ‘Did anybody die?’ That’s what she said, ‘Did anybody die?’” Matlock said.

That pretty much tells you all you need to know about the make up and constitution of this woman. Her first thought, her first question, wasn’t about herself, but others. I am in awe.

Sgt. Munley got her question answered:

Munley now knows that the man she shot is alive, and that he is accused of killing 13 unarmed people and wounding 38.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry visited Munley in the hospital today and later described her as “understated.”

“She is a classic public servant who is not interested in anything other than getting on with her life,” Perry said.

Chuck Medley, the director of emergency services at Fort Hood, said many more would have died if Munley had not leaped into action.

“If she had not responded the way she had, we would have had an extremely high number of dead and injured,” Medley told ABC News Friday. “The number of lives that this person saved … We will probably never know. But there is a lot of ammunition left, a lot of magazines,” he said referring to what Hasan was allegedly carrying.

Uh, yeah. That, along with Hasan giving away his worldly goods, screams premeditation to me. No doubt about it.

While much of this has been covered already, the way in which this is written really paints a picture:

Sgt. Kimberly Munley’s Shootout With Major Nidal Malik Hasan

Medley described a scenario worthy of a Hollywood script. He said Munley, who is a member of the base’s SWAT team and a weapons expert, ran towards the gunfire and came upon Hasan when she rounded a corner and saw him pursuing a soldier who had already been wounded once.

“She fired on him twice and drew the attention toward her. He immediately spun around and charged her,” Medley said. “She fired a couple more rounds and fell back, continuing to fire.”

Despite getting struck three times by Hasan’s fusillade, Munley stayed upright and kept firing at the charging gunman.

Let’s stop right there. What kind of person is capable of doing this? What kind of person puts herself in the line of fire to save someone else? What kind of intestinal fortitude must this woman have to STAY UPRIGHT after being seriously hit, firing at the gunman?

I have a close friend who was a police officer at one time before he became a minister. I asked him that question – what makes some people run into danger, be it firefighters, police officers, military personnel, when everyone else is running away as fast as they can? What kind of courage and bravery must someone have to do something like Sgt. Munley? It is hard to fathom. Sure, many of us would like to THINK we would, but honestly – WHO would rush into this situation, size it up, and intentionally put herself in the line of fire to protect others? It is simply remarkable. This breed of human being is rare indeed.

At least according to this report, if it even matters at this point, it was Munley who brought Hasan down (as mentioned above, ballistics will have the final say):

“She struck him a couple times in the upper torso and he went down,” Medley said.

“When she rounded that corner she made a split-second decision to put her life at risk,” he said.

Lt. Gen. Robert Cone said Munley’s aggressive tactics averted even more carnage.

“She had been trained in active response,” Cone said. “They had rehearsed scenarios like this. Oftentimes, the idea is you would encircle the building and wait until you have more backup. What the belief is, if you act aggressively, to take the shooter out, you’ll have less fatalities.”

Munley acted aggressively, not waiting for backup. She went after the gunman and quickly found him. As Cone put it, Munley decided “to seek him out, to confront hm.”

Medley said he visited with Munley early Friday. “She’s doing very well. She was in good spirits. She was smiling and laughing,” he said.

Her boss said he told Munley, “The action you took saved countless peoples’ lives. People are healthy, alive and walking around today because of the action that this officer took. She’s a hero.”

Munley’s grandmother, Monirie Metz, told ABC News that the former South Carolina surfer girl would probably object to being called a hero.

“Kim doesn’t want be called a hero. She’s worried about everyone else right now and is very concerned about her colleagues with whom she is very close,” Metz said.

Of course Sgt. Munley would object to being called a hero. After what we have learned about her, who would be surprised by that? Not me. That speaks even more about her remarkable character. Can anyone not be impressed by this woman? I imagine her family is extraordinarily proud of her, as they should be.

Speaking of family:

Her husband, Matthew Munley, is a soldier at Fort Bragg, N.C., and was flown to Fort Hood. She also has two daughters, ages 15 and 2, from a previous marriage.

Needless to say, Sgt. Munley’s daring feats are already garnering tributes:

Facebook Tributes to Fort Hood Hero

In the hours after the shootings, two Facebook groups sprung up dedicated to Munley and her heroic actions.

“At that tragic moment you were able to use your training and abilities to bring an end to a day that will haunt the lives of many for years to come,” one member posted in the group “God Bless SGT Kimberly Munley.” “Thank you for being a true hero.”

And in the group “Sgt. Kimberly Munley: A Real American Hero!,” one woman stationed in Japan with her military husband said that Munley had inspired her to learn how to shoot once she returned to the U.S.

A true hero indeed – I know she’s mine.

You’re not going to believe this:

Under the rules, swimmers – including non-Muslims – are barred from entering the pool in normal swimming attire.

Instead they are told that they must comply with the “modest” code of dress required by Islamic custom, with women covered from the neck to the ankles and men, who swim separately, covered from the navel to the knees.

Huh? What kind of coverings? Like this?

(Photo Credit)

That’s from 1864. Yes, that’s right – 145 years ago. That’s what all the women were wearing then.

This is about what they are wearing in 2009:

(Photo credit)

Uh yeah. Pretty much. Even if they are NOT Muslims, women are supposed to wear this so as not to offend. I’m sorry, how is that again? They are going to allow one religion, not even the NATIONAL religion, mind you, to dominate what women and men (though the latter is FAR less restrictive) can and cannot wear while swimming?? In a PUBLIC pool? Well, that’s simply stunning, isn’t it?

Not everyone is onboard with the whole “burkini” thing, though, as you might have guessed:

The phenomenon runs counter to developments in France, where last week a woman was evicted from a public pool for wearing a burkini – the headscarf, tunic and trouser outfit which allows Muslim women to preserve their modesty in the water.

The 35-year-old, named only as Carole, is threatening legal action after she was told by pool officials in Emerainville, east of Paris, that she could not wear the outfit on hygiene grounds.

Not that I think she should have been tossed out of the pool or anything, but she was not trying to force everyone ELSE to wear one, either:

But across the UK municipal pools are holding swimming sessions specifically aimed at Muslims, in some case imposing strict dress codes.

Croydon council in south London runs separate one-and-a half-hour swimming sessions for Muslim men and women every Saturday and Sunday at Thornton Heath Leisure Centre.

Swimmers were told last week on the centre’s website that “during special Muslim sessions male costumes must cover the body from the navel to the knee and females must be covered from the neck to the ankles and wrists”.

There are similar rules at Scunthorpe Leisure Centre, in North Lincolnshire, where “users must follow the required dress code for this session (T-shirts and shorts/leggings that cover below the knee)”.

In Glasgow, a men-only swimming session is organised by a local mosque group at North Woodside Leisure Centre, at which swimmers must be covered from navel to knee.

At a women-only class organised by a Muslim teacher at Blackbird Leys Swimming Pool, Oxford, to encourage Muslim women to learn to swim, most participants wear “modest” outfits although normal costumes are permitted.

Hmmm. Well, that’s something at least – that regular dress is allowed at this one place. Though still, to impose their standard of “modest dress” on others is still, well, an imposition, is it not?

Here’s the problem:

The dress codes have provoked an angry reaction among critics who say they encourage division and resentment between Muslims and non-Muslims, putting strain on social cohesion.

Ian Cawsey, the Labour MP for the North Lincolnshire constituency of Brigg and Goole, said: “Of course swimming pools have basic codes of dress but it should not go beyond that.

“I don’t think that in a local authority pool I should have to wear a particular type of clothes for the benefit of someone else. That’s not integration or cohesion.”

Good point, isn’t it? But how about a leader who does have a large Muslim populaiton:

Labour MP Anne Cryer, whose Keighley, West Yorkshire constituency has a large number of Muslims, said: “Unfortunately this kind of thing has a negative impact on community relations.

“It’s seen as yet another demand for special treatment. I can’t see why special clothing is needed for what is a single-sex session.”

Muslim swimming sessions are also held at a number of state schools around the country. At Loxford School in Ilford, east London, a local Muslim group organises weekly sessions for Muslim men, with the warning that “it is compulsory for the body to be covered between the navel and the knees.

“Anyone not adhering to the dress code or rules within the pool will not be allowed to swim”.

The practice of holding special Muslim swimming sessions has led to non-Muslims being turned away.

Well, that’s a bit of a problem, isn’t it, whent it is a public pool? I can see where people might get testy over not being allowed in if the don’t adhere to the strict dress code of a religion not their own:

David Toube, 39 and his five year old son Harry were last year refused entry to Clissold Leisure Centre, in Hackney, east London, after being told the Sunday morning swimming session was for Muslim men only.

Council officials later said staff had made a mistake and both Mr Toube, a corporate lawyer, and his son should have been admitted.

After discovering the rules at Thornton Heath one Croydon resident, 34-year-old Alex Craig, said: “I think it is preposterous that a council should be encouraging this type of segregation over municipal facilities.

“Surely if Muslims want to swim then they should just turn up with their modest swimwear at the same time as everyone else.”

That does not sound too outrageous to me, but I freely admit, I am not in the camp that women should have to hide their entire bodies to be able to go swimming. That’s just me, though.

But it is just that kind of directive that brings this up:

Douglas Murray, director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, last night condemned the practice. He said: “This kind of thing is extremely divisive.

“Non-Muslims see these extremist demands as an example of Muslims wanting things to fit into their lifestyle, when there aren’t similar things organised for Hindus, Buddhists or Jews.

“It also puts moderate Muslims in an awkward position as it suggests, wrongly, that they are not devout enough, simply because they choose not to cover themselves in a shroud in a pool.”

A press officer at Croydon council, which introduced Muslim-only swimming in 2006, claimed that the wording on the website was a mistake and the dress code should be regarded as a suggestion rather than a requirement.

The website was late changed to remove the reference to the dress code.

However, an official at the leisure centre said the dress code remained compulsory.

Earlier, defending the segregation policy, a Croydon council spokesman said: “We appreciate that certain religious groups, such as Muslims, have strict rules on segregation for activities including sports, so in response to requests from the local community, we have been running these sessions at Thornton Heath Leisure Centre.”

All in all, it sounds like quite a kerfluffle.

So, what do you think about this requirement? Should non-Muslim women be forced to wear “burkinis” while swimming in public pools? Let’s, um, flesh this out, shall we?

The founder of Blackwater, Erik Prince, is a Navy man, is also a Christian of the conservative strand. He has given a bunch of money to conservative causes, including James Dobson’s “Focus on the Family” group. Just to set the stage.

And Obama said, as a candidate, that he would not “rule out” keeping Blackwater, now “Xe,” in Iraq. Hillary not so much, not even close:

(she) released a statement announcing that Clinton is now co-sponsoring legislation to “ban the use of Blackwater and other private mercenary firms in Iraq,” saying, “The time to show these contractors the door is long past due.”

Uh huh. And what has Obama done since becoming president? He’s given Blackwater, aka, Xe, a $70 million dollar contract. Doesn’t that make you feel all warm and fuzzy?

Here’s the thing: the founder of Blackwater, Erik Prince, has been implicated by two former employees for murder. Yep. And you are not going to believe this story. It is going to make you SO happy (that’s snark) that Obama has chosen to give this man, and his company, more money to stay in the Middle East. I’ll give you some of the highlights, but I urge you to read the whole piece (and the author, Jeremy Scahill, has written a LOT about Blackwater. He was a bit snide about Hillary Clinton and her resolve to NOT have Blackwater on the payroll any longer, even though that was in the same article in which he pointed out that Obama the Candidate he wouldn’t “rule it out.” Still, the articles are worth reading.). To the article:

A former Blackwater employee and an ex-US Marine who has worked as a security operative for the company have made a series of explosive allegations in sworn statements filed on August 3 in federal court in Virginia. The two men claim that the company’s owner, Erik Prince, may have murdered or facilitated the murder of individuals who were cooperating with federal authorities investigating the company. The former employee also alleges that Prince “views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe,” and that Prince’s companies “encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life.”

Now is when I remind you that Obama chose to retain this company. A “Christian crusader” hellbent on wiping Muslims off the map. WOW. There’s more:

Doe #2 states in the declaration that he has also provided the information contained in his statement “in grand jury proceedings convened by the United States Department of Justice.” Federal prosecutors convened a grand jury in the aftermath of the September 16, 2007, Nisour Square shootings in Baghdad, which left seventeen Iraqis dead. Five Blackwater employees are awaiting trial on several manslaughter charges and a sixth, Jeremy Ridgeway, has already pleaded guilty to manslaughter and attempting to commit manslaughter and is cooperating with prosecutors. It is not clear whether Doe #2 testified in front of the Nisour Square grand jury or in front of a separate grand jury.

The two declarations are each five pages long and contain a series of devastating allegations concerning Erik Prince and his network of companies, which now operate under the banner of Xe Services LLC. Among those leveled by Doe #2 is that Prince “views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe”:

To that end, Mr. Prince intentionally deployed to Iraq certain men who shared his vision of Christian supremacy, knowing and wanting these men to take every available opportunity to murder Iraqis. Many of these men used call signs based on the Knights of the Templar, the warriors who fought the Crusades.

Mr. Prince operated his companies in a manner that encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life. For example, Mr. Prince’s executives would openly speak about going over to Iraq to “lay Hajiis out on cardboard.” Going to Iraq to shoot and kill Iraqis was viewed as a sport or game. Mr. Prince’s employees openly and consistently used racist and derogatory terms for Iraqis and other Arabs, such as “ragheads” or “hajiis.”

Among the additional allegations made by Doe #1 is that “Blackwater was smuggling weapons into Iraq.” He states that he personally witnessed weapons being “pulled out” from dog food bags. Doe #2 alleges that “Prince and his employees arranged for the weapons to be polywrapped and smuggled into Iraq on Mr. Prince’s private planes, which operated under the name Presidential Airlines,” adding that Prince “generated substantial revenues from participating in the illegal arms trade.”

Doe #2 states: “Using his various companies, [Prince] procured and distributed various weapons, including unlawful weapons such as sawed off semi-automatic machine guns with silencers, through unlawful channels of distribution.” Blackwater “was not abiding by the terms of the contract with the State Department and was deceiving the State Department,” according to Doe #1.

This is disturbing on so many levels, isn’t it? Naturally, Prince denies any wrongdoing:

In their testimony, both men also allege that Blackwater was smuggling weapons into Iraq. One of the men alleges that Prince turned a profit by transporting “illegal” or “unlawful” weapons into the country on Prince’s private planes. They also charge that Prince and other Blackwater executives destroyed incriminating videos, emails and other documents and have intentionally deceived the US State Department and other federal agencies. The identities of the two individuals were sealed out of concerns for their safety.

These allegations, and a series of other charges, are contained in sworn affidavits, given under penalty of perjury, filed late at night on August 3 in the Eastern District of Virginia as part of a seventy-page motion by lawyers for Iraqi civilians suing Blackwater for alleged war crimes and other misconduct. Susan Burke, a private attorney working in conjunction with the Center for Constitutional Rights, is suing Blackwater in five separate civil cases filed in the Washington, DC, area. They were recently consolidated before Judge T.S. Ellis III of the Eastern District of Virginia for pretrial motions. Burke filed the August 3 motion in response to Blackwater’s motion to dismiss the case. Blackwater asserts that Prince and the company are innocent of any wrongdoing and that they were professionally performing their duties on behalf of their employer, the US State Department.

Yes, Prince is claiming everything he did was on behalf of the State Department. Oh, sure. I have no doubt that, given how Hilary Clinton spoke of his organization during the campaign, that she was all behind what he was doing in Iraq. Again, that is snark.

So – will Obama be held accountable for keeping Blackwater/Xe on the payroll and at the State Department, or will he pass the buck (again) and blame Clinton, even though she wanted nothing to do with them?

Will Erik Prince get his comeuppance for his private “crusade” against Muslims? Will he be held to account for smuggling weapons into Iraq? If what has been alleged against him is true, he deserves everything that is coming to him. Personally, I am exceedingly offended that this man and his company have been on OUR payroll, operating this way on OUR behalf. What he has been accused of doing is obscene. Just reprehensible.

Tell me again why Obama renewed his contract, because I don’t get it (even before these allegations)…

That being said, there is no doubt that Private William Long, the Army soldier gunned down outside an Army Recruiting Center (along with Private Quinton I. Ezeagwula, who was wounded), was killed for political and religious reasons by a convert to Islam, who studied jihad in Yemen. To deny that, to gloss over that reality because President Obama was getting ready to go give a speech in Egypt to the Muslim community (and you know that is why), is yet another example of the failure of the Fourth Estate to do its job, instead of acting as the PR arm of Obama’s Administration. It is revisionist history, to be sure, but one that has consequences, not just in Little Rock, AR, but also for those serving our country who expect, no, who are ENTITLED to, better treatment by their country. It dishonors them, their service, us, and this dishonor is being perpetrated by their Commander in Chief. It is reprehensible.

And so, with the caveat above, here is a link to a post from Atlas Shrugs regarding an event at a Remembrance Rally for the fallen Pvt. Long. One of the points made at the other post was the lack of coverage of this event compared to the protesters at Dr. Tiller’s funeral. At least that seemed to garner some national media attention.

I hasten to say, though, I think it is inappropriate for protesters to be at ANYone’s funeral, whether it be Dr. Tiller’s by Operation Rescue-type people, or at Pvt. Long’s by those who think the US is “The Great Satan,” or whatever. Some of you may know that Fred Phelps’ gang, um, I mean, “church,” often stages protests at the funerals of military personnel (you know, supporting a country that supports LGBT people), and at the funerals of gay people (like Matthew Shepard, for example). If you have not seen any comments made by this group, this should give you an idea:

“The first sin was being a part of this military. If this young man had a clue and any fear of God, he would have run, and not walked, from this military,” said protester Shirley Phelps-Roper. “Who would serve a nation that is godless and has flipped off, defiantly defied, defiantly flipped off, the Lord their God?”

And this:

One protester had an American flag tied to his belt that draped to the ground. He was holding a sign that read, “Thank God For IEDs,” which are explosive devices used by insurgents to blow up military convoys.

It only goes down hill from there.

Ironically, there are often veterans there to counter the Phelps’ people, but they know that this is a free country, which means they have to listen to this crap and not lash out in kind.

Oops – sorry for the digression. The point (I’m getting there!) is two-fold: first, the lack of coverage relating to this violent attack by someone who has a HISTORY of violence and “fun with guns” (ahem), who attacked members of our military motivated by religion and politics continues to upset me. There should be more outrage about this, if you ask me, and more concern, especially since Muhammad seems to have larger connections. Maybe the FBI should have been keeping a closer eye on him.

Second, protesting at a memorial remembrance, or anything like that, is inappropriate, in my opinion that is. People are grieving the loss of their loved ones, and especially when they have been taken by violent means, to then have to deal with protesters is just cruel. I am ALL for free speech, a right sacred to us in a democracy, one in which I engage in regularly, and through protests. It is a right that the veterans mentioned as being why they tolerate the hateful comments made at funerals of soldiers by the Phelps “church.” It is why the videographer at the Rally said over and over, “Can you do this in Saudi Arabia?” (as in, can a woman stand on a street in Saudi Arabia and say whatever she wants? I kinda doubt it.).

But I also believe there is a time and place for such protests, and at someone’s funeral, or even their memorial rally, flies in the face of decency and decorum. That concept seems to be sorely lacking these days, but it wouldn’t hurt to get back to it, and I hope we do. Any ol’ day now…

I think that we Americans need to stop exaggerating the level of threat to the United States that originates or will originate in Afghanistan.  The temptation to see the activities and scheming of takfiri jihadis as parts of a world war between the Islamic "House of War" and the rest of us has caused us to begin to re-design our society(ies) for total war against an all powerful and virtually eternal enemy.  This is nonsense.  Islam, Islamdom, and Islamicate Civilization are much given, as are other such cultural constructs, to revivalism in a pattern that recurs over centuries as memory of the costs of each revival fades from the living collective mind.  The present phenomenon of Islamic zealotry is not something new.  It is something old come again.  This wave of revivalism has peaked and will decline under the pressure of local government and religious establishments, foreign military intervention and the competition presented by other forms of Islam, each with its claim to universal authenticity and its own circle of adherents. 

In Afghanistan there is always war; war for resources, honor, leadership, authenticity of Islamic identity.  The causes of war are endless.  There are many different peoples in Afghanistan;  Pushtun, Tajik, Uzbek, Hazara, Turkmen, Nuristani, etc. etc. etc.  Many of these groups speak mutually incomprehensible languages.  They are mostly Sunni, but some, like the Hazara, are Shia.  What we see now in Afghanistan is NOT a "theater of war" in  a "global war on terror."  Rather, it is a continuation of the ancient Afghan pattern of traditional warfare among the peoples, their groupings old and new, and sectarian definitions of Islamic truth.  The minions of the Al-Qa'ida related zealot groups are scattered and hidden in the "landscape" of ever shifting conflict that is Afghanistan.  They are like raisins in a cake.  These "raisins" are a danger to the United States.  They are a danger but not an "existential" threat to our "way of life" as they are sometimes described.  Americans are not going to experience a mass conversion to the Al-Qa'ida version of Islam.  Such a conversion would be a threat to our "way of life" but it will not happen.  Nuclear, biological or chemical weapons in the hands of Al-Qa'ida?  The "dirty bomb" thing?  None of these threats are existential threats to the United States.  The US is too big a country for that.  The Soviet Union with its thousands of hydrogen bombs was an existential threat to the United States, but not Al-Qa'ida.  Americans in their obsession with self tend to confuse personal survival with group survival.  In this case, the group under consideration is the American polity.  That entity is in no way threatened existentially by the raggedy jihadis in Afghanistan or their better dressed fellow enthusiasts elsewhere.  For true Muslims, the survival of the 'Umma is all important.  The base line truth is, as Cieran says, that attacks with 50kt. weapons would be met with retaliation with multi-megaton weapons.  That would be the end of Islamdom in many places.  It would not be the end of Islam but Muslim polities would suffer to an extent that few can imagine.  Faced with that truth only a handful of fanatics would even consider such a thing.  Therefore, it is the handful of fanatics that should be the objects of our attention.  They are dangerous to us at the individual, familial and local levels. 

President Obama in his announcement of policy with regard to Afghanistan, said that our goal would be to disrupt, disorganize and destroy our enemies.  That is an appropriate goal given the actual size and intensity of the threat.  Forget about nation building in Afghanistan.  Forget about generational commitments of vast amounts of treasure that we no longer possess.  Forget about Cheney's nonsensical 1% solution.  This sounds like a half-baked "lift" from the Israeli Right.  A decent regard for the opinion of mankind would point to the wisdom of infrastructure building aid for the Afghans on a multi-national basis.  Past that point we should focus on killing and disrupting the adherents of tiny sects that opt for violent action against what they see as unbelief.  Most Afghans, indeed most Pushtuns do not want an unending war with the US.  They are more than willing, like Willie Sutton, to go where the money is.  The goal of policy in Afghanistan should be to pit the majority(ies) against the handful of people who actively threaten us.  Is this war?  Yes.  It is my kind of war.

In Pakistan the problem is very different.  There, a developed post-colonial state is threatened by a reversion to ancient forms of conflict.  Once again, the Pushtuns of the mountain and hill country seek to impose their will on the people of the plain of the Indus watershed.   The nuclear arsenal of Pakistan makes a victory of the hillmen unacceptable to the US.  As I wrote at the National Journal blog this week, a return to Pakistan Army control of the government and imposition of government control over the border country seems the only acceptable solution and the United States should stop impeding that outcome.  — pl

Anyone (like Barack Obama) entertaining ideas of western democracies establishing friendly relations with the radicals of the Islamic world should watch this video.

While watching the inflammatory rhetoric of the speaker, remember that this is not a jahidist from Iran but a professor from Kuwait – a country with every reason to be grateful to the USA for liberating it from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein’s invasion.

Qatar, the country from which it was broadcast, is also supposed to be one of the Middle East countries more friendly to the USA than others in the region.

Together with increasing criticism from supposedly friendly Iraqis about America’s operations in the region, it suggests that America is fighting a losing battle in its attempts to win friends in the region, and that a final showdown with Islamic extremism is inevitable, since there is no room for compromise with people who believe as this Kuwaiti professor does.

Jake Tapper has the lead print story on-line, and CNN’s Anderson Cooper is covering the breaking story as well as showing snippets of Obama’s first interview as president, made to the MidEast popular television outlet. Updates:

(1) This ties in, of course, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s naming of George Mitchell as special envoy for the Middle East, and her immediate order that Mitchell depart immediately on an extensive tour of the region — which signals, to me, that Secretary Clinton and President Obama have decided to immediately target the region’s plethora of problems and extremist influences; and

(2) The Washington Post story, “Obama Voices Hope for Mideast Peace in Talk With Al-Arabiya TV” emphasizes Obama’s “expressed optimism yesterday about the prospect of peace between Israel and the Palestinians, but he said a peace accord will take time and require new thinking about the problems of the Middle East as a whole.” From the WaPo:

“All too often the United States starts by dictating — in the past on some of these issues — and we don’t always know all the factors that are involved,” Obama told al-Arabiya. “So let’s listen. [Mitchell is] going to be speaking to all the major parties involved. And he will then report back to me. From there we will formulate a specific response.”

Mitchell will be on the road until Feb. 3, according to the State Department. He will travel to Israel, the West Bank, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, France and England. He also hopes to go to Istanbul, the site of talks between Israel and Syria. …

[..]

[Obama's] comments were a stark departure from those of former president George W. Bush, who often described the Middle East conflict in terms that drew criticism from Palestinians.

By contrast, Obama went out of his way to say that if America is “ready to initiate a new partnership [with the Muslim world] based on mutual respect and mutual interest, then I think that we can make significant progress.”

The president declined to reveal where he plans to give his first major speech in a foreign country. In the past he had said he would speak in a Muslim capital sometime within the first 100 days of his administration.

And he reiterated a point from his inaugural address: He plans to reach out to Muslims around the world who are willing to “unclench your fist” but will go after terrorists who continue to be bent on destruction. …

“Now, my job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect. I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries,” Obama said in the interview.

He said that the United States must be “willing to talk to Iran” and that he would lay out a “framework” for those discussions over the next several months.

Wood said Mitchell will not have contact with Hamas, the militant group that controls the Gaza Strip, but he did not rule out the possibility that Mitchell would also visit Syria or travel to Gaza. … READ ALL.

I tuned in just as Cooper was referring to the pleas of Prince Turki of Saudi Arabia, former head of intelligencce in Saudi Arabia and briefly Ambassador to the U.S., telling President Obama that the Arab countries couldn’t sustain their relationships with the U.S. as long as there was so much bloodshed and violence pouring out of the Gaza area. The heavy onslaught by Israeli military forces has enraged Muslims across the entire MidEast and Asian regions. [IMAGE: The photo of a Palestinian whose face has been gravely disfigured by shrapnel. The man's legs were also crushed. It is critical to understand that the peoples of the Middle East are seeing far too many of these photos and videos, including those of dead children which Larry Johnson posted last week. These images have a profound effect and it is natural for people in the region to assume that the U.S. is as responsible as Israel for these maimings and killings.]

As Cooper pointed out, it is highly signficant that in this interview, Obama mentioned that many members of his famiy are Muslims and that he spent part of his youth in Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country. He is certainly the first U.S. president to be able to make that claim, and — who knows — it may help.

It is notable that, during the election cycles, Obama never brought up his familial ties to the Muslim faith because he knew that that would alienate voters. Perhaps now that he is president, and he is also worried that his standing in the Middle East is that he won’t be any different than George Bush, he feels compelled to risk discussing his background more frankly. (With the immediate dispatch of George Mitchell and this TV interview tonight, it sounds as if there is a lot of intelligence “rumblings” being heard, and that the administration feels it must act, and act quickly to change the mindset of ME and European Muslims.

Here is Jake Tapper’s initial report:

As special envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell heads off to the region to begin work on negotiating a cease fire between Israel and the Palestinians, President Obama has sat for his first formal TV interview with the Arabic cable TV network Al-Arabiya, ABC News has learned.

The interview was taped this evening and is set to air at 11 pm ET, as Mitchell is in the air and on his way to the region.

Based in Dubai, Al-Arabiya estimates that it has a potential audience exceeding 23 million in the Gulf region.

I remember Prince Turki vividly from the great book and winner of the Pulitzer non-fiction prize, The Looming Tower. (I can’t recommend this book enough; there are sections of the book that describe in detail how Turki handled grave crises within Saudi Arabia, including the near destruction of Mecca by a group of extremists.] Turki is portrayed in such a way in that book that I would regard his warnings as critical for the U.S. to heed, particularly if he issued a stern warning to the U.S. I am hopeful that both President Obama and Secretary Clinton have heeded his admonitions that something must be done to change the course of events, and the reactions of the Israelis.

By the way, I checked Al-Arabayi’s Web site but don’t see any reports or video yet.

I must say that, from what I’m hearing, Obama is doing a great job.

“Hamas’ charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.”

Israel is right to attack Hamas in Gaza. The Palestinians are wrong to have elected Hamas as their leaders. Like the Taliban in Afghanistan, Gaza is being lead by an illegitimate terrorist organization bent on the destruction of Israel. This “government,” put in place by Palestinians, has repeatedly attacked Israel with hundreds of rockets, suicide bombers, and decades of unthinkable bloodshed and fear.

Israel is not trying to win a popularity contest on the world stage, and nightly news showing civilian causalities is heartbreaking and does nothing to endear the world to the Jewish state. But Israel is following the American model of toppling the Taliban: if you support and harbor terrorists, you are a terrorist. Hamas is aware of anti-Israel sentiment and they have a history of fabricating “atrocities” to inflame the world against Israel.

The American Left distrusts power, the military, and the use of force. As the bumper sticker says, they’re “already against the next war.” But I’ve noticed another disturbing trend: left wing anti-Semitism.

Before I point this out I want to make two points. First, I am not Jewish; my ancestry is English and Christian. Secondly, I understand that most people who oppose Israel’s current actions are not anti-Semitic.

However, there is a virulent strain of antisemitism on the American Left. I believe that the moral equivalence argument and analogy between the State of Israel and the Nazi regime is anti-Semitic. The atrocities committed by the Nazi clique, mass murder on an industrial scale (some camps murdering 20,000 souls per day), was an evil so grotesque and nearly beyond comprehension that special care must be taken when speaking about an event which cost so many innocents their lives.

Israel is a secular, multi-ethnic democracy who is defending herself against a terrorist organization. Hamas like Al-Qaeda, is an off-shoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. “Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by Canada, the European Union, Israel, Japan, and the United States, and is banned in Jordan, Australia, and the United Kingdom.”

The allegedly intelligent blogger, Joseph Cannon, has posted an image based on Nazi propaganda. The soldier’s Swastika has been replaced with a Star of David. As if this wasn’t bad enough, Cannon then uses select quotes from the Bible’s books Deuteronomy and Joshua to attack the secular Jewish State. This selective quoting of religious texts to attack a people is a familiar form of religious bigotry perpetrated on Muslims and Christians today and, historically, on Jews, as if Jews today have to answer for every word of a 5,000 year old religion. Cannon is engaged in Jew-baiting, and it’s despicable.

Additionally, Cannon uses the canard that Israel possess “stolen” land. He writes: “keep in mind that this story is about land theft, pure and simple. The Lord is here the ultimate fall guy, the original Nuremburg excuse: ‘Hey, we didn’t want to commit genocide; we were only following orders.’”

It’s unfortunate that Cannon uses the Nazi tribunals and religious text as a comparison to a secular democracy defending itself from terrorists’ attacks.

Cannon’s writing then veers close to Der Stürmer, the anti-Semitic rag of Nazism:

Too many Jews learned the wrong lesson from World War II. The victims of persecution came to equate strength with a willingness to persecute others. Like many other peoples in many other times and places, a large number of Jews were seduced into the false belief that the hardest heart beats longest.

But history teaches a very different lesson. Hitler’s Germany did not last. The Third Reich was destroyed for its evil. Germany was divided like an earthworm. Yet it recovered. Who can deny that — in the long run — the best thing ever to happen to Germany was the eradication of its government and its (temporary) loss of national sovereignty at the end of World War II?

~snip~

Israel must be destroyed, just as Hitler’s Germany was destroyed. All Jews throughout the world must forevermore rid themselves of the lunatic, racist dream of “Jewish state.” Jews living in Israel will either agree to live in a single multi-ethnic democracy in which everyone ruled (directly or indirectly) by the government has an equal vote — or they will die in their madness.

The madness of Cannon’s thesis is his shameful omission of Hamas’ terrorism, the numerous murders, suicide bombers, rockets launched at innocent Israeli citizens, and kidnapping of IDF soldiers. He deplores the establishment of a Jewish state, but ignores the goal of Hamas to establish an Islamic state. Nor does he mention that Israel does have non-Jewish citizens, including Muslims, Druze, and Christians. His rage is directed at the idea that a people can establish a homeland, but clearly he is uneducated at the plight of Jews in pre-World War Two Europe. He claims that “too many Jews learned the wrong lesson in World War Two,” but he fails to note that the assimilated Jews of Europe were nearly all murdered exactly because they had no where to turn when anti-Semitism reared its ugly head.

Cannon then goes on to say that the “Old Testament,” is evil:

In my explorations, I have never found any other “sacred” text dripping with the inexcusable bloodlust and hate one can find in the Old Testament. My sympathies now lie with the Gnostics, who considered much of that book evil

Cannon is referring to the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. His ignorance is profound. The Jewish Torah (as it’s called in Judaism) and the Old Testament are not identical. This shows his utter ignorance and bigotry. But of course Cannon is not alone.

In a similar vein, a commentator named Alibe on American Girl in Italy’s recent post writes:

The current war between Hamas and Israel is not war. This is the equivalent of The Germans clearing out the Warsaw Ghetto. Gaza has been a ghetto. Israel has treated the people of gaza as less than human. They have tried to control every aspect of life in Gaza. Just as the Nazis tried to control the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto, the Israelis have morphed into the Nazis and now use the same thinking the Nazis did.

Besides the author’s ahistorical understanding of the Holocaust, the analogy also falls apart when you point out that the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto were not launching rockets at the civilian population of Poland nor did they have it as their charter to destroy the nation of Germany — although Germany’s anti-Semitic propaganda claimed they did.

As I wrote on the same post:

Land was not “taken away” from Palestinians. Jewish holocaust survivors [and others] fought the British who controlled a colony the British called Palestine, which was never a Palestinian state. In fact, there has never been a country called Palestine. There’s a democracy in that region, called Israel, which continues to be attacked by a terrorist government, called Hamas. Israel is now dismantling this terrorist organization, an organization — by the way — whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel and who has killed thousands of Israelis.

Israel is open to criticism. And friends of Israel, like Larry Johnson, have been critical of this military action against Hamas in Gaza.

Liberal antisemitism is hateful and ubiquitous. A Daily Kos diarist, Susan Jumper, wrote that she’d like to “gas” the Jewish Sen. Joseph Lieberman, and others on her post compared Sen. Lieberman to a dog that should be killed.

Similarly, during an anti-Israel demonstration in Florida, protesters shouted:

“Did Israel take notes during the Holocaust? Happy Hanukkah.”

And:

To the dozen or so supporters of Israel gathered across the street, one demonstrator shouted: “Murderers! Go back to the ovens! You need a big oven.”

While it’s inflammatory to call someone a Nazi, I believe it’s anti-Semitic to call Israelis Nazis. Just as it’s correctly verboten for whites to use the N-word, it’s equally offensive to engage in this not so subtle form of Jew-baiting. Barely disguised anti-Semitism (or the outright murderous fantasies of Daily Kos’ Susan Jumper, Joseph Cannon, and the protesters in Florida) have become très chic in Europe and the United States. We can argue over matters of policy, but false comparisons, attacks based on religious texts, and code words have no place in our discourse. It’s important to point out that words have implications, and it’s clear that anti-Semitism is being implied.

As Israelis say about the Holocaust, Never Again. Never again.

UPDATE: The Chicago Tribune (understandably busy with the Blagojevich blow-up) has the “first ever” newspaper interview with the official PEBO. As we said several days ago, PEBO has stated he wants to make a major speech from a muslim capital. Fine.

Barack Obama says his presidency is an opportunity for the U.S. to renovate its relations with the Muslim world, starting the day of his inauguration and continuing with a speech he plans to deliver in an Islamic capital.

And when he takes the oath of office Jan. 20, he plans to be sworn in like every other president, using his full name: Barack Hussein Obama.

Read the rest ->

“I think we’ve got a unique opportunity to reboot America’s image around the world and also in the Muslim world in particular,” Obama said Tuesday, promising an “unrelenting” desire to “create a relationship of mutual respect and partnership in countries and with peoples of good will who want their citizens and ours to prosper together.”

The world, he said, “is ready for that message.”

BO seems to think the world is breathlessly anticipating his speech on the matter. Somehow I doubt it will have THAT big an impact, but it’s worth a try. Meanwhile, the UN is planning an “anti-racism” conference in February, 2009. Earlier this month, Forbes magazine did some research on the 2009 conference and the 2001 that spawned it.

From the original NQ post:

Forbes has an interesting article about a new UN “anti-racism” conference. This new conference will be held in Geneva, April 2009, hard on the heels of the last “anti-racism” conference, held in 2001.

The writer says she studied the now notorious 2001 conference while doing background on the upcoming one.

. . . a notoriously anti-Semitic United Nations conference held in 2001 in Durban, South Africa. Billed as an effort to fight racism, that Durban conclave focused instead on vilifying Israel–whipping up hatred to such an extreme that then- Secretary of State Colin Powell ordered the U.S. delegation to walk out.

The new “anti-racism” conference, called Durban Review Conference, is being organized by some people with serious anti-racism chops. Or not.

The 20-member preparatory committee, operating out of Geneva, is chaired by a Libyan ambassador, Najat Al-Hajjaji. Back in 2003, she chaired the U.N.’s former Human Rights Commission, which discredited itself not only by picking Al-Hajjaji, envoy of Libya’s despotic regime, to run the show, but also by slamming Israel 27 times from 2001 to 2006. As the State Department anti-Semitism report notes, this was more than twice the number of UNHRC criticisms leveled during that same period at North Korea, Burma and Sudan combined.

In 2006, as part of a package of U.N. “reforms,” that farce of a Human Rights Commission was dissolved. It was replaced by the current sham of a Human Rights Council, which in its first 16 months spent most of its time issuing 15 criticisms of Israel, and then singled out Israel to become a permanent item on its agenda.

This same Human Rights Council is now providing the official umbrella and support staff for the Durban Review Conference. Among the vice-chairs of the preparatory committee are emissaries of such unfree countries as Iran, Russia, Pakistan and Cameroon (which, according to New York-based Freedom House, still tolerates slavery in its northern reaches). Cuba–where wholesale repression includes the additional frill of job discrimination against Afro-Cubans–fills two seats at this Durban II table, which features both a Cuban vice-chair and Cuba as Rapporteur.

——————-

As for U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, he was quick to express horror over the hate that fueled the terrorist assault on Mumbai. But he has done nothing to defuse the ticking bomb of Durban II. Instead, Ban’s office has been dutifully processing the multi-million dollar funding requests of the Durban organizers. The U.S., which contributes an out-sized 22% to Ban’s budget, is planning to withhold a small portion of that money in hope of pressuring the U.N. into better behavior. Good luck. The U.N. dodge has been to re-frame the total conference tab, now estimated at about $5.1 million, as coming mainly from resources already available, plus donations. China has committed $20,000, Russia $600,000 and a number of as-yet-unnamed member states are expected to pony up.

All of which begs the larger point, that U.S. taxpayers are the chief sugar daddies for the entire U.N. system, which–with its logo, premises and diplomatic perquisites–will give this conference a world stage and stamp of authority it would not otherwise enjoy.

The author ends with this.

Among the U.N.’s 192 member states, only two have had the backbone to announce that they will boycott the Durban Review: Canada, and for obvious reasons, Israel. In the U.S., President Bush has deferred any final decision to the next administration. President-elect Obama, what will you do about Durban II?

She asks a veeerrrrryyy interesting question. What will Obama do? He spent lots of campaign time race-baiting and allowed campaign operatives to use sexism and gender attacks. The LGBT and Hispanic communities are now finding BO’s implied anti-discrimination promise somewhat underwhelming. (Not that this should have come as any surprise to anyone paying the smallest amount of attention to the campaign, but I digress.)

Here’s the thing though. Early in his administration, BO will have to contend with organized anti-Semitism from an institution funded largely by the US. He’ll have to take a stand on racism – something he says is deeply important in his life. The idea of racism is so important to Obama he wrote books about it, centered his religious life around it, selected his home community because of it and built his Presidential campaign around it. Now he’ll have to take a stand when the issue does not directly address only himself or AAs. Given the players in this conference, I don’t see how BO can “finesse” this situation. He will either be against what Forbes called “a mob move against Israel,” or he will permit it. He may try to say the issues are complicated and complex, but the last “anti-racism” conference and the players in this one don’t deserve such hair-splitting from the “post-racial” US President who is, after all, supposed to heal the world.

Making this a little more interesting is the fact that Obama has already said as US President he wants to make a major speech from an Islamic country. The NYT thinks BO will go to Egypt.

President-elect Barack Obama’s aides say he is considering making a major foreign policy speech from an Islamic capital during his first 100 days in office.
————
It’s got to be Cairo. Egypt is perfect. It’s certainly Muslim enough, populous enough and relevant enough. It’s an American ally, but there are enough tensions in the relationship that the choice will feel bold. The country has plenty of democracy problems, so Mr. Obama can speak directly to the need for a better democratic model there. It has got the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist organization that has been embraced by a wide spectrum of the Islamic world, including the disenfranchised and the disaffected.

Politico seems to think it will be Jakarta.

The Obama donor, Los Angeles real estate executive Ted Leary, recalled that Obama spoke of his plan to donors at a February 20, 2007 breakfast fundraiser at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel, soon after announcing his run for president.

“Obama told the 20 or so of us at breakfast that ‘his first trip as President would be to Indonesia – the world’s most populous Muslim country,’” Leary recalled.

Commentary weighed in, not with a pick for the site, but with a comment on the potential speech itself.

The global problems generating from within the Muslim world today are so odious and so obviously self-inflicted that any honest speech on the matter would offend and enrage Muslims the world over. At the same time, because of these very problems, a softball speech about Islam’s current role in global affairs would look like cowardly capitulation. If Obama splits the difference and mixes lukewarm praise with lukewarm condemnation, the stunt will be seen rightly as meaningless.

Obama clearly wants closer ties to Islamic countries, for both foreign policy reasons and personal ones. But how will he handle further Islamic extremism? Does he think once he’s sworn in and speechifies from a carefully chosen Muslim capital that all will be sweetness and light? What, exactly, will it accomplish? But then, what will he do about the rampant anti-Semitism so clearly visible and so acceptable that the UN will sponsor another “notorious” anti-racism event like Durban? This isn’t “genteel” racism, done in code words or through suggestion. This is the real deal, where people regularly say in “polite society” that others do not have a right to live and are the source of all a region’s ills.

What will this post-racial President do? According to the writer at Forbes, another AA had a few words about this. Maybe he should lead the way.

When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You are talking anti-Semitism. –The Rev. Martin Luther King, 1968

So as I listened to Michelle Obama introduce her husband at the DNC, I wondered why she didn’t include his educational achievements. Since the multi-racial Obama poses as an African American (although he is not descended from slaves and his family never suffered under Jim Crow), and uses the “self-made man” mythology to sell himself–raised by a single mother, fed on food stamps, etc–you would think that graduating from Columbia and going to Harvard Law would be hawked in detail. We have heard that he was the first African American to become president of the Harvard Law Review, only to learn it was a political move by Harvard during a time of racial tensions on campus.

Moreover, Obama appears to have never actually written anything. That’s sort of like becoming the head chef of a fancy restaurant but never cooking.

In fact, Obama’s educational history has been intentionally omitted throughout his political primetime. When asked about his undergraduate training at Columbia University, The New Times states that Obama “declined repeated requests to talk about his New York years, release his Columbia transcript or identify even a single fellow student, co-worker, roommate or friend from those years.” Why would that be?

What we know is that Obama graduated from a Hawaiian prep school with a B- GPA. He then went to Occidental College, about which we know little to nothing, and then to Columbia University. According to conservative journalist, Jack Cashill:

We know enough about Obama’s Columbia grades to know how far they fall below the Harvard norm, likely even below the affirmative action-adjusted black norm at Harvard.

So how did Obama get into Harvard Law School five years after graduating from Columbia? if his LSAT scores had been something to brag about, you know he would be bragging.

Connections are everything, as the saying goes, and that is nowhere more true than in academia. During his time at Columbia, Obama made two very important connections: Bill Ayers and Edward Said. Cashill reports:

There are any number of possible reasons for Obama’s reticence about Columbia: his grades, the courses he took, his writing samples and, of course, his associations.

At that time, for instance, both Bill Ayers and Obama fell within the orbit of left-wing Columbia superstar Edward Said. Just recently out of hiding, Ayers was attending the Bank Street College of Education, which adjoins the Columbia campus.

Edward Said (pronounced Sayeed)

Edward Said became famous for his critique of American attitudes toward eastern cultures, particularly Islamist Arabs. His scholarship contributed to the concept of “the other,” a useful way of understanding prejudices and biases The idea that some people discriminate against others whose beliefs, skin color, sexual orientation, gender, etc, differs from their own is helpful in understanding and correcting discrimination and in teaching our children to be open minded.

However, this theory is now put into service by the so-called “progressives,” who use it to ridicule people who differ from them: Clinton Democrats, Republicans and certain strata of Americans. Rooted in anthropology and literary theory’s appropriation of Marxism, the postcolonial theory of Said et al is at the root of Obama’s distain for the “bitter” working class Americans who cling to their guns and their religions.

It is of course ironic that the educated latte drinking members of the so-called “Whole Foods Nation” find “others” inferior to themselves. As anthropologist Clifford Geertz writes:

What [educated people] worry about is provincialism — the danger that our perceptions will be dulled, our intellects constricted, and our sympathies narrowed by…acceptance of our own society.

Provincialism is not a compliment. It means unsophisticated and “country”–as in country-and-western, backward, rural, redneck, hick, shitkicker and so on. Said taught that Americans were biased against Arabs, but the American students who studied with him use this theory as justification to be biased against America.

Obama studied with Said at Columbia. Said was a Palestinian by birth and a pro-Palestinian activist in life. He said that he was a “Christian wrapped in a Muslim culture.” Said’s essay, Between Worlds, reveals an even greater connection between student, Obama, and professor, Said:

With an unexceptionally Arab family name like Said connected to an improbably British first name (my mother much admired the Prince of Wales in 1935, the year of my birth), I was an uncomfortably anomalous student all through my early years: a Palestinian going to school in Egypt, with an English first name, an American passport and no certain identity at all.

Barack Obama breaking bread with Edward Said

No Quarter has many excellent posts on radical Bill Ayers and his long relationship with Barack Obama. And to complete this three-way embrace, Edward Said wrote a back-cover endorsement on Bill Ayers’ 2001 Fugitive Days. Said reveals how close they are, at least ideologically, when he wrote:

“For anyone who cares about the sorry mess we are in, this book is essential, indeed necessary reading.”

Khalid al-Mansour

Donald Warden (aka Khalid Al Monsour), founded the Berkeley based African-American Association (AAA) and became the mentor of Huey Newton, one of the founders of the Black Panthers. The Black Panthers are said have broken from Warden’s AAA group due to disagreements about economics. According the UC Berkeley’s chronology of the Black Panthers:

(1961) Huey Newton, a black militant activist student, meets Bobby Seale while attending Merritt College (Oakland, California). Both join the Afro-American Association, a black cultural organization led by Donald Warden.”

(1965) Huey Newton’s mentor, Donald Warden, creates Economic Night in a storefront located next door to the future Black Panther Party office on Grove Street, Oakland.

Larry wrote this piece on Khalid al-Mansour, the person who helped Obama get into Harvard. Al-Mansour is a Texas-born African American whose birth name was Donald Warden. Among other things, he is known by some for his rabid anti-Semitism (see this video). And Cashill adds this:

As far back as 1988, however, Obama had serious pull. He would need it. As previously reported, Khalid al-Mansour, principle adviser to Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, lobbied friends like Manhattan Borough President Percy Sutton to intervene at Harvard on Obama’s behalf.

An orthodox Muslim, al-Mansour has not met the crackpot anti-Semitic theory he could not embrace. As for bin Talal, in October 2001, New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani sent his $10 million relief check back un-cashed after the Saudi billionaire blamed 9/11 on America.

Percy Sutton, a Manhattan Borough president for 12 years was among the most powerful black politicians in New York. In the YouTube below (previously posted by Larry, but please watch it again), Sutton describes how al-Mansour introduced him to Barack Obama, asking him to help get Obama into Harvard.

Cashill writes:

“I was introduced to [Obama] by a friend,” Sutton told the interviewer. Sutton named the friend as “Dr. Khalid al-Mansour.” Sutton described al-Mansour as “the principal adviser to one of the world’s richest men.” The billionaire in question is Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal.

Knowing that Sutton had friends at Harvard, al-Mansour asked Sutton to “please write a letter in support of [Obama] … a young man that has applied to Harvard.”

So who is this Dr. Khalid al-Mansour? A quick Google search finds this biography from African Venture Partners:

Dr. Khalid Abdullah Tario Al-Mansour is an internationally acknowledged advisor to Heads of State and business leaders in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and North America. He has been actively involved in structuring investments and joint ventures worldwide for over 35 years. Dr. Al-Mansour was also responsible for the Africa investment activities of Kingdom Holdings, Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal’s investment company. During his distinguished career, Dr. Al-Mansour has been a guest lecturer at Harvard University, Bombay University, Columbia University, UCLA, University of Kenya, London School of Economics and the University of Ghana.
In addition to Africa Venture Partners, Dr. Al-Mansour sits on the Boards of: Saudi African Bank; Kingdom Holdings, Africa; Multimedia Super Corridor (Malaysia); Space Tech Inc.; AmNet Corp. International; New Avenues Fund Ltd; United Bank for Africa; United Networks; and Landmark Entertainment.

Dr. Al-Mansour has authored 24 books and is listed in Who’s Who in the World; International Who’s Who in the Arab World; Two Thousand Men of Achievement; Royal Blue Book of London; World’s Who’s Who of Intellectuals and American Hall of Fame.

Dr. Khalid Al-Mansour has a Bachelor of Arts degree from Howard University (Phi Beta Kappa) and Doctor of Jurisprudence from the University of California at Berkeley.

In a fascinating academic article entitled The US Organization, Black Power Vanguard Politics, and the United Front Ideal: Los Angeles and Beyond, Scot Brown discusses the history of various Black nationalists groups. He states this pertinent information about Donald Warden/Khalid al-Mansour:

IN 1963, KARENGA met with Donald Warden, a bay area nationalist who headed the Afro-American Association. Bay Area activists Ernie Allen, Jr. (Ernie Mkalimoto), Huey Newton, Bobby Seale and Ken Freeman were also members of this group. Karenga accepted Warden’s invitation to head the Los Angeles chapter of the group. Ayuko Babu, Tut Hayes, Akida Kimani, and Lloyd Hawkins figured prominently in the association’s Los Angeles chapter. The association functioned primarily as a study group and lecture forum — members frequently spoke outdoors to black community audiences (sometimes called “street speaking”).

DONALD WARDEN RECORDED his association’s street-speaking style in an album called Burn Baby, Burn, released in the aftermath of the Watts explosion. An instrumental track and chorus-like affirming voices that call and respond to his assertions, accentuate this recording’s non-stop nationalist proselytizing.

For those of us who remember the Watts riots of 1965, the phrase “Burn Baby, Burn” has very specific associations of molotov cocktails, bloody street fights, “race” riots and death.

What does it take to get into Harvard Law School?

Khalid al-Mansour (aka Donald Warden) asked his friend, Percy Sutton, to help Obama get into Harvard. With friends like al-Mansour, who needs good grades, high scores or affirmative action?

The relationship between Obama and al-Mansour deserves further research.

We have written in detail about the Obamas’ associations with other Black nationalists, and this information about Khalid al-Mansour adds yet another layer to the story.

Check out other related No Quarter reports:

Black Liberation Theology

Obama the Stealth Socialist

What Lies Beneath Barack Obama

Wheel…of…Theology

But here’s the thing: the popular vote winner, the one who “would be on anyone’s short list,” according to Obama – just not HIS, apparently, as she was not vetted (then again, Obamarosa hasn’t been either). Huh. I guess he wasn’t all that “sincere” after all.

Add to that the incredibly petty, childish, vindictive, flat out punkish move to release this information at 3:00 a.m.. 3:00 a.m., get it?? As in a 3:00 a.m. phone call?? Yeah. That’s the way to bring the Hillary supporters into the fold, Mr. Hopey Changey Unity Unicorn Man. Never mind those of us with any sense of decency. It is just plain bad form to drive a knife into the back of the one who bested you in votes. Just sayin’.

Read the rest ->

The choice alone, as many have pointed out already, demonstrates Obama’s GLARING weakness – experience. By him picking Biden (ugh), he is saying loud and clear that he does not have enough experience. Heck – BIDEN said he didn’t have enough experience (see this piece at No Quarter).

Funny, that is exactly what the poll done in the South said, too, in this article:
McCain Leads Big In South
Voters say honesty, experience, shared values important

Yep. The voters in the South seem to be taken more with experience, perceived honesty, and demonstrated leadership than “just words.” I’ll let the article speak for itself:

COLUMBIA — Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain enjoys a 16-point lead — 51 percent to 35 percent — among Southern voters over rival Democratic U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, a new poll by Winthrop University and ETV shows.

And, the further into the South you go, the larger McCain’s lead grows, the poll of likely voters in 11 Southern states shows.

Likely voters in the Deep South — those in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and South Carolina — preferred McCain by a 25-point margin, 56 percent to 31 percent.

Southern voters said what they want most in a president is honesty, experience and shared values. Southern voters rated McCain ahead of Obama in each of those categories.

McCain’s strongest support comes from white working-class Southerners — who favor him by a 34-point margin — and white evangelicals — who favor the Arizonan by 54 percentage points.

The poll, which was conducted Aug. 1-17, has a margin of error of (plus or minus) 2.97 percentage points.

While political pundits have made much of Obama and Democrats trying to win over a Southern state or two from the Republicans in November, the Winthrop/ETV poll shows that will prove difficult.

“It’s about keeping John McCain from sweeping the South. That’s the key,” said Scott Huffmon, associate professor of political science at Winthrop and director of the Winthrop/ETV Poll.

Rather than attempting to contest the presidential race across the South, a wiser strategy for Obama would be to concentrate on the closely contested Southern states, Huffmon said. “You cannot fight a regional battle anymore.”

Individual state-by-state polls have shown Obama within striking distance of McCain in Virginia, North Carolina, Florida and Georgia.

Those states account for 70 votes that are up for grabs. The 11 Southern states in this poll will award 161 electoral votes, and 270 electoral votes are needed to win the presidency.

On the issues, McCain trumped Obama nearly across the board in the poll.

The economy easily was the most important issue to Southern voters in the upcoming presidential election. McCain bested Obama on which candidate would handle energy and gas prices better, and who would do the better job on taxes.

McCain also far out-distanced Obama on who would do a better job of handling the Iraq war and terrorism.

None of that surprised Jeanette Smith of Chapin, S.C., who described McCain as honest and decisive, strong on national security and unlikely to be manipulated by a foreign government.

“The economy and national security are neck and neck for me,” said Smith, a 54-year-old bookkeeper and mother of four. “In fact, I’m not even sure they are separate issues.”

On illegal immigration, sometimes an Achilles’ heel for McCain, and moral values, the four-term senior senator from Arizona again stood taller with Southern voters than Obama.

“Illegal immigration needs to be controlled,” said 76-year-old Evelyn Perry of Fort Mill, S.C., who was among those surveyed. “I just haven’t really understood what (McCain’s position) is on that — but it needs to be controlled.”

Even without those specifics, Perry said she trusts McCain more. “Overall, I just think McCain understands better.”

However, in a glimmer of hope for the Democratic nominee-to-be, more likely Southern voters polled said Obama “understands the problems Americans face in their daily lives” better than McCain does.

However, Deep South and working-class white voters disagreed, saying McCain understands them best.

“Senator Obama has a great deal of work to do if he plans to turn the Southern states in his favor,” said Adolphus Belk Jr., who helped design the poll and teaches political science and African-American Studies at Winthrop.

Belk said Obama has to do a better job at defining himself for voters, moving beyond simply being a new face on the national stage. Obama also has to overcome religious and ethnic misinformation that continues to plague his candidacy, Belk said.

That’s no short order in the South, either, said Obama supporter John Hines Jr. of Effingham, S.C.. “For older Americans, I think color is still an issue,” said the 53-year-old paper maker.

Of those polled, 86 percent said race would not be an important factor in how they choose to vote.

However, a quarter of all likely Southern voters surveyed said that if a candidate had a Muslim parent, it would impact their votes. Obama, who is a Christian, had a Muslim father.

Huh – imagine that. RACE is not that big of a factor down here in the South, despite the numerous attempts to paint us all as racist yahoos. No, not racist, just not willing to back the least qualified candidate ever to grace the national stage. IMHO, that is. Now, if CLINTON was in this mix, I think this story would be completely different. Again, not race, but having TWO qualified candidates from which to choose. (Again, I will say that I am not pro-McCain. I am pro-DEMOCRACY, and that is something the DNC has showed very little of of late.)

The Comments at this article were very interesting too. One said he’d vote for Spongebob before Obama. Others made fun of Obama for talking about McCain’s houses when Obama pulled in $4 mil this year. Uh, yeah. Like I said, people in glass houses…And this was before the BIden choice.

So, once again, picking Biden just shows up Obama’s weaknesses. I don’t think having a Vice President who has the experience is enough. Especially when the inexperienced guy is running against the experienced guy. Huh. I guess the only way to solve this little dilemma is for the Conventioneers to pick the candidate who could actually win against McCain. That’s not Obama. Just sayin’.

* Great thanks to “Jeremiah” and asimon for coming up with this name. There was another great comment last night. “Jill L” said she was hoping for Daniel Akaka, then the bumper sticker would be “Obamakaka”! What clever folks at No Quarter!!

Only this particular article is a tad slanted in defense of Obama, his strong Christian faith, and his ability to connect with Evangelicals. Oh, and while the author’s tagline mentions where he teaches, it does not mention that he also writes for Daily Kos. Yep, you got it – he sure enough does. Just to set the stage for you.

Prior to this article, he wrote one with Kevin Coe about Obama, “For Barack Obama, Campaign 2008 Has Been A Series Of Absurd But Consequential Tests.” One of those tests, of course, was his religious preference. Domke mentioned in the article above that 10% of Americans think Obama is Muslim. Now, see, whether he is a Muslim or not means nothing to me. Islam is one of the largest, if not THE largest, religious faiths on the face of the planet. It is a religion based on both Judaism and Christianity, and as such, is a peace loving religion, as much as Christianity is supposed to be. And, Muhammad, the founder of Islam, had daughters, no sons, and was VERY supportive of them. He would never recognize what has happened to Islam by the fringe elements, as much as Jesus would not recognize what Christianity has become by ITS fringe elements. That is all to say, it is just as damaging to think that all Christians are like Jerry Falwell, or Pat Robertson, or Jimmy Swaggert as it is to think that all Muslims are like Osama bin Laden. They are not. Many are quite moderate in their beliefs. Just to be clear. And frankly, I think that one’s religious faith should be PRIVATE, and not fodder for political discussion. But this is one of the ways the Christian Right has asserted its influence – making religion a litmus test. But I digress…

Mr. Domke only seems to focus on OBAMA’S “tests,” yet fails to acknowledge that Hillary Clinton has received similar scrutiny. In another article, “Hillary Clinton’s Christianity,” which states:

Some say Hillary Clinton may help the Democrats reach out to Christian voters like no Democrat since Jimmy Carter.

Fair or not, the Democratic Party has not fared well with self-professed Christian voters in the last several presidential election cycles. One of the reasons, says Michael Gerson in The Washington Post, is that recent Democrat leaders have either been frankly secular or “so uncomfortable with religious language that, were the sound on the television switched off, you’d think they were admitting a sexual vice instead of affirming their deepest beliefs.”

But another article, “Hillary Clinton’s Faith: Another Methodist in the White House?”

Mrs. Clinton’s references to faith, though, have come under attack, both from conservatives who doubt her sincerity (one writer recently lumped her with the type of Christians who “believe in everything but God”) and liberals who object to any injection of religion into politics. And her motivations have been cast as political calculation by detractors, who suggest she is only trying to moderate her liberal image.

So, it isn’t like she has not had to deal with issues of her faith, too, not always positively, but as we all know, it is all about Obama!!

Anywho, Mr. Domke asserts that there is now a splintering of the Evangelical Movement now, that it is not a cohesive voting bloc any longer. One piece of evidence he presents is the case of the Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, George W. Bush’s BFF, a huge supporter of Bush’s, and the presiding minister at Jenna Bush’s recent wedding. Well, now, Caldwell supports Obama. No, I am not kidding. And that should tell you something RIGHT there. One of Bush’s CLOSEST associates is now supporting Barack Obama. Caldwell, in response to the whole James Dobson business has started a website in defense of Obama, www.jamesdobsondoesnotspeakforme.com Okay. So James Dobson does not speak for the entire Evangelical Movement. I can counter that one – Howard Dean, Donna Brazile, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Patrick Leahy, Chris Dodd, et al, do not speak for ME, either. So, I’ll give him that. Domke states:

Dobson’s words were the kind of critique that in recent elections have made leading Democrats cower and prompted other religious conservatives to fall in line behind the Republican Party presidential candidate, in this case John McCain.

Not this year. And depending on what happens in 2008, perhaps not ever again.

His support for making such a claim? Well, it’s a few things, but you know what it is mainly,

“It’s a combination of changing outlooks among evangelical leadership and some important political moves by Obama.”

Oh, yeah – that’s what it is – Obama is doing all the right things to convince these people that he is not pandering to them, lying to them, or saying whatever they want to hear to vote for them. He is being helped along with this new mission by people like Rick Warren, “

the nation’s über-evangelical and author of The Purpose-Driven Life, the highest-selling nonfiction book in the nation’s publishing history, and Leith Anderson, head of the National Association of Evangelicals, both want to keep political parties — including the Republicans — at arm’s distance….(Warren) invited Barack Obama to speak at his Southern California church at an AIDS summit. Warren took a lot of heat from some evangelicals for inviting the pro-choice Obama but did not back down. It was a turning point moment for faith and politics — and a crucial step in Obama’s outreach to religious voters.

In 2004, Warren decreed that five issues — opposition to abortion, same-sex marriage, cloning, euthanasia, and research on stem cells — should drive the voting decisions of Christians, an outlook that firmly aligned him with the Republican Party. But Warren’s political world view had been expanding ever since.”

Wow – I can sure see how those top five would endear Obama to LIBERAL voters, cough, cough. But hey – all of those liberals he has been throwing under the bus might have known something was going on if they paid attention to him hanging out with people like Warren. According to Domke, “

the Christian Obama often espouses a religiously infused message of hope and transformation. Indeed, he’s offering more than words: His campaign has embarked on a massive political crusade to persuade religious Americans that Obama is their candidate

.”

A political crusade. Oh, great – that is JUST what the country needs. Another crusade. Seriously – have we not had enough of this kind of crap from Bush for the past 7 1/2 years?? I really do not get it. Oh, but wait, there’s more!

The New York Times reported Tuesday that “Between now and November, the Obama forces are planning as many as 1,000 house parties and dozens of Christian rock concerts, gatherings of religious leaders, campus visits and telephone conference calls to bring together voters of all ages motivated by their faith to engage in politics.”

And Obama just raised the stakes Tuesday, with a high-profile speech on faith in Zanesville, Ohio, a battleground area in a key Midwestern state — indeed, one that some evidence suggests George W. Bush won in 2004 in part based on heavy turnout tied to an anti-gay-marriage state initiative.

Oh, Holy Cow. So, Obama really IS the second coming of Bush then! And that should give pause to EVERYONE, liberals and conservatives alike. How can anyone trust someone who has attended a church like TUCC for over 20 years, then all of a sudden acts like he is a Born Again Christian?? For progressives, just bear in mind, it was a “Born Again Christian” who took this country down the primrose path that led to Iraq, poor economy, and spying on our citizenry, to name a very few.

But there is yet another pander to the Religious Right (which I contend is neither religious OR right), and that is on the issue of abortion. Yes, the man NARAL endorsed over Hillary Clinton, a long-time stalwart supporter of women and women’s right to choose, has now said, “”

mental distress” should not qualify as a justification for late-term abortions, a key distinction not embraced by many supporters of abortion rights.”

Oh, no he DIDN’T! Oh yes, yes he did. The following article says it all, “Obama: Mental Distress Can’t Justify Late Abortion” The opening paragraph states that:

In an interview this week with “Relevant,” a Christian magazine, Obama said prohibitions on late-term abortions must contain “a strict, well defined exception for the health of the mother.”

So, NARAL – how do you like THEM apples?? This is the person you chose to endorse?? While I am not going to go completely in-depth on this piece because it deserves attention in its own right, it is indicative of just how far Obama will go to say whatever, do whatever, be whoever, the audience wants at that moment. And see, this is the whole problem with Obama – he is a chameleon – he changes for whatever group he is addressing. He does not demonstrate ANY core values or policies or integrity. And this is why picking someone who has essentially NO record, based on a speech he may (or may not) have given 6 years ago, to a SELECT audience, as the ONLY criterion for president, is foolhardy at best. At worst, to pick a candidate because one thinks he is cool or because of his skin color is negligent, ignorant, immature, and slack. It is potentially criminal in the way he got pushed to the forefront by party insiders(I am pretty sure voter fraud, intimidation, manipulation, and theft are against the law – can I get a witness?), and the fawning by the media sure didn’t help. But citizens are required to do their homework to make good choices, and too many people took an American Idol mentality into the voting booth. So, really, they deserve what they get. But WE don’t deserve this. And women who need late-term abortions as a result of mental distress don’t deserve this. He had the audacity to say, “

Now, I don’t think that ‘mental distress’ qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term

.”

Well, gee willikers, Obama, aren’t you the very same guy who said that we progressives who are pro-choice do not understand what a difficult decision having an abortion is for a woman? We do, believe you me – we do. We know that it is painful and angst-ridden. We are not pro-abortion, but pro-CHOICE, knowing full well how painful this is. But you do not think that the mental distress the WOMAN feels is one and the same with her HEALTH?? The two are inseparable – her mental condition and her physical health. So, WHO is it who does not understand how hard this is for the pregnant woman?? Huh – come to think of it, just last year, YOU claimed to understand it:

“Last year, after the Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on late-term abortions, Obama said he “strongly disagreed” with the ruling because it “dramatically departs form previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women.”

Just more pandering to the Right. Just moving farther and farther to the right. I, for one, am not the least bit surprised by this from Obama. His Faith Based Initiatives, his change on FISA, his reframed Christianity, all designed to pander, pander, pander. What a guy.

So, SuperD’s – how does it feel to be you NOW?? You still have time to reverse your incredibly poor, stupid, superficial decision to support this empty suit. No, wait, that is an insult to suits. He is worse than that. He is a mealy-mouthed, arrogant, sanctimonious, sexist, elitist, with only HIS best interests at heart. He doesn’t give a damn about the American people, and our daily struggles. He cares about cutting corners, and getting himself into the highest job in the world with a minimum of effort. Once there, should he succeed, there is no telling what hole down which he will take this country. I don’t want to wait for that myself, and I hope the SuperDelegates and other delegates get the intestinal fortitude to finally do the right thing, to do what they SHOULD have done long ago – jettison this guy, and support the best candidate for the job. There is still time…

UN ‘Human Rights Council’ bans criticism of Islam

The UN ‘Human Rights Council’ decided this week that it is forbidden to criticize Islam because “religious issues can be “very complex, very sensitive and very intense…This council is not prepared to discuss religious matters in depth, consequently we should not do it.” From now on, only religious scholars would be permitted to broach ‘religious matters’ before the Council.

So if you have a problem with a practice that is barbaric and inhuman you can’t ask the UN Human Rights Council to intervene. Not if that practice just so happens to be sanctioned by some nutjob that believes the practice is blessed by what he calls God. And yeah, I know that these same nutjobs believe that they also have the right to put out a hit on me for making the allegation. I am not only a non-believer, I am an infidel. An infidel that couldn’t care squat what some wacko Grand Sheikh says.

The ban came after a heated session on Monday, when the representative of the Association for World Education (AWE), in a joint statement with the International Humanist and Ethical Union, denounced female genital mutilation, the penalty of stoning for adultery and child marriage as sanctioned by Islamic law. Egypt, Pakistan and Iran angrily protested, interrupting the AWE speaker, David Littman, with no less than 16 points of order, and succeeding in getting the Council’s proceedings suspended for over half an hour.

It is especially peculiar that Shia Iran aligned itself with the Sunni nations of Egypt and Pakistan.

Imran Ahmed Siddiqui, the representative from Pakistan, echoed the ever-echoing refrain of all Islamic apologists in the West, when he complained that Littman’s initiative on genital mutilation, stoning and child marriage amounted to an “out-of-context, selective discussion on the Sharia law.” He asked that Littman not be allowed to speak: “I would therefore request the president to exercise his judgment and authority and request the speaker not to touch issues which have already been debarred from discussion in this Council.”

So there are certain things we can’t bring up at the dinner table we call the United Nations? Even if it is a chat about barbaric practices sanctioned by the radical offshoot of a religion by some Grand Poobah that issues a fatwa and justifies it as something consistent with Sharia law?

This is a form of madness, in my opinion.

I thought that the word Islam was supposed to mean peace. But for radical Islamists, peace requires remaining silent on the matters of genital mutilation, child marriages and the stoning to death of female adulterers. If you ignore those and of course those pesky little jihads then radical Islam is pretty chill. Unfortunately, diplomats from Egypt, Pakistan, and Iran are enabling the radicals by refusing to challenge these extremist views.

This is about the Sharia law.” Pakistan’s Siddiqui added: “I would like to state again that this is not the forum to discuss religious sensitivity.” Why not? Again sounding notes that are increasingly familiar in any discussion of the elements of Islam that jihadists and Sharia supremacists use to justify oppression, Siddiqui explained: “It will amount to spreading hatred against certain members of the Council. I mean, it has happened before also that selective discussions were raised in the Council to demonize a particular group.” He addressed Costea: “So we would again request you to please use your authority to bar any such discussion again, at the Council.”

Oh! So we cannot discuss these matters because it might make some people look bad. Isn’t that the fricking point? Is it now considered not ok to address some of the most horrid abuses of human rights because if we did so it might offend someone?

Free Speech Dies at the UN

After more discussion, a recess, and another warning from the representative from Egypt, Littman was finally allowed to proceed. After noting that “almost 90% of the female population in the north of Sudan undergo FGM which, in many cases, is practiced in its most extreme form known as infibulation,” Littman declared: “We believe that only a fatwa from Al-Azhar Grand Sheikh Sayyed Tantawi – replacing the ambiguous fatwas of 1949, 1951 and 1981 – will change this barbaric, criminal practice, which is now growing even in Europe.”

At this point Egypt interrupted, complaining that “this is an attempt to raise a bad traditional practice to Islam. Sheikh Al-Azhar [Sayyed Tantawi] is the president of the largest and the biggest and the oldest Islamic university in the world.” He exclaimed: “My point is that Islam will not be crucified in this Council. That’s why we are challenging this ruling” – that is, Costea’s decision to allow Littman to deliver his address.

Crucifying Islam? This is at best a reprehensible statement. Islam does not practice Christianity. But these folks and their radical interpretation of Islam apparently believe that it is okay to make a mockery out of Christianity. Who would anyone complain to after all?

According to these insane people and their heinous form of religion, the mutilation of female genitalia is an honor. Yes, you read that right.

An honor.

Yet an Islamic legal manual endorsed by Al-Azhar states that circumcision is required “for both men and women” (‘Umdat al-Salik, e4.3). And Tantawi himself has said, according to Geneive Abdo, author of No God But God: Egypt and the Triumph of Islam, that female circumcision is “a laudable practice that [does] honor to women.”

So line up ladies. And let these self declared ministers of peace honor you. After all, it’s a religious tradition and you wouldn’t want to offend anyone.

Would you?

Not only does this shameful episode bode ill for the human rights of women in the Islamic world; it also represents another victory in the war against free speech that Islamic supremacists have been pursuing with particular energy lately, calling on Western authorities to prosecute Dutch politician Geert Wilders for his film Fitna and Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard for his drawing of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, and in general to outlaw what they perceive as insults to Islam.

You might imagine that with a name like Pagan I might understand a thing or two about discrimination and distortion of what I practice as a religion. As old as my religion is there is one thing that has been a principle from the start. Men and women are equals. And the law applies to everyone.

So if my point of view offends you please know that I am the one offended. Because my religion requires that I speak out when anyone is treated with less respect than which they are entitled by the Goddess. This latest incident at the UN is a sad reminder that the task of rooting out the hatred that fuels much of the terrorism is difficult and, ironically, being thwarted by the very people who suffer its consequences. We need to be able to talk about difficult things in international fora. If we cannot discuss the matter then what other alternative remains but to fight? That’s not a guaranteed path for world peace if you ask me.