Good grief.

Thanks heavens some US Senators are speaking out about this incredibly sanitized, downright false characterization of Major Hasan’s intentions when he began to shoot down unarmed soldiers in the name of Allah. Here is more on this issue:

Sen. Susan Collins on Wednesday blasted the Defense Department for classifying the Fort Hood massacre as workplace violence and suggested political correctness is being placed above the security of the nation’s Armed Forces at home.

During a joint session of the Senate and House Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday, the Maine Republican referenced a letter from the Defense Department depicting the Fort Hood shootings as workplace violence. She criticized the Obama administration for failing to identify the threat as radical Islam.

Thirteen people were killed and dozens more wounded at Fort Hood in 2009, and the number of alleged plots targeting the military has grown significantly since then. Lawmakers said there have been 33 plots against the U.S. military since Sept. 11, 2001, and 70 percent of those threats have been since mid-2009. Major Nidal Hasan, a former Army psychiatrist, who is being held for the attacks, allegedly was inspired by radical U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen in late September. The two men exchanged as many as 20 emails, according to U.S. officials, and Awlaki declared Hasan a hero.

It is just mind boggling that our government is attempting to sanitize to the point of absurdity the horrific attack by Major Hasan at Fort Hood. Senator Collins is correct, this is taking political correctness to an extreme that is downright dangerous.

And that denial is dangerous not just to the nation, but to our military, specifically:

The chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Connecticut independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, said the military has become a “direct target of violent Islamist extremism” within the United States.

“The stark reality is that the American service member is increasingly in the terrorists’ scope and not just overseas in a traditional war setting,” Lieberman told Fox News before the start of Wednesday’s hearing.

In June, two men allegedly plotted to attack a Seattle, Wash., military installation using guns and grenades. In July, Army Pvt. Naser Abdo was accused of planning a second attack on Fort Hood. And in November, New York police arrested Jose Pimentel, who alleged sought to kill service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. (Click here to read the rest.)

And yet, knowing this, our government, in their infinite wisdom (cough, choke), has decided to redefine radical Islamic attacks as “workplace violence.” Wow. This is up there with Napolitano’s “man made disasters” term. But both are disingenuous at best, and deliberately misleading at worse.

Of course, radical Islam is not the whole of Islam, but to deny its existence in this country is doing a tremendous disservice to those killed at 9/11, those killed at Fort Hood, those killed at bases overseas, those killed in the attack on the USS Cole, and so, so many more instances too numerous to mention here. Why our government seems more concerned with insulting these groups than naming them for what they are is just beyond me. This revisionist history must stop, and must stop now. Call it what it is by name. Nothing less will do.

The warning comes after Kenya sent troops across the border into Somalia to pursue Islamist Al-Shabaab militants. The terror group has threatened Kenya with retaliatory attacks, saying it considers the forces’ incursion an affront to Somalia’s sovereignty.

Al-Shabaab, which is linked to al Qaeda and has been designated a terrorist organization by the United States, is fighting to impose its own interpretation of Islamic law, or sharia, on Somalia.

Wow, yes, I can understand why they would be concerned about this danger, especially since two days after this alert was made, a grenade was detonated at a Kenyan pub. Yikes.

What I cannot understand, given the above and a host of similar dangers, is why our DOJ felt compelled to take back their current training manuals on terrorism. As one might expect, the manuals included information on Islamist terrorists. Well, CAIR, the Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood connected organization in America, along with another Muslim organization, threw a hissy fit about the US mentioning Islmaist terrorists in their manuals. So, what did the Obama Administration do? They kowtowed to CAIR:

Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole confirmed on Wednesday that the Obama administration was pulling back all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities, in order to eliminate all references to Islam that some Muslim groups have claimed are offensive.

“I recently directed all components of the Department of Justice to re-evaluate their training efforts in a range of areas, from community outreach to national security,” Cole told a panel at the George Washington University law school.

The move comes after complaints from advocacy organizations including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and others identified as Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the 2004 Holy Land Foundation terror fundraising trial.

In a Wednesday Los Angeles Times op-ed, Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) president Salam al-Marayati threatened the FBI with a total cutoff of cooperation between American Muslims and law enforcement if the agency failed to revise its law enforcement training materials.

The DOJ is removing ALL references to Islam in these manuals. I am sorry, but this is just insane. This nation has suffered attacks at the hands of Islamists, and is under threat from Islamists around the globe even now. How dare our DOJ capitulate to an organization associated with the Muslim Brotherhood which has waged jihad against the United States!

Oh, but wait – there’s more:

Maintaining the training materials in their current state “will undermine the relationship between law enforcement and the Muslim American community,” al-Marayati wrote.

Multiple online sources detail MPAC’s close alignment with CAIR.

In his op-ed, Al-Marayati demanded that the Justice Department and the FBI “issue a clear and unequivocal apology to the Muslim American community” and “establish a thorough and transparent vetting process in selecting its trainers and materials.”

Specifically, al-Marayati called for a new “interagency task force” to review the training materials — a task force including representatives of the Islamist organizations the FBI is tasked with monitoring. (Click HERE to read the rest.)

So let me make sure I understand this. The very groups who have ties to Islamist radicals are making demands on just how our government goes about finding these groups, and how they deal with these threats? And the DOJ is acquiescing to this? Are you kidding me with this?

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t it precisely this kind of political correctness that allowed Major Nidal Hasan to stay in the Army? Despite his preaching radical Islam, associating with known terrorists (Anwar al-Awlaki),and poor performance reviews, he was allowed to stay in the Army. As a result, he was able to gun down a number of soldiers in cold blood at Fort Hood. Had it not been for the actions of a couple of people, there is no telling the amount of carnage he could have waged.

How CAIR, an organization the FBI determined was an organization affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, has amassed so much power in the United States is beyond me. What is even more startling is that it is not held in high regard by the majority of Muslims in this country: Although widely publicized in the media, CAIR is regarded as a leadership group by only 12 percent of Muslims in America, according to an August 2 report by the Abu Dhabi Gallup Center. Muslim groups that separate politics from religion, such as the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, do not ally with progressive groups and get little media attention.

That said, considering high officials are submitting to them makes it clear that this DOJ needs a massive overhaul. From the top on down, including Eric Holder, and Deputy AG Cole, who acknowledged that these materials had been returned (at taxpayer expense to placate these groups, they need to go. They do not have our best interests at heart, and are putting us in danger by their caving to groups like CAIR. We have been attacked by radical Islamists, and those same groups are planning to do us harm even now. To deny this, to put US citizens at risk, is downright criminal, or it should be.

How many more American lives are we willing to lose in the name of political correctness? Naming an enemy and preparing for that enemy are not the same as being intolerant or biased, it is just the reality in which we live.

To ignore known and real threats as the DOJ is willing to do lest they offend is sheer insanity. At least that’s what I think. What do you think?

It’s an open secret that hundreds of Saudi families and nationals were flown out of the States during the days after the attacks. The exodus was organized by Saudi Arabia’s Ambassador to the U.S., Prince Bandar bin Sulan bin Abdul Aziz, also known as “Bandar Bush” due to his closeness to the Bush family. The ambassador expedited the departures of two families: The Saudi royals and the bin Ladens. But not even the notoriously charming prince could adequately explain why or how 15 out of the 19 hijackers came from a country the U.S. had always claimed as a close ally.

It should, then, be safe to call the Saudi-U.S. relationship a “secret” marriage. Not many Americans know how strong or weak this marriage is, mostly because the Saudis spent billions — and more billions — to spruce up their image or stay hidden from the general public.

The Saudis’ initial attempts at post-9/11 damage control backfired — badly. Exhibit A: Prince Alwaleed bin Talal’s public show of contributing $10 million to New York for disaster relief. Unfortunately for the Kingdom, the prince had the poor judgment to use the opportunity to lecture the U.S. about its foreign policy at the same time. Then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani made it clear that New York had no need for his money.

Realizing that their image needed bolstering, the Saudis did what troubled totalitarian regimes the world over do: They hired a PR firm and a gang of high-powered Washington lobbyists. The PR blitz was a flop.

But this did not stop the Saudis, and now, in an ironic twist, the prince is the second-largest shareholder in Rupert Murdoch’s News Corps, the parent company of Fox News Channel, a notorious source of anti-Muslim rhetoric.

The Kingdom’s ongoing image woes have long been exacerbated by reports of a barbaric judicial system, beheadings, the second class citizen status of women and the complete absence of human rights and religious freedom. The flow of Saudi petrodollars into the coffers of terrorist groups around the world has been reported on, analyzed and criticized for years, to little effect.

It is no secret either that Saudis have also been instrumental in bankrolling and backing discrimination and violence against the Shias, as described by Khaled Ahmed in his book Sectarian War: Pakistan’s Sunni-Shia Violence and Its Links to the Middle East:

According to Barnett Rubin, in 1989, the Afghan mujahideen government-in-exile came into being in Peshawar after the Soviet retreat from Afghanistan. At the behest of Saudi Arabia, the exiled Shia mujahideen of Iran were not included in this government. The Saudis paid over $26 million a week to the 519-member session of the mujahideen shura (council) as a bribe for it. Each member of the shura received $25,000 for the deal which was facilitated, according to Rubin, by the ISI Chief Hamid Gul.

But as the world is watching the developments in the war on terror, the Saudis are out to burnish their image as humanitarians. They know that the someone somewhere might mention the fact that Afghanistan was the training ground and Pakistan was the facilitator, but the majority of the hijackers were the nationals of the Kingdom. Over the last ten years, the situation is Pakistan and Afghanistan has gone from bad to worse, while a major player of this ‘great game’ has kept itself at a distance with its petrodollars.

Given the Saudis’ penchant for funding and exporting extremism and meddling throughout the Muslim world, how would you react if you heard a Saudi prince had bankrolled an expensive research project to create a genetically modified strain of corn that could eliminate world hunger?

The prince does this not for financial gain, but as a gesture of goodwill. The prince also speaks perfect English, appreciates female arm candy and is a target for Islamic extremists at home.

Apparently, the Saudis have found a way to uplift their image.

This prince is a hero, not in a real life of course — but in a Hollywood movie, Unknown. As America prepares to mark the ten year anniversary of 9/11, this pop culture moment is nothing short of extraordinary. The Saudis have achieved a PR coup: Positive product placement. The Kingdom is re-branding.

There’s nothing particularly original about the plot, which consists of a series of predictable spy scenarios — a foreign city, inclement weather, amnesia, car chases, the Cold War, evil multinationals. It’s been done a million times.

But what is totally unexpected is the depiction of a Saudi royal as a generous benefactor, a plot point that is so rare it captures the attention. Even more remarkable is that there have been no debates, no protests, no boycotts, no outrage. The movie came and went without a peep.

Even more intriguing: The film Unknown is based on the novel Out of My Head by Didier van Cauwelaert. There is no benevolent Saudi prince in the original version of the story. So how did this plot twist come about?

Since no one in the press or the world of politics seems to care, it may be a while before we find out.

No serious attempt has been made to analyse this phenomenon even though the transformation of Pakistani society over the last three decades pints to this trend.

This new breed of Taliban supporter is overwhelmingly comprised of the upper-middle class that sprang up out of the villages or suburban areas thanks to the enormous flow of American cash that washed through the region after the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and later the U.S. invasion.

The corruption in foreign aid distribution, the secret funds for Afghan Mujahideen and the generous bounties to kill or capture extremists sent the price of real estate sky-rocketing in Pakistan, making the farmers living around big cities rich. Flush with cash, the newly-rich farming class left rural life behind and moved to cities.

This is a major transformation in Pakistani society. Usually population shifts of this magnitude happen over an extended period of time. In Pakistan, it happened over two to three decades, drastically changing a social order that had been in place for almost two thousand years.

Around 322 b.c. a Mauryan ruler, Chandragupta Maurya and his successors expanded his power westwards across central and western India, enforcing principles of governance and laying down rules of administration, including tax collection, maintaining the army, completing irrigational projects, enforcing law and order, devising rates of taxation, and reviving the way of life in the cities and villages. Villages became so self-contained that travel became unnecessary.

The great Mauryan Empire ended in 185 b.c., but the system the King Ashoka put in place remained in place and for the most part untouched, even by the British rulers. Village life remained unchanged until the advent of new technologies. The introduction of mechanized farming and harvesting eased the arduousness of farm work and led to an increase in productivity. But on the other hand it rendered a big chunk of the society unemployed. The void created by idleness was filled with religion. New classes emerged, new rites were formed.

A similar phenomenon was occurring in India, but was countered by the development of industry. Residents of rural areas in search of jobs moved to cities, worked in factories and united under labor unions, forming a new working class fighting for equal rights and better opportunities. In Pakistan, however, attempts to build industry were interrupted time and again by dramatic swings from martial law to democracy and back again. Unstable governance rivalries among industrial barons also slowed or disrupted the building of an industrial worker class.

The segment of the new city dwellers brought with them the customs of village life, including myths, superstitions and family structure. The new urbanites were also largely uneducated and taken aback by the bustle of city life and the ways of residents whose worldview was shaped by modern conveniences. The overwhelming majority of these new city residents have become part of the new middle and/or upper middle class trying to fit into a Westernized lifestyle but with poor results. It is this segment of the population that wants to drink alcohol and travel while at the same time supporting the Taliban as holy warriors. They do not want to let go of their old world values and virtues. They form the base of support for politicians like former cricket legend Imran Khan, whose confrontational attitude towards the West boosts their sense of patriotism.

These new urbanites would fall into one of two extreme categories. If the family had strong but backwards religious beliefs, they spent their money building a mosque or supporting religious organizations – their own way of thanking the Almighty for their unexpected good fortune. If the family had cut its ties with such religious dogmas they choose instead to engage in conspicuous consumption — purchasing high-priced houses, acquiring personal booze collections unmatched in most bars in the West, importing expensive cars and moving money to foreign banks. More important is what they didn’t do with their new found wealth: Reinvest the money into the local financial system.

The way out of this alarming state of affairs for Pakistan is to reform the education system that matches to the needs for the modern industrial era coupled with the formation and development of an industrial and manufacturing sector.

The vast majority of foreign aid provided by the international community is still being targeted at state security agencies, as is a disproportionately large percentage of the country’s budget. The Saudi government discovered long ago that paying to mould the minds of the youth in Pakistan was an excellent investment. The results – the rise of totalitarian Islam, contempt for democracy, romanticizing violent Islamist movements, and sectarian violence – are all too evident. It’s time for the West to become a counterbalance and seriously support civilian governments instead of relying on military dictators to further their agendas. The West should also keep on pressing the civilian administration for good governance if they want Pakistan free of extremists.

So why did Charlie Brown keep trying? To quote Samuel Johnson, Charlie Brown’s determination was an example of the triumph of hope over experience.

Like the relationship between the United States and Pakistan for the last 60 years.

Following 1947″s bloody partition from India, Pakistan followed a more pro-Western policy whereas the Indian government defined its foreign policy as more leftist. Diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Pakistan were established shortly after Pakistan’s independence. In May of 1950, Prime Minister Liquiat Ali Khan made the first state visit to the United States, stopping in New York, Washington, Houston and Kansas City. The prime minister was seeking financial and military assistance. The U.S. did not see the usefulness of a strong relationship with Pakistan and her interests in Pakistan were limited.

1954 marked a turning point in the history of relations between the two countries, as the U.S. began providing Pakistan with military aid, which would increase over the years. It was in the same decade that Pakistan experienced its first military coup, when its Army Chief Ayub Khan took power in 1958.

It was at that point that the football, in the form of aid, support of civilian government and cooperation in the war on terror entered the picture. Over the years, the U.S. and Pakistan’s relationship would improve and worsen in increasingly dramatic cycles.

The U.S. refused to provide military assistance to Pakistan during the 1965 Indo-Pakistani War. In April of 1979 the United States suspended all economic assistance to Pakistan (with the exception of food assistance) over concerns about Pakistan’s nuclear program.

The tide shifted in 1981, when Pakistan and the United States agreed on a $3.2 billion military and economic assistance program aimed at helping Pakistan deal with the heightened threat to security in the region and its economic development needs. With U.S. assistance — in the largest covert operation in history — Pakistan armed and supplied anti-Soviet fighters in Afghanistan. Weapons flowed through Pakistan to arm the mujaheddin through General Zia Ul-Haq, another military dictator who rose to power through a coup.

But the relationship’s cracks were becoming more obvious. As Lawrence Wright wrote in his New Yorker piece “U.S. Support for Pakistan: A Long Messy History;”

At the same time, Zia began giving support to an Islamist organization, Jamaat-e-Islami, the forerunner of many more radical groups to come. In November, a mob of Jamaat followers, inflamed by a rumor that the U.S. and Israel were behind an attack on the Grand Mosque, in Mecca, burned the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad to the ground, killing two Americans and two Pakistani employees. The American romance with Pakistan was over, but the marriage was just about to begin.

After 9/11, Pakistan, led by General Pervez Musharraf, reversed course under pressure from the United States and joined the “War on Terror” as a U.S. ally. This alliance began rather dramatically. According to Musharraf’s biography, In the Line of Fire, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage threatened to “bomb Pakistan into the stone age” if the country didn’t get with the program. It was an “offer” that Pakistan was in no position to refuse. General Musharraf was strongly supported by the Bush administration.

In return for their support, Pakistan has received about $10 billion in U.S. aid since 2001, primarily military.

Where did the money go? According to Military Inc., by Ayesha Siddiqa, Pakistan’s army, which has never won a war, found creative ways to take advantage of Western largesse, investing in hotels, real estate, and shopping malls. According to a 2008 GAO report, more than a third of U.S. funds provided Pakistan since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were subject to accounting problems, including duplication and possible fraud.

And then there’s the thorny topic of A.Q. Khan, the father of the “Islamic Bomb.” While Khan was operating a nuclear bazaar, the government of Pakistan argued that if there had been wrongdoing, it had occurred without the military’s knowledge or approval. Critics noted that virtually all of Khan’s overseas travels, to Iran, Libya, North Korea, Niger, Mali, and the Middle East, were on Pakistan government aircraft.

Then comes Osama saga.

For decades, the United States has made the mistake of equating “Pakistan” with its army and supporting military governments. The U.S., in the role of Lucy, has turned aid into a football. Unlike Charlie Brown, the Pakistani people, who do not benefit from this aid, have stopped trusting Lucy.

Meanwhile, Pakistan has also played the role of Lucy, offering assistance in the war on terror. While Pakistan has been helpful and the country’s people have suffered immeasurably as a result of brutal and ongoing terrorist attacks, the army and the ISI, like Lucy, have at times been too clever by half. Despite outward signs that aid will continue to flow to Pakistan’s military, there are growing signs that the U.S. is tired of playing the Charlie Brown role.

Charlie Brown never stopped trying to kick the football. Hope triumphed over experience. Can the same be said for the future of U.S. – Pak relations?

Basically, a foreign national has been killed by another foreign army. What does Pakistan have to do with this, then? Nothing and everything. And this nothing yet everything has placed Pakistan between a rock and a hard place.

If Pakistan admits that it helped US forces kill bin Laden it fears a backlash from the different militant organizations with in its boundaries, and if it denies any such cooperation then it will be labeled a supporter of Al Qaeda.

For this reason Pakistan – which is defined as the Pakistan Army and the agencies, including the infamous ISI – stayed silent. So silent that it’s scary. It’s the silence before the storm. This storm is not necessarily directed at the US, the CIA, Afghanistan or India. The tempest could be directed at foreign militants. Remaining silent was a wise approach and the best strategy so far for Pakistan. Be aware of that silence. The pendulum could swing either way. The forces that actually control Pakistan — and I’m not referring to politicians — could back any horse at this point. Or spread the wager across the board. Only time will tell.

The US media has been hammering Pakistan day and night. The media should consider Pakistan’s tight spot here. The US needs help, not just rooting terrorist networks out of Pakistan but in Afghanistan as well. It’s not easy for a country to sustain repeated bombardments, knowing that it depends on the country doing the bombing for large quantities of foreign aid. Already, a number of politicians and the Pakistani media are defining the bin Laden raid as another example of infringement of sovereignty and using bin Laden’s death to goad the US to pull out of Afghanistan. Rock, meet hard place. If only the US media understood that.

Then there have been conflicting reports coming out of various US departments. But the fact is that the raid could not have succeeded without the ISI’s help. Clearly bin Laden’s time was up. Given the ISI’s deserved reputation for treachery and intrigues, wouldn’t there have been a strong and deep bunker under that mansion to hide bin Laden? Or a maze of tunnels to help him and his family escape? Bin Laden was trapped, with the local support on the ground.

Obama said last night that he got confirmed reports of bin Laden’s location last week. I looked out for events that happened last week. President Obama was busy dealing with Trump’s nonsense, while the Pentagon was hosting ISI chief General Pasha. Coincidence? I don’t think so. There must have been a deal, a tit for tat.

Pakistan’s religious quarters have already started to question then authenticity of the killing. Above all, they have started asking US to wrap up their “war” and leave the region. Which again the US or NATO cannot afford to do. Not yet at least. The US has to deal with Afghanistan, Karzai, the Taliban, the Quetta shura…and the list goes on.

So let’s not get carried away here. The war is not over yet. Bin Laden killing has improved Obama’s approval ratings, but bin Laden’s death has hardly put a dent on al Qaeda. Keeping in mind that Al Qaeda’s's real ideological inspiration is al-Zuwahiri, who’s still very much alive. And probably on the ISI’s watch list too.

Let the White House Proclaim:

Happy Hugo Chavez Day!

Happy Ramadan!

Happy 100th Anniversary of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire!

Happy Eid-ul-Fitr

Happy Earth Day!

Happy Eid-ul-Adha!

Happy Nowruz!

If you are waiting for a Happy Easter Proclamation, though, you’ll have to wait until at least next year, since Obama didn’t bother to do one this year.

Huh?

According to this Daily Caller piece:

[snip] At a rate of more than one per week, President Obama has issued official proclamations for national holidays, both religious and secular, advocacy campaigns, and even one for the “The 100th anniversary of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire.” [snip]

But Easter? Nah, the most important thing about that was the White House Easter Egg Roll
on Monday. I am not kidding.

This piece, “White House Fails To Release Easter Proclamation,” makes an important point:

President Obama failed to release a statement or a proclamation recognizing the national observance of Easter Sunday, Christianity’s most sacred holiday.

By comparison, the White House has released statements recognizing the observance of major Muslim holidays and released statements in 2010 on Ramadan, Eid-ul-Fitr, Hajj, and Eid-ul-Adha.

The White House also failed to release a statement marking Good Friday. However, they did release an eight-paragraph statement heralding Earth Day. Likewise, the president’s weekend address mentioned neither Good Friday or Easter. [snip]

Now, don’t get me wrong – I love a good Earth Day, but to not make one single mention of the most important religious holiday for 83% of Americans is just ridiculous. I don’t care that he and his family went to church for Easter – that hardly makes up for his failure to say ANYTHING about the entire 3 day (Good Friday to Easter) period. It is Easter that marks the transformation from mere mortal to Messiah (Christ is not the last name of Jesus, after all – it is a title), hence making it the most sacred of holidays for Christians. The Resurrection at Easter is the promise of redemption for sins, and for life everlasting. It’s a pretty big deal, and should have been treated with at LEAST as much courtesy as Earth Day, especially from someone who claims to be a Christian.

Let me say this again – our country is comprised primarily of Christians – 83%. The number of those who are unaffiliated is 13%, and the number of all the other faiths together totals 4%. That includes Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews. Obama has marked every single Muslim holiday, despite the exceedingly low number of Muslims in this country, but made zero mention of Easter or Good Friday. Not that other religious holidays are not important, but really – this is no small oversight.

Evidently, Obama thought that whole Easter Egg Roll thing was sufficient mention. Ahem.

I suppose his saying nothing at all might be preferable to last year’s address on Easter:

[snip] In 2010, Obama was criticized for releasing an all-inclusive Easter greeting. He reached out to Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and people of no faith at all in a statement about a holiday that is uniquely Christian.

“All of us are striving to make a way in this world; to build a purposeful and fulfilling life in the fleeting time we have here,” Obama said in his 2010 “Easter” message. “A dignified life. A healthy life. A life, true to its potential. And a life that serves other.” “These are aspirations that stretch back through the ages – aspirations at the heart of Judaism, at the heart of Christianity, at the heart of all the world’s great religions,” the president added.

When the White House released statements about Muslim holidays, no attempts were made to include Christianity or to mention a spirit of inclusivity. For example, in his 2010 statement on Hajj and Eid-ul-Adha, Obama made no references to Christianity or any other religion.[snip]

Huh – imagine that. He didn’t take those opportunities to make it all about religious inclusion? Wassup with that? Yeah, right – as if.

Here’s the thing – I am not even a Christian, and I find this offensive. Christians should not always have to have their holidays become a hallmark of inclusion of all other religions, especially a holiday of this magnitude. No mention, no quoting of Christian Scripture, no acknowledgment whatsoever except the Easter Egg Roll, by the Proclamation President. Wow.

Just to give you an idea, here is one from President Bush:

[snip]In his 2008 Easter message, President Bush said: [snip] “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ reminds people around the world of the presence of a faithful God who offers a love more powerful than death. Easter commemorates our Savior’s triumph over sin, and we take joy in spending this special time with family and friends and reflecting on the many blessings that fill our lives. During this season of renewal, let us come together and give thanks to the Almighty who made us in His image and redeemed us in His love.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

That does seem pretty specifically Christian to me.

Here’s the thing – of course we should acknowledge and respect all faiths in this country. But we should not dismiss, or dilute, one to include all the rest, especially on a sacred holiday unique to Christianity. As much as Christianity or Judaism is not mentioned by Obama during the acknowledgment of Muslim holidays (even though Islam came from both of those religions), so should a high holy day like Easter be kept holy and sacred for Christians.

If it is even mentioned, that is…

Update below the fold.

I could barely believe my eyes when I saw this headline, “Afghans Angry Over Florida Koran Burning Kill UN Staff.”

This is not a joke. If it were, it would be a sick one, but the reality is much, much worse. Indeed, a mob of over 20,000 people went on a rampage because a copy of the Koran was burned in Florida.

You may recall that there had been a bit of a brouhaha over a church in Gainesville, Florida threatening/promising to burn a Koran to mark the anniversary of 9/11 last year, but they did not. That pesky little fact did not stop this from happening:

[snip] Last year, even though Mr. Jones called off his burning of the Koran, a subsequent wave of protests at NATO facilities in Afghanistan led to at least five deaths. In several of those incidents, Taliban agitators played a role, allegedly spreading rumors that the Koran burning had taken place. However, the Taliban have had little or no presence in Mazar-i-Sharif, one of the most peaceful places in Afghanistan. [snip]

What? Nothing even happened and they killed a bunch of people? Holy crappydoo.

That being said, on March 20th, Rev, Jones and his flock did burn the Koran. Bear in mind, this is a small, way out on the periphery church we are talking about here. Honestly, why do a bunch of Afghans even CARE what this whacko down in Gainesville is doing?

But care they do, and so far, they have killed 7 – SEVEN – UN workers and 5 Afghan as a result. And they weren’t even Americans. Nope:

[snip] The dead included at least seven United Nations workers — four Nepalese guards and three Europeans from Romania, Sweden and Norway — according to United Nations officials in New York. One was a woman. Early reports, later denied by Afghan officials, said that at least two of the dead had been beheaded. Five Afghans were also killed. [snip]

Yes, they went on quite the rampage over this event that happened 11 days ago in a small city in Florida. Holy shit.

(EPA / April 1, 2011)

I’m sorry, but that is just insane. It is just insane. Never mind that it is a bit of a violation of the Big Ten to commit murder, but these people were spurred to action by a sermon in a mosque! I am not kidding you:

[snip] The incident began when thousands of protesters poured out of the Blue Mosque in Mazar-i-Sharif after Friday prayers and attacked the nearby headquarters of the United Nations, according to Lal Mohammad Ahmadzai, spokesman for Gen. Daoud Daoud, the Afghan National Police commander for northern Afghanistan.

After disarming or shooting the United Nations compound’s guards, the crowd surged inside. Mr. Ahmadzai said that eight of the foreign staff workers, whose nationalities were not known immediately, were killed by gunfire, and that two others were captured by the mob and beheaded. Other reports said that the operations center was burned down as well. [snip]

Oh, but wait – it gets better:

[snip]A prominent Afghan cleric, Mullavi Qyamudin Kashaf, acting chief of the Ulema Council of Afghanistan, called for American authorities to arrest and try Mr. Jones as a war criminal.

The Ulema Council recently met to discuss the Koran burning, he said. “We expressed our deep concerns about this act and we were expecting the violence that we are witnessing now,” Mr. Kashaf said. “Unless they try him and give him the highest possible punishment, we will witness violence and protests not only in Afghanistan but in the entire world.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Let me get this straight – these Muslim mobs have murdered over 17 people, including foreign nationals, 5 at the very notion of a Koran being burned, and 12 because one was burned, and they want the MINISTER to be arrested on war crime charges?

That simply defies all logic, common sense, humanity, and religion. That is just insane. Insane. That’s right, I am calling this mob of 20,000 people who attacked guards at the UN because a book was burned insane. I’m sorry, this is not just insane, but crazy, nutso, whacked out, fruit loopy, or any other applicable term. How else to descrivea huge mob went on a rampage at a UN facility over the burning of a book. Yes, it was a religious text, but still – like I said, to kill people over one book being burned is just crazy. Not to mention doing so last year at a NATO facility (about which I had heard nothing) over the RUMOR of a Koran being burned.

I know that this is not the first instance of something like this, fatwas have been called for people from Salmon Rushdie to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for depictions or even descriptions, of Islam, or Muhammad. And I know that Rev. Jones had been warned about burning the Koran out of fear of repercussions.

But why do we have to kowtow to people who would commit murder over something so relatively minor as burning a holy book? Why do we allow them to dictate to us what we can and cannot do for fear of violence? Isn’t that an extreme form of bullying? Why do we allow it?

Instead of expecting everyone else to walk around on eggshells lest we set them off, how about we expect THEM to not fly off into a murderous rage at the least perceived slight? Why don’t we tell THEM it is unacceptable for them to KILL someone over a cartoon? Or a book? Good grief, if all religious groups reacted the same way, we would be in for a world of hurt. Can you imagine if Christians flew off into a murderous rage every time there was a piece of artwork that depicted Jesus in less than a positive light? Good grief, it would be a whole different world, that’s for sure.

Why are we allowing these radical religious extremists to dictate to us what we can and cannot do? Why are we not demanding that they stop acting so violently or else THEY will face consequences? When we constantly pander to the lowest common denominator, it brings us all down.

Whether one agrees with what Jones did or not, the response in Afghanistan is just crazy. Murdering people over a burned book is insane.

That’s what I think, anyway. What do you think?

*Update: Sunday morning, and the protests over the burning of one Koran continue to rage. More people have lost their lives as a result of the crowds being whipped up. Here is more:

[snip] The Taliban said in a statement emailed to media outlets that the US and other Western countries have wrongly excused the burning a Koran by the pastor of a Florida church on March 20 as freedom of speech and that Afghans “cannot accept this un-Islamic act.”

Nato officials re-iterated their condemnation of the Koran burning in an apparent attempt to quell the rising anger.

“We condemn, in particular, the action of an individual in the United States who recently burned the Holy Koran,” said the statement issued by military commander Gen. David Petraeus and the top Nato civilian representative in Afghanistan, Mark Sedwill.

“We further hope the Afghan people understand that the actions of a small number of individuals, who have been extremely disrespectful to the Holy Koran, are not representative of any of the countries of the international community who are in Afghanistan to help the Afghan people,” the statement said.

On Saturday, US President Barack Obama extended his condolences to the families of those killed by the protesters and said desecration of the Koran “is an act of extreme intolerance and bigotry.” But he said that does not justify attacking and killing innocent people, calling it “outrageous and an affront to human decency and dignity.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Frankly, I don’t cotton to being lectured by the TALIBAN. Nor do I appreciate that NATO and General Petraeus are not putting the blame where it belongs – those who are engaging in these murderous rampages. For THREE freaking days now, they have been raging. That is an extreme, absurd, deluded response by the Afghan people, and to try and appease them in any way, shape, or form, after they are committing these kinds of atrocities is immoral, and reprehensible. We cannot, CANNOT, allow these radical extremists to dictate what we are able to do here in the United States of America. WE CANNOT.

This is so insidious, this twisting of blame and responsibility, the bending over backward to not offend those who hate us. Whether or not the minister should have burned the Koran may be debated, but HE did not kill anyone. These people did. And they alone bear responsibility for their heinous actions and attacks. No one MADE them kill someone.

UPDATE 2: A new report claims Pakistan fanned the flames of anger over the trial and burning of the Koran by Rev. Jones. Apparently, the media wasn’t really covering what he was doing, but a little news brief was picked up by Agence France Presse, thus beginning Pakistan’s pushing this to international heights. Rev. Jones has been tried by a Sharia Court, found guilty of blasphemy, the punishment of which is death.

Here are some of the highlights of how Pakistan pushed this:

[snip] On the evening of March 20, the “trial” went ahead with Jones presiding. It ended with another pastor setting alight a kerosene-soaked copy of the Qur’an.

A brief Agence France Presse (AFP) report said that although the event was open to the public fewer than 30 people attended. A subsequent local media report said the only journalists who turned up on the day were an AFP stringer, several students and an unassigned photographer. A video clip was posted online, however.

The following day, the Organization of the Islamic Conference – the bloc of 56 Muslim-majority nations – issued a statement warning about “unforeseen and volatile consequences of such outrageous and irresponsible acts that could hurt the deep seated religious sentiments of over 1.5 billion Muslims around the world.” Pakistan’s ambassador to the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva drew its attention to the Gainesville incident.

On March 22, Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari, in a speech to the federal parliament, condemned the incident “in the strongest possible words,” and Pakistan’s foreign ministry called the burning a “despicable act.”

Dozens of reports on the Qur’an burning appeared in Pakistani media outlets on March 22-23, but the story received negligible coverage elsewhere in the Islamic world. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

There is much more to this, but it seems apparent that this incident was blown into international proportions by Pakistan, then onto even less stable countries like Iran and Afghanistan. And now, over 20 people have lost their lives. That is just appalling, and our leaders need to stop kowtowing over this, IMHO, that is.

Here’s the thing. There is only one group that is well organized. Any guesses as to who that group would be? If you said “Muslim Brotherhood,” you would be right. This NY Times article, Egyptian Voters Approve Constitutional Changes, highlights the effects of the vote:

Egyptian voters overwhelmingly approved a referendum on constitutional changes on Sunday that will usher in rapid elections, with the results underscoring the strength of established political organizations, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood, and the weakness of emerging liberal groups.

[...]

The military council has been somewhat vague about the next steps. But Maj. Gen. Mamdouh Shaken told Al-Shorouk newspaper in an interview published on Sunday that the generals would issue a constitutional declaration to cover the changes and then set dates for the vote once the results were announced.

The Muslim Brotherhood and remnant elements of the National Democratic Party, which dominated Egyptian politics for decades, were the main supporters of the referendum. They argued the election timetable would insure a swift return to civilian rule.

Members of the liberal wing of Egyptian politics mostly opposed the measure, saying they lacked time to organize into effective political organizations. They said early elections will benefit the Brotherhood and the old ruling party, which they warned would seek to write a constitution that centralizes power much like the old one.

What a double-edged sword this is. On the one hand, it is great that the Egyptian people are so excited about their ability to vote, and feeling that their votes will actually count. I am sure their delight in this event which we take so for granted is palpable. But, when it benefits terrorist-spawning, Sharia-law supporting organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood, it makes it a bitter pill to swallow:

[snip] “It is very, very disappointing,” said Hani Shukrallah, who is active in a new liberal political party and is the editor of Ahram Online, a news Website.

He and many other opponents of the referendum said religious organizations had spread false rumors, suggesting that voting against the referendum would threaten Article 2 of the constitution, which cites Islamic law as the main basis for Egyptian law.

“I saw one sign that said, ‘If you vote no you are a follower of America and Baradei and if you vote yes you are a follower of God,’” he said. “The idea is that Muslims will vote yes and Copts and atheists will vote no.”

Mohamed El Baradei, a former top United Nations nuclear official and Noble Prize winner planning to run for president, opposed the amendments, as did Amr Moussa, the secretary-general of the Arab League, another potential president candidate. In a vote remarkably free of problems, Mr. Baradei was attacked by a mob when he went to vote, fleeing a shower of rocks and bottles. His supporters said the mob was paid.

There is much more to this article, and I urge you to read the rest. But the disinformation campaign is telling in and of itself. I think that is the kind of thing we can expect to see more of should the Muslim Brotherhood win in the upcoming election. Unfortunately, that seems exceedingly likely.

And that is exceedingly disturbing. As I have stated before, there is a reason why this organization was banned from Egypt for so many years. Egypt, once a more progressive Middle Eastern country, will turn into something a whole lot more regressive under the Muslim Brotherhood. This is sad on so many levels, especially in terms of the treatment of women in a country where women had known some freedoms. Yikes.

Just in case you need a reminder of who the Muslim Brotherhood is, I will leave the last word on them to Niall Ferguson:

But I have seen a number of clips (I couldn’t help it – they would just start showing them!), including one which included this exchange between O’Reilly and Obama about the Muslim Brotherhood:

[snip] “O’REILLY: Are they a threat?

“OBAMA: But they are well-organized and there are strains of their ideology that are anti-U.S. There’s no doubt about it…[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Talk about your classic understatement about the Muslim Brotherhood and “strains of their ideology.” Wow.

Now, I know I have been discussing this issue a lot recently, but hey – blame Obama. He is the one who insisted that this outlaw group have a place at the table in Egypt. Oh, yeah – and he is the one who invited not one, but TEN members of the Muslim Brotherhood to attend his big ol’ Cairo speech in June of 2009. Yep – because THAT wasn’t a slap in the face of Egypt and its laws. But hey – he’s Obama, so he is above all of that law stuff.

But wait until you see what this Atlantic article from 2009 says about this organization:

[snip] The brotherhood is a Salafist/ Islamist party with branches in many countries, and it does not have a reputation for liberalism and has supported violent campaigns against Israel (and Egypt’s own government). It has deep roots in the region and traces its intellectual lineage to Sayyid Qutb, a top American-educated Islamic intellectual who was executed — or martyred — by the Egyptian government in 1966. The Brotherhood has direct links with Sunni groups like Hamas in the Palestinian territories. Its standing in Egypt has suffered as of late because of a crackdown by the Egyptian government and a growing frustration that it is too conservative (anti-women’s rights, the whole gamut) for a modern Middle East. Still, it’s the largest Sunni opposition party in the world, and it’s clear that the Obama administration wants to engage the Sunnis — even the less moderate Sunnis — in his “Mutual Respect” tour. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Well, then, one can easily see why Obama would want to extend “mutual respect” to this organization that is anti-Israel, anti-women, anti-US, and pro-Hamas, can’t you? Yeah, me neither. Bear in mind, that little snippet of history is from The Atlantic, and the author is none other than Marc Ambinder, one of the JournoListers. That explains some of the attempt at minimizing for what the Brotherhood stands.

So let’s turn to an organization that has been following the Muslim Brotherhood in light of Obama’s understatement that there are “strains of their ideology that are anti-US,” the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report. I wish I could tell you who the editors of this site are, but for a disconcerting reason, I cannot:

[snip] The editors of the site choose to remain anonymous because of the “extraordinary lengths that the global Muslim Brotherhood would go to harass, defame, or slander its critics.”

“We saw this happen to others, including venerable university presses and leading news organizations and with the recent controversy over the resignation of the Obama campaign’s Muslim outreach director,” the site explains. “Hence we made the decision to let the information, often originating from the Brotherhood and its affiliates, and backed by public records, speak for itself, and not get lost in the distraction created by Brotherhood harassment. [snip]

Holy crappydoo. That gives you a bit of a glimpse into the modus operandi of the Brotherhood, but that is really just the beginning. In this article, “10 Questions With The Editors Of The Global Muslim Brotherhood Report,” their response to the very first question should give one pause, and highlight the duplicity of Obama’s response to O’Reilly:

[snip] 1. What are the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood?

It must be remembered that at its heart, the Muslim Brotherhood is a covert organization albeit with a public face and there is discordance between its public and private positions. Although the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, along with the whole of the Global Muslim Brotherhood network, proclaims it support for democracy, the motto of the organization remains as it always has been:

– Allah is our objective.

– The Prophet is our leader.

– Qur’an is our law.

– Jihad is our way.

– Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.

In practical terms, the Brotherhood attempts to gain as much influence for itself as it is able, presumably in the service of its long term vision. Its ability to gain power and influence varies from country to country according to the conditions “on the ground.” That said, its has already been noted that the Global Muslim Brotherhood is a covert organization at its heart and much remains to be learned about its true nature. For example, a secret document unearthed in a U.S. terrorism trial revealed the thinking of a senior Global Muslim Brotherhood leader close to Sheikh Youssef Qaradawi, the most important leader in the global Muslim Brotherhood network who lives in Qatar, and which said:

The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.(Emphasis mine.)

[snip] (Click here to read the rest of this article.)

I think a “Grand Jihad” to destroy Western Civilization might be construed as “anti-U.S.,” especially considering the whole “eliminating” thing and “sabotaging” from within. Yep, I think I would surely classify that as the Muslim Brotherhood having just a bit of animosity toward the United States. So, thanks Obama, for insisting on giving this organization more legitimacy and power in Egypt. I mean, really, how can that possibly come back to bite us here, right? Right?

Is it just me, or does it also freak you out a bit that our president is being so cavalier about this organization which he seems to be courting, or at least supporting, to get more power? Just wondering…

One thing this brief biography does not say, though, is that she also has family in Egypt. She knows whereof she speaks when she says the following from The Daily Beast post regarding the Egyptian uprising and the Muslim Brotherhood in particular:

Don’t buy the hype about the moderate Muslim Brotherhood. Kirsten Powers on why the U.S. should worry about the rise of an Islamic power in Cairo. Plus, full coverage of the Egypt unrest.

Americans are notoriously naïve.

This is the message I am getting from people I know in Egypt today.

When the protests first began in Egypt, I was in constant contact with an Egyptian relative who is a successful businessman, university professor and astute student of world politics. As my husband and I panicked for our family’s safety, this relative was calm, assuring me that Hosni Mubarak would appoint an interim government and that there would likely be an important role for Omar Suileman, who is a well respected leader in Egypt. Both these things quickly came true. Day after day he assured me that everything would be fine. He was sure that the Muslim Brotherhood—which he regards as a radical Islamist group – was not organized enough to gain any significant power.

Today, he was not so calm. Our family in Egypt is shocked and alarmed by what they are hearing from Western voices and even the apparent leading opposition candidate Mohamed ElBaradei—who has partnered with the Muslim Brotherhood — who claim that the Brotherhood is a moderate group that should not be feared.

As of this writing, all of the news sources are reporting one thing – Obama got his demand. That demand, as I have written previously, is that he wants the Muslim Brotherhood to have a seat at the table. And so they will. It is just disturbing beyond belief that a US President would make such a demand for a group like the Muslim Brotherhood, yet he did. Shocking.

Ms. Powers also speaks about the Christians in Egypt and the difficulties they face. The bombing of a Coptic Church on January 1st in Alexandria in which 23 people were murdered, and 79 hurt, is a case in point. Just the other day, two Coptic Christian families were shot and killed, a total of 11 people, including children.

It leaves me speechless, and incredibly sad. So, I will return to Ms. Powers’ post:

[snip] As a liberal, I have a very hard time with the idea that I’m not supposed to care about a potential government that is oppressive to minorities and women.

During the last elections, the Brotherhood’s slogan was “Islam is the solution.” Its logo is a black flag with a sword and the Koran.

[...]

I spent much of yesterday interviewing American experts on the region—including two Brookings Institution scholars who are experts on the Muslim Brotherhood—and was reassured over and over that the organization has reformed and does not seek to establish a fundamentalist state. One claimed that Brotherhood officials have said they view Copts as equal citizens.

My relative laughed at this. He says when Brotherhood members have been asked about how they would treat Christians they are vague. When asked about whether they would nationalize the banks, they are vague. Even one of the Brookings scholars told me that the Brotherhood would probably segregate the sexes. This is far from a secular group.

I had a similar reaction when an old friend tried to claim that the BBC said the Muslim Brotherhood was moderate now, and opposed to violence (something not in the Profile they did). This organization gave birth to the likes of Hamas and Al Qaeda, and we are honestly supposed to believe this organization, which helped fuel the recent protests, has changed their stripes, with a slogan like, “Islam Is The Solution” (and, “Resistance Is Futile?”)? Uh, sure, okay.

Ms. Powers seems to be of the same opinion:

Our family in Egypt always makes the point that if the current regime—which is considered moderate and quasi-secular—arrests people who convert from Islam to Christianity, what do you think it will be like if power is seized by a group that has as its explicit goal the spread of Islam?

One of the things I consistently hear from the Egyptian Christians I know is that Islamists know the right things to say in order to gain power. They are sophisticated. They are especially astute at telling Westerners what they want to hear.

[...]

As a liberal, I have a very hard time with the idea that I’m not supposed to care about a potential government that is oppressive to minorities and women. I also do not support theocracies—Muslim, Christian or otherwise even if they aren’t fundamentalist. If find it strange that so many American liberals aren’t concerned about the Muslim Brotherhood’s stated mission to “spread Islam.” It’s hard to imagine them being so unconcerned about a Christian political group with the stated mission of establishing a Christian theocracy gaining power in a new government.

If the Muslim Brotherhood wants to evangelize Islam on its own time that is fine; but it shouldn’t be able to use government power to do so. I should also note that it is already against the law for Christians to share their faith in Egypt—and that’s under a quasi-secular government. (Human Rights Watch last year accused Egypt of “widespread discrimination” against Christians and other religious minorities.)

This isn’t to say that Mubarak deserves our support. He’s an oppressive dictator. But all the Americans who are supporting the participation of the Muslim Brotherhood in the new government need to understand who they really are. Beyond my own personal concern for the treatment of Christians and women, fundamentalist Islamic governments generally aren’t known for being pro-American.

I shared with my Egyptian relative that most experts I spoke to here believe that Turkey is the model that Egypt will follow.

Again, laughter. (Click here to read the rest.)

Yeah, I bet. But I’m not laughing. Again, I have to ask, why does Obama have so many connections to this organization? How can that possibly be, and why are so few people concerned about that given for what they stand?

And in all honesty, I am thankful I had a chance to go to Egypt when I did. Muslims of the Brotherhood variety don’t deal too well with people of my persuasion, or gender, for that matter. Because for what the Muslim Brotherhood stands, “Islam is the Solution,” is to promote Sharia Law. Let me give you just a few more examples of what that means for, oh, let’s just begin with homosexuals (from Top Ten Reasons Why Sharia Is Bad For All Societies):

In February 1998, the Taliban, who once ruled in Afghanistan, ordered a stone wall to be pushed over three men convicted of sodomy. Their lives were to be spared if they survived for 30 minutes and were still alive when the stones were removed.

In its 1991 Constitution, in Articles 108—113, Iran adopted the punishment of execution for sodomy.

In April 2005, a Kuwaiti cleric says homosexuals should be thrown off a mountain or stoned to death.

On April 7, 2005, it was reported that Saudi Arabia sentenced more than 100 men to prison or flogging for ‘gay conduct.’

Anyone want to take bets on how long those men survived having a stone wall pushed over on them? Yeah, I wouldn’t take that bet, either.

How do women fare? Well, heaven help you if you are married:

[snip] The Quran says:
4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (MAS Abdel Haleem, the Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004)

The hadith says that Muslim women in the time of Muhammad were suffering from domestic violence in the context of confusing marriage laws:

Rifa’a divorced his wife whereupon ‘AbdurRahman bin Az—Zubair Al—Qurazi married her. ‘Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Apostle came, ‘Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” (Bukhari)

This hadith shows Muhammad hitting his girl—bride, Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakr: Muslim no. 2127:

‘He [Muhammad] struck me [Aisha] on the chest which caused me pain.’

Oh, sure, that’s the old school talk. But hey – you can check out this cleric describing the proper way for a man to beat his wife a year ago in Egypt. Wait until you see the justification for it:

Well, okay then – as long as you don’t curse her when you beat her, then things are just peachy keen.

Good grief. Oh, there is so, so much more to Sharia Law along these same lines.

Tell me again why, and how, Obama is so connected to the Brotherhood? How is it he asked a member of an outlawed group to attend his big speech? Why does he keep pushing for them to have a seat at the table?? I really want to know.

What will it take to break through Americans’ naivete about Egypt, about the Muslim Brotherhood, and Sharia Law? I’m with Ms. Powers. I am not okay with Egypt being given over to Islamic Rule, for women, for Christians, for the stability of the Middle East, and the impact on Israel.

I can only think of our lovely tour guide, how proud she was of how far women had come in her country, how they only had to wear the hijab, that they were able to work, and go to school. I hope, and pray, for her sake and all the women there, that Egypt does not give over to the conservative elements. I guess this is one of the times that, truly, only time will tell.

And no, I am not referring to the trial currently going on in Phoenix in which a father is accused of running down his own daughter because she had become too Westernized. Yes, the one to which they refer as an “honor killing.” That trial is ongoing, and is also disturbing on a number of levels. That is what Sharia Law looks like.

So is this: the whipping, and subsequent death, of a 14 year old girl who had been raped by her 40 year old cousin, for ADULTERY, in Bangladesh. Yes, she was accused of adultery because her cousin was married. As the BBC reports, being lashed to death was the second “punishment” she received:

[snip]The family members of the married man also allegedly beat the girl up a day before the village court passed the sentence in the district of Shariatpur.

“Her family members said she was admitted to a hospital after the incident and she died six days later. The village elders also asked the girl’s father to pay a fine of about 50,000 Taka (£430; $700),” district superintendent of police, AKM Shahidur Rahman, told the BBC.

He said it had not been established yet whether she died because of the punishment she received or another reason.

“We are still waiting for the post-mortem report. In the meantime, we are also looking for another 14 people including a teacher from a local madrassa in connection with this case,” Mr Rahman said.

Activists say dozens of fatwas – or religious rulings – are issued under Sharia law each year by village clergy in Bangladesh. [snip]

In theory, Sharia Law has been outlawed in Bangladesh, and four people, including a cleric, have been arrested for this fatwa. That will not bring back Hena Begum, though:

“What sort of justice is this? My daughter has been beaten to death in the name of justice. If it had been a proper court then my daughter would not have died,” Dorbesh Khan, the father of Hena Begum, told the BBC.

He said those responsible for the death should be punished.

A group of people held a rally on Wednesday in the town of Shariatpur in protest against those who gave the fatwa and demanded action against them.

This is the second reported fatality linked to a Sharia law punishment since the practice was outlawed last year by the High Court.

A 40-year-old woman in the district of Rajshahi died in December, days after she was publicly caned for allegedly having an affair with her stepson.

Nearly 90% of Bangladesh’s estimated 160 million population are Muslims, most of whom practise a moderate version of Islam. (Click here to read the rest.)

Good for Bangladesh for outlawing this practice, though clearly, it is still being conducted in certain segments of the population.

So tell me again why a federal judge has put a halt to the ban of Sharia Law passed by the vast majority of voters in Oklahoma?

Or why the Oklahoma University Student Government would vote to condemn the ban on Shariah Law (no, I am not making this up)? Are these students really okay with women and girls being killed by their family members for an alleged infraction (apparently, it does not have to be proved)? Are they really okay with a “Harry Potter” actress, Afshan Azad, being beaten by her brother because she has a non-Muslim boyfriend? (Her brother got a six month sentence.) Are they really okay with hands being hacked off of thieves? Do they have the faintest clue what Sharia Law means? I would say, Hell No.

And the lack of logic employed by these students is disturbing in and of itself. One student said this:

[snip] Daitch, a Jewish student, said no one should be singled out in state law and that the ballot question easily could have singled out Jewish and Catholic teachings, as well as Islam.

“I hope that if my faith was under attack, someone would stand up for me,” she said.

“What if the bill outlawed Jewish law? And technically the 10 Commandments are international law, and I don’t think many Oklahomans would appreciate
knowing that they outlawed parts of their own faith.” [snip]

This is not about the Muslim faith per se. It is about allowing one religious group to insert their own set of laws over and above the laws of the country in which they live. While the Ten Commandments may inform a number of our laws, I dare say if people started putting people to death in this country for wearing mixed fabrics, something clearly forbidden in Leviticus 19:19, these same students might be a tad concerned. Especially if any of them also eat pork, or shellfish, or any other of the numerous prohibitions in the Hebrew Scriptures that don’t end well for the offenders. But people are not allowed to put to death someone who “spills their seed upon the ground” (Gen.38) because that would be allowing the laws of one particular faith to supercede the laws of the land. Hence the separation of church (or temple or synagogue) from state. It’s kind of a foundational concept for our country. Just saying. (Just what the hell are they teaching at OU, anyway?)

Because we have been manipulated into thinking that if we say ANYTHING negative about Islam, we are Islamophobic, intolerant, racist, xenophobic, and on and on and on. I’m sorry, but I am just not okay with women or girls being murdered or beaten by their family members for some perceived infraction that has “dishonored” the men. I am not okay with it, and I do not understand these folks who are.

To extend blanket, uncritical, acceptance of any group in an effort to be “tolerant” is just wrong-headed. It is NOT okay to beat women, it is NOT okay to wage jihad, it is NOT okay to cut off limbs, it is not okay to cane, flog, or stone people. Any attempt to make this acceptable, under the guise of “political correctness,” is deplorable.

This is what Sharia Law looks like, the flogging to death of a 14 year old girl. The murder of a daughter. The beating of a sister. This is what the Muslim Brotherhood wants to implement not just in Egypt, but around the world:

[snip] “God is our objective, the Koran is our Constitution, the Prophet is our leader, struggle is our way, and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations” — the Brotherhood since its founding has supported the use of armed struggle, or jihad. The Brotherhood supports the waging of jihad against non-Muslim “infidels,” and has expressed support for terrorism against Israel, whose legitimacy the Brotherhood does not recognize, and against the West, particularly the United States….[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

To defend this is not “politically correct.” No. Rather, it is uninformed, uneducated, uncritical, idiotic parroting of a party line, the purpose of which is to hide the oppression of an entire segment of the population, and the radical intent to do harm. That isn’t “politically correct,” that is just stupid.

And we should name it as such. Don’t take my word for it. Take it from someone who has lived under this practice:

Name it indeed. Call it what it is and stop doing the work for those who wish to wage jihad against us, or implement Sharia Law in Egypt, or in Europe, or in the States. Name it. Call it out. And do not let people get away with justifying these kinds of practices in the name of “tolerance.” Call them out.

And why is Obama seeking “REGIME CHANGE” with our closest ally in the Middle East, and peacekeeper with Israel? Where is the hue and cry from the Left on this? Oh, wait – since it is Obama, it is fine and dandy. Right…

Indeed, the more answers I get about this organization, the more questions I have. For instance, why did Obama invite the PM of the Muslim Brotherhood to his speech in Cairo on June, 9, 2009? Especially considering the contentious relationship between the Brotherhood, and Egypt’s president? Is there any way a comparable scenario would be allowed to play out in the United States? That the nemesis of the president would be invited to attend the speech of a visiting dignitary? I think not.

Yet, that is exactly what Obama did:

[snip] The Muslim Brotherhood has been a thorn in President Mubarak’s side for many decades. Many of its members, at one time or another have been jailed. However, the group has 86 members in the Egyptian parliament, and the head of the Parliamentarian bloc of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammad Al Katatini, stated on Tuesday that he had received a private invitation from the American President to come to Al-Azhar University, where Obama will deliver his speech. This is an audacious move on the part of Obama, which managed to irritate the Egyptian leadership who say that the Brotherhood is ‘illegal’. Apparently, Americans officials in Cairo met with Al Katatini according to a report from Al Jazeera. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

And then there was that secret meeting between former Ambassador to Egypt, Frank Weisner, and a senior leader in the Muslim Brotherhood, Issam El-Erian, on January 31, 2011, in Cairo.

What the hell is going on here?

In all honesty, I am not really surprised by these actions of Obama or his Administration. Though I was surprised to learn that Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota went on a trip to Mecca sponsored by a group, MAS (Muslim American Society), with these ties to the Muslim Brotherhood:

[snip] The MAS was founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, an international Islamist movement created in Egypt in 1928. Radical members of the Brotherhood founded the terror group Hamas and were among the first members of Al Qaeda.

The Muslim American Society’s former secretary general has acknowledged that the group was founded by the Brotherhood, and in 2004 he estimated that about half of MAS members were in the Muslim Brotherhood. [snip]

[snip] “It is the de facto arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S.,” said Steven Emerson, director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism. “The agenda of the MAS is to … impose Islamic law in the U.S., to undermine U.S. counterterrorism policy.”
[snip](Click here to read the rest.)

Wow. Now THAT is disturbing. Yet we are often bludgeoned into silence int his country should we dare raise any questions about these kinds of Muslim organizations. It seems we should have been asking a lot more questions,of Obama, and his associates, especially if you look at the choices Obama has made with some of his appointments. As it turns out, a number of them, including one of the people he chose to participate in his inauguration ceremonies:

[snip] Obama’s first attempt at outreach to Muslims came when he chose the head of a Muslim Brotherhood-linked group that had been named an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case to give a prayer during his inauguration ceremonies. Ingrid Mattson, who was then president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), offered this prayer at the National Cathedral on Obama’s Inauguration Day – despite the fact that the previous summer, federal prosecutors rejected a request from ISNA to remove its unindicted co-conspirator status.

There is no record of Obama ever asking Mattson to explain ISNA’s links to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. On the contrary: he sent his Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett to be the keynote speaker at ISNA’s national convention in 2009.

But wait – there’s more:

Even worse, in April 2009, Obama appointed Arif Alikhan, the deputy mayor of Los Angeles, as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development at the Department of Homeland Security. Just two weeks before he received this appointment, Alikhan (who once called the jihad terror group Hizballah a “liberation movement”) participated in a fundraiser for the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). Like ISNA, MPAC has links to the Muslim Brotherhood. In a book entitled In Fraternity: A Message to Muslims in America, coauthor Hassan Hathout, a former MPAC president, is identified as “a close disciple of the late Hassan al-Banna of Egypt.” The MPAC-linked magazine The Minaret spoke of Hassan Hathout’s closeness to al-Banna in a 1997 article: “My father would tell me that Hassan Hathout was a companion of Hassan al-Banna….Hassan Hathout would speak of al-Banna with such love and adoration; he would speak of a relationship not guided by politics or law but by a basic sense of human decency.”

Al-Banna, of course, was the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

So, yes, that Obama invited the PM to his speech in Cairo, and had the former Ambassador meet with the Brotherhood in private really should not be a surprise. Evidently, Obama’s connections with the Brotherhood are not new.

And this news raises this important question for me: how, and why,is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton able to justify this support for the Muslim Brotherhood to have a role in Egypt’s government given her lifelong work and dedication to women and children? I do not understand it.

Anyone who has read me regularly knows that my support for Hillary Clinton was complete and unwavering. I had never felt so strongly about a presidential candidate in my life as I did about her run for president. And not just because she was a woman, but because she was one of the most qualified, experienced, intelligent people with a real grasp of what is going on in the lives of regular Americans as any candidate I have ever seen. Her ability to hold so many different concepts at once, able to see down the road how implementation of policies would be most effective, and she was able to communicate her knowledge with compassion, wisdom, and humor. In short, she was the complete package.

Clinton’s work on behalf of women and children began after law school when she went to work for the Children’s Defense Fund in 1970, and her commitment only grew after that. Her work as First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the United States, US Senator from New York, and now Secretary of State, have all included her commitment to women and children. She routinely speaks out about the positive effect on a country when its women and children are educated, and has an office dedicated to Women’s Issuesin the State Department.

Curiously, there is also an office for outreach to Muslim Communities, initiated in 2009. This special representative, Farah, Pandith, reports directly to the Secretary. Interesting, that. Why is our State Department reaching out to a particular religious group, I have to ask? Again, it should not be a surprise that this office came into being with Obama’s presidency.

All of the above leads me back to this: how can Secretary Clinton continue to support President Obama in his push for the Muslim Brotherhood to be involved in governing Egypt? The Muslim Brotherhood wants to implement Sharia Law, for heaven’s sake. How in the world can Secretary Clinton stand by this? How can she possibly condone the impact this will have on women in Egypt given her lifelong work for women to have full human rights? How? I simply do not understand this. It seems to fly in the face of everything for which she has stood, and about which she spoke, in this groundbreaking speech back in 1995:

If Sharia Law is implemented in Egypt, as it surely will be if the Muslim Brotherhood is involved, it will set back women’s progress there decades. How Secretary Clinton can remain silent on this is beyond me. There is still time, though, and I hope she will come out and say the right thing, or give up her office rather than be complacent in Obama’s push for the Brotherhood’s involvement there. I hope she will truly stand on the side of women, and not this president who clearly does not have women’s best interests at heart (which I have been saying from the get-go. Do you think “Ms. Magazine” and N.O.W. have gotten it, um, now?).

Will Secretary Clinton stand with women around the world, or will she stand with Obama? One can only hope she will choose the former. The latter would just be unthinkable…

Perhaps someone can answer this for me. Here’s the thing. Cairo has over 18 million people. Relatively speaking, the number of protesters in the streets are a small number of the populace there. How is it this small mob is able to force the resignation of their president?

I should interject at this point that my partner remarked that they learned it from us. As in, they saw how a bunch of union, party, and thugs of all kinds broke laws and rules to make Obama the presidential nominee. Seeing how that worked, they decided to give it a go themselves. Ahem.

Back to my question, which is rapidly becoming more than one: Is this not a coup? And if so, who is behind this? Who would fill the void if Mubarak stepped down immediately? If it is Mohamad ElBaradei, what experience does he have in running a country? And why has the Muslim Brotherhood been pushing him as a presidential candidate?

As for the “Brotherhood,” which first said it was not going to involve itself in politics, but now, maybe just a tad (cough, cough), what are we to make of this statement in their Supreme Guide:

[snip] The current Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Muhammad Badi’, gave a sermon in September 2010 stating that Muslims today “need to understand that the improvement and change that the [Muslim] nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death, just as the enemies pursue life.”6 In short, the Muslim Brotherhood remains committed to supporting militant activities in order to advance its political aims. From looking at the biographies of its most prominent graduates, one can immediately understand the organization’s long-term commitment to jihadism…[snip] (Click here to read the biographies.)

And why is Obama sticking his nose in all of this? I think that is the question Krauthammer wants answered, too:

Obama’s speech was exceedingly light on substance (what else is new), but yes, why is Obama sticking his nose into this at this point? And has involvement by Obama and the US escalated the violence as was reported this morning that the Egyptian Foreign Minister claimed?

Breaking News: the Museum in Cairo is now on fire. A protester hurled a molotov cocktail at it, and it is on fire. This is terrible, terrible news…

Oh, my – what an intense time in Egypt. I have lots of questions, though. Can anyone help make sense of how this relatively small mob has the power to oust their president?

The New Agenda, presided over by the incomparable Amy Siskind, has just put out another video in their series of “Searching for Sexism.” Now, personally, I don’t think we have to look very far at all for signs of sexism in this culture. They are all around us, in our commercials, in our tv shows, in the news (e.g., constant sexist attacks on powerful women, not the media reporting sexism), in our schools, and in our families. In Episode Three, The New Agenda focuses on the role models (or lack thereof) our teenage girls are seeing, what they are experiencing in their dating relationships, and what they are doing to their bodies in an attempt to live up to an unachievable standard of “beauty.” Please watch:

Almost a year ago, I wrote a piece about violence against women, particularly in terms of teenagers, “This One’s For The Girls.” The great country singer, Martina McBride, created “My Time To Shine,” a project in conjunction with “Love Is Respect” for girls and women. McBride teamed with this organization in response to the rise of domestic violence in teenage relationships as one in three – 1 in 3 – girls suffers violence at the hands of their boyfriends. That is a harrowing, and unacceptable statistic. It is to that statistic, as well as to eating disorders, and the misogyny inherent in so much of our culture, that Amy Siskind and The New Agenda, created their video series.

And it is to the misogyny and sexism on display in our media that “Killing Us Softly,” the groundbreaking documentary on the imagery of women in advertising. There is much you will recognize in this video. To see image after image after image of the way women, and girls, are depicted, is disturbing, to say the least:

How is it, that in the Twenty-first century, we still have these images of women, that our girls continue to embody these messages of having to be thin? How is it a third of our girls are in violent relationships?

Meanwhile, we have Egypt erupting in protests, demanding that they be out from under the thumb of their dictator, our ally, President Mubarak, claiming they want democracy. Yet, they also want Islam in their laws. No need to read between the lines there, that means they want Sharia Law in their political system. So, I guess it is only democracy for men they want, and women,, who enjoy a fair amount of freedom in Egypt, will lose what freedoms they have now. One can expect if the protesters get their way, violence against women will become law.

Speaking of Egypt, Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, is calling for President Mubarak to step down, and allow Egypt to pursue democracy. I could not stop myself from yelling at him on the television. This senator comes from a state, and a party, that did more than its share in squelching not only democracy in 2008 by silencing a large number of its citizens in Florida by withholding their votes for Hillary Clinton, but also stood in the way of the people’s choice for the Democratic presidential candidate by reducing the power of their votes until they manipulated who the candidate was going to be.

How dare Senator Nelson preach democracy to someone else when he, and his party, stood squarely in the way of democracy in his own STATE? “Hypocrite” does not even begin to describe it. His actions (or lack thereof) then kept the most qualified woman, and our best chance to elect a woman president, off the ballot. And his call for democracy in Egypt rings hollow coming from the representative of a state that did so much to squash the voices of its own people.

Yes, The New Agenda is right,”their eyes are watching,” and what they, our girls, are seeing, is that they are less than their male counterparts in just about every way, shape, and form. They are seeing they are worth less, less important, less worthy of having a voice, a presence, a body that is healthy and whole. What they are seeing on tv, in magazines, in families, in schools, and in communities must change. And we must make that happen. For the girls. For us as a society.