Now, you know I can’t abide Andrew Sullivan for a bunch of reasons. Hence my unwillingness to give him any traffic at all by even going to his site and re-posting his article here. But when I saw this blurb, and Sullivan’s arrogant, and sexist, title, I just couldn’t resist. I almost cracked up laughing that he, of all people, is getting his nose out of joint about the questions Cheney was asked in this interview. Apparently, he has forgotten just about every interview Obama has had since he began his campaign, and he was running for the highest office in the land! Cheney is not running for anything (and I hasten to add, I have absolutely NO love lost for Dick Cheney. I appreciate that he supports his daughter, her partner, and their child, but that’s about it).

Perhaps Sullivan forgot this interview by Charlie Gibson of ABC News, an outlet that uses OUR airwaves for FREE, of Obama during the campaign:

How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to “win”?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?

Oooooohhhhh – how di Obama withstand those WITHERING questions?

Or more recently, how about Brian Williams and his day at the White House, one that culminated in THIS moment:

Seriously?? He really wants to go down this road of how political interviewees are handled? How about this clip with George Stephanapoulous:

Heck, George even supplies the correct verbiage to Obama! And may I just say one more time – HOW was this man portrayed as being ELOQUENT??? Holy smokes.

Okay, one more to prove the point, if you can stomach watching Keith Olberman:

Oh, yes – that is some HARD-HITTING “journalism” there for Mr. Sullivan. Get one of the two most biased for Obama show hosts (I refuse to call Olberman a “journalist”) to lob softballs for Obama to trash the Republicans.

By the way, remember Obama’s appearance with McCain at Ground Zero? Yeah, so dignified:

I digress. Back to the whole hard-hitting journalism thing: At least Steve Kroft pointed out Obama’s inappropriate laughter here:

But he did so with a smile, and accepted that lame-ass excuse from Obama as to why he was laughing while indicating how he was going to use our money to bail out the UAW even though Americans were STRONGLY opposed to that idea.

Sullivan complains about the questions asked Cheney? Maybe he should have been so worried about the questions asked of Obama…

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)…

As some of you know, my mother suffered a stroke recently. I am currently in my home town spending time with her and getting her house in order. As a result, I rushed a recent post on “DADT” I wrote in order to get to the nursing center in a timely fashion. Alert No Quarter reader, Ed, gently (I am not being snarky here – he really was) pointed out to me that the soldier whose actual case went before the Supreme Court was not at ALL amused at Obama’s lack of support, though the rest of my post stands as is, I think. The point is, he is dong nothing, and too many people are allowing him to WORM (What Obama Really Meant) out.

The soldier whose case was thrown out by the SCOTUS, had something to say about it, alright, and it was not a whole bunch of WORMing, as this article makes clear,

Dismay Over Obama’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Turnabout. Check this out:

When Barack Obama sought the presidency, he pledged to reverse the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy preventing gays and lesbians from serving openly in the U.S. military. Yet on Monday, the Supreme Court rejected a gay Ohio soldier’s challenge to the law — with the legal backing of none other than the Obama Administration.

James Pietrangelo II, the former Army infantryman and lawyer whose case the high court declined to review, reserved most of his ire for President Obama instead of the court. “He’s a coward, a bigot and a pathological liar,” Pietrangelo said in an interview with TIME shortly after the high court declined to hear his appeal. “This is a guy who spent more time picking out his dog, Bo, and playing with him on the White House lawn than he has working for equality for gay people,” he added. “If there were millions of black people as second-class citizens, or millions of Jews or Irish, he would have acted immediately” (emphasis mine) upon taking office to begin working to lift “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Pietrangelo fought in Iraq in 1991 as an infantryman, and returned as a JAG officer for the second Iraq War, before being booted out in 2004 for declaring he was gay as he was readying for a third combat tour. He was representing himself before the high court.

I don’t want to overreach or anything, but it does sound like Pietrangelo is a tad hot under the collar, as he SHOULD be. About damn time the MSM bothered to report that not everyone is in love with Obama.

As for “DADT” and Obama’s lack of action:

The Obama Administration, in its brief in the case last month, said a lower court acted properly in upholding the gay ban. “Applying the strong deference traditionally afforded to the Legislative and Executive Branches in the area of military affairs, the court of appeals properly upheld the statute,” argued Elena Kagan, who as Solicitor General represents the Administration before the Supreme Court. The bar on gays serving openly is “rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion,” her 12-page filing added.

The endorsement of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” by the Administration marks the latest rightward tack by Obama. The President denounced many of George W. Bush’s national-security policies during the campaign, but in office has adopted more conservative positions, including endorsing military commissions to try purported terrorists, and declining to release a second batch of photographs depicting alleged U.S. maltreatment of Iraqi detainees. His stance on “Don’t ask, don’t tell” may be more surprising, because Obama aides have made clear the President wants the ban lifted eventually.

“EVENTUALLY”??? Just how the hell long is THAT?? I’m not buying what he’s selling, and neither is Pietrangelo:

Pietrangelo doesn’t buy the line from Obama aides — and the Pentagon — that they’re too busy grappling with a faltering economy and two wars to handle the gay ban right away. “It’s a complete lie that he has too much stuff on his plate — this is the guy who criticized Bush for not being able to multitask,” Pietrangelo says. “We have an old saying in the military — the maximum effective range of an excuse is zero meters.” (Emphasis mine.)

Pietrangelo and others argue that Obama has leeway under the law that codified “Don’t ask, don’t tell” after the 1993 outcry when Bill Clinton tried to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly. The President, they say, could instruct the Secretary of Defense, who has the sole power to carry out the law, to make investigations a rarity, so that “Don’t ask, don’t tell” simply does not function. Indeed, Obama could tell the Pentagon that, as a general matter, it is not in the best interest of the armed forces to expel a service member solely for saying he or she is gay or bisexual.

But the trouble is that the law was passed by Congress and, if Obama decided to go around the legislature, he would face political blowback. The current law allows gays to serve, so long as they keep their sexual orientation secret. The legislation means that a majority of the 535 members of Congress is going to have to vote to undo the ban — and that will have its political fallout. Obama is plainly taking his cue from the 1993 fiasco, which hurt Clinton’s relationship with conservative members of Congress, both Democratic and Republican, and with many in uniform.

But Obama also has some ammunition that Clinton never had: a new Gallup poll finds that most conservatives — 58% — now support openly gay people serving in uniform (nationally, 69% support the change; when Clinton assumed office, a Gallup poll found 53% of those polled opposed lifting the ban). Perhaps even more surprising, 58% of self-described Republicans, and 60% of weekly churchgoers, also support gay men and women serving openly in uniform. “While the Administration to date has not taken action on the issue,” the polling firm reported last Friday, “the Gallup Poll data indicate that the public-opinion environment favors such a move.”

Here’s what gripes me about this, and the other service members who have been kicked out of the military for being LGBT, including Arabic linguists, whom we could actually use right now: the military has actually lowered its enlistment standards over the past few years because of the two wars we are fighting. I am not kidding. Click HERE to read more about it. Doesn’t that just gripe you, too?

Uh, yeah, so enough with the excuses already about “DADT.” Like I said, if Obama has the time to do a videotaped message for Stephen Colbert, giving a “lawful order,” he sure can pick up the phone to call Pelosi and Reid, and tell them to push this through. Dadgummit!

And here’s another good one, courtesy of faithful reader, SF Indie, who informed me of THIS new pick by Obama,
Head Of Pro-Life* Group Gets Job At HHS (* I take issue with the term “Pro-Life, and prefer “Anti-Choice.”). Well I’ll be darned – he’s throwing NARAL, NOW, and a whole bunch of other women and women’s groups under the bus, too???? Oh, I am so, so, so surprised!!! Not, not, not:

The Obama administration has picked the former head of a pro-life Catholic organization to run faith-based and community outreach programs at the Department of Health and Human Services.

Alexia Kelley, co-founder of the liberal group Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, was appointed Thursday to run HHS’s Center for Faith-based and Community Initiatives. (The administration wouldn’t immediately confirm that, but the Catholic Reporter published a press release from Catholics in Alliance trumpeting the announcement.) Catholics in Alliance’s main goal since Kelley helped found it in 2005 has been to emphasize the Catholic Church’s social justice teachings in the political sphere; like other progressive religious groups, it lines up with Democratic positions on health care, poverty, labor and other issues.

On abortion, the group has mostly worked to find ways to reduce demand, rather than to push laws aimed at curtailing the availability of the procedure. But its Web site makes clear that it isn’t pro-choice. “Catholics in Alliance believes in the sanctity of all human life — from conception until natural death,” says a frequently asked questions page.

Pro-choice activists weren’t happy: HHS oversees health care, including abortion policy, for much of the federal government. Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice, called it “a defeat for reason and logic.” “The administration has talked a lot about reducing the need for abortion, and progressive groups like my own are totally with the administration in doing that,” he told Salon. But “to have someone working in HHS who oversaw an organization that is anti-abortion… really beggars belief.” The timing of the appointment — just days after abortion provider George Tiller was murdered in his Wichita, Kan., church — is likely to aggravate pro-choice groups even more. (Anti-choice organizations, though, have criticized Catholics in Alliance for giving cover to pro-choice Democrats, by attempting to shift the debate from banning abortion to simply reducing it.)

Well, golly gee – they aren’t happy with the man they chose to support over the WOMAN who has shown her resolve on this issue time and time again?? As Kathy Griffin would say, they can suck it. Again, had they BOTHERED to look at his record (or lack thereof) or his experience (or lack thereof) rather than jumping on the popularity bandwagon, they wouldn’t be so unhappy now. They brought it on themselves BY themselves.

Oh, and you’ll like this part:

Aides at the White House and HHS didn’t immediately return calls and e-mails for comment.

ROTFMLAO – really? They White House and HHS didn’t want to talk about this?? Yeah, I bet.

One last piece:

Update: A spokeswoman for Catholics in Alliance, Jennifer Goff, just sent over a statement. The group clearly wasn’t happy with the criticism from Catholics for Choice: “Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good is working toward reaching common ground in order to make real progress on the moral and political challenges our country faces instead of resorting to spurious attacks launched by those who are more concerned with inflaming the culture wars than effecting positive change.”

Okey dokey. Sure. Whatever they say…

By now, I am certain everyone has heard of the tragedy at the Holocaust Museum. It was a tragedy indeed, and my heart goes out to the security guard’s family, as well to those who were present at the time. But. And you knew it was coming. When President Obama comes out with a statement tout suite on the security guard’s death, and even Fox News talking about honoring this guard’s service, it makes me a bit irritated. And if you have been reading my posts of late, you know why: because Obama waited DAYS to say anything about the soldiers being gunned down in the street outside a recruiting center, men who were not just doing a job, but giving their LIVES in service to this country (and I meant that in the big picture sense – when you are in the military, it ISN’T just a job. It is your LIFE.). Bottom line is this: Private Long deserved at least as much attention as the security guard did, not to in any way, shape, or form diminish the tragic, senseless loss of life at a museum dedicated to memorializing one of the most horrific periods in world history (and it is an amazing, amazing place).

I’m just saying enough WORMing on Obama’s lack of support to our military, for those lost through an unequal law, or through a politically, religiously motivated attack on service members on our own soil. And, enough WORMing on the poor choices Obama continues to make. Enough already.

Again, big thanks to Ed and SFIndie…

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…

Wow. That is some mighty disturbing news (here is the LINK, if you’d rather read the article), is it not, both in terms of Muhammad and bin Laden? Well, Joe Biden said this president was going to be “tested by an international crisis within the first six months,” and so he is. It’s a shame he’s too busy trying to garner more accolades from other countries* rather than dealing with the very pressing issues here at home, but I think most of us expected that, didn’t we?

And so this isn’t abstract, this is Private Long, the soldier whose life was snuffed out bu this domestic terrorist:

As of this writing, Obama STILL has not made a statement about the soldiers ambushed in Little Rock. His silence speaks volumes. Especially as he IS the Commander in Chief. But he has nothing to say about two US Army soldiers gunned down in broad daylight in one of our cities? Nothing?? Holy smokes. Like I said – that speaks volumes to me, and what it says is NOT GOOD.

I cannot help but wonder how these two soldiers’ families feel that Obama has remained silent this attack? Especially Private Long’s family, as they deal with their tragic loss with no phone call from the White House? Not to mention what it says to their fellow soldiers…What kind of impact is this having on them? I can only imagine… I know it’s having a pretty big impact on a whole bunch of us who care about terrorists attacks on our own soil of those who have given their lives in service to this country…And I do know that many of us extend out hearts and prayers to all of them, the families, the other soldiers, and the people of Little Rock.

The difference between the treatment and coverage of the murders of Dr. Tiller and Pvt. Long is getting some notice, though:

I hope that Obama will wait no longer to extend his sympathies to Pvt. Long’s family. But I’m not holding my breath…And that’s just sad.

* By the way, Obama has claimed that our country has one of the largest Muslim populations in the world. This is laughable on the face of it, but if you want to read the actual statistics, and a great post on this topic as well as Obama’s latest Magical Mystery Tour, I recommend LisaB’s, “When Is ‘Hussein’ Not A Smear? When Obama Say’s It’s Not, OF Course.” I won’t keep you in suspense – we are nowhere CLOSE to having the largest Muslim population in the world. We have about 2.3 million Muslims here, nowhere NEAR as many as a number of other countries.

But which blogs are reporting this story? Reports Newsbusters.org:

While Michelle Malkin, Allahpundit, Red State, and other conservative bloggers have denounced Tiller’s murder, Keith Olbermann, Think Progress, the Huffington Post, Crooks and Liars, and AmericaBlog haven’t even mentioned William Long’s murder at the recruiting center as of this writing.

That is to say, the same people who rushed to denounce Tiller’s murder have been quiet about Private Long’s, at least so far. I hastily add, I am not a fan of people like Bill O’Reilly, whose name has been bandied about regarding Tiller’s murder, but there does seem to be a double standard here in the media.

Here is the full report from CNN:

An Arkansas man was arrested Monday in connection with a shooting at a Little Rock military recruiting center that killed one soldier and wounded another, authorities said.

Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad — a 24-year-old Little Rock resident formerly known as Carlos Bledsoe — faces a first-degree murder charge and 15 counts of engaging in a terrorist act, Little Rock Police Chief Stuart Thomas said. The terrorist counts stem from the shots fired at an occupied building.

While authorities continued to investigate a motive, Thomas said Muhammad is a Muslim convert and, based on preliminary interviews with him, investigators believe there were “political and religious motives” in the shooting.

Military officials initially believed the shooting was a random act, but Thomas said police believe the shooter acted alone “with the specific purpose of targeting military personnel.”

The soldier who was killed was identified as Pvt. William Long, 24, of Conway, and the wounded soldier is Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula, 18, of Jacksonville, Thomas said.

Ezeagwula is in stable condition and expected to recover, the police chief said.

“I’m relieved there’s a suspect in custody,” said Capt. Matthew Feehan, commander of the center.

Feehan said seven other recruiters were in the building, but nobody else was injured.

Thomas said police recovered three guns from Muhammad’s black Ford SUV: an SKS semi-automatic rifle, a .22-caliber rifle and a pistol.

I am relieved there is a suspect in custody, too, and very thankful that Pvt. Ezeagwula is in stable condition. I still have a hard time believing this happened, and that a young soldier’s life was lost in a Little Rock street:

The victims were just out of basic training and had not been deployed, said Lt. Col. Thomas F. Artis, commander of the Oklahoma recruiting battalion that oversees the Little Rock recruiting center.

Melvin Bledsoe of Memphis, Tennesee , who was listed on the police report as Muhammad’s father, declined to comment, referring questions to Little Rock Police.

The soldiers were part of a recruiting program called “hometown recruiting assistance,” Artis said. Under the program, recruiters have the soldiers tell their stories to potential recruits. It’s a volunteer position taken while soldiers are visiting or based back in their home region, Artis said.

The FBI has opened an investigation into the incident, said Steven Frazier, spokesman for the agency’s Little Rock office. “Based on what we find, we will determine whether there is any federal jurisdiction to prosecute,” he said. (CNN’s Mike Phelan, Mike Mount and Terry Frieden contributed to this report.)

Wow – this is just hard to believe. These young men were doing nothing but serving their country, and encouraging others to do likewise. They were, literally, gunned down on the street. In the United States of America.

My prayers are with their families, their friends, their fellow soldiers, and the city of Little Rock. And my prayers are with our country, in which such a thing could happen…

and SUsan

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

With every step forward that women in Afghanistan take, violent incidents highlight the fact many still struggle for basic human rights eight years after the ouster of the conservative Taliban regime.

In a speech commemorating International Women’s Day on Sunday, President Hamid Karzai challenged Afghan religious leaders to denounce violence against women and reject traditional practices that treat women as property.

“The forced marriages, the selling of women — these are against Islam,” Karzai told some 600 women gathered in a high school auditorium in the capital, Kabul.

The Taliban government that ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001 forced women to stay at home and banned them from appearing in public without a body-covering burqa.

There have surely been improvements, as the article details (it’s an AP article, and they are very picky about having those reprinted). Thank heavens for that.

But that is not the end of the story. The same day President Karzai was speaking to this group of women, a woman, a widow, set herself on fire to escape the poverty in which she lived, and from which she saw no escape:

The incident occurred in an area where scores of women have killed themselves by self-immolation to escape abuse, forced marriages or other oppressive customs. As a widow, Bibi would have been on the bottom rung of traditional Afghan society — undesirable for marriage and unemployable because of her gender.

Even in the cities, where women have made great strides in employment and recognition, there are signs of backsliding in recent years. Karzai noted in his speech that the number of women working in government ministries has actually dropped to 21 percent from an earlier figure of 32 percent.

A U.N. report this week on human rights in Afghanistan said that “threats and intimidation against women in public life or who work outside the home have seen a dramatic increase.”

Things are getting better in some ways for women, but too much is still the same, or getting worse.

And not just in Afghanistan, unfortunately, but in Iraq in which mothers are selling their daughters into prostitution (H/T to Cheneywatch.com). This TIME article describes the far-reaching extent of this practice, with many of the daughters not yet teenagers, some going to our close friends in the Middle East. For the sake of space, I am not reprinting the whole article here, but I urge you to read it all:

…That underworld is a place where nefarious female pimps hold sway, where impoverished mothers sell their teenage daughters into a sex market that believes females who reach the age of 20 are too old to fetch a good price. The youngest victims, some just 11 and 12, are sold for as much as $30,000, others for as little as $2,000. “The buying and selling of girls in Iraq, it’s like the trade in cattle,” Hinda (an undercover human rights worker) says. “I’ve seen mothers haggle with agents over the price of their daughters.”

The trafficking routes are both local and international, most often to Syria, Jordan and the Gulf (primarily the United Arab Emirates). The victims are trafficked illegally on forged passports, or “legally” through forced marriages. A married female, even one as young as 14, raises few suspicions if she’s travelling with her “husband.” The girls are then divorced upon arrival and put to work. (See Iraq’s return to “normalcy”.)

Nobody knows exactly how many Iraqi women and children have been sold into sexual slavery since the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003, and there are no official numbers because of the shadowy nature of the business. Baghdad-based activists like Hinda and others put the number in the tens of thousands. Still, it remains a hidden crime; one that the 2008 US State Department’s Trafficking in Persons Report says the Iraqi government is not combating. Baghdad, the report says, “offers no protection services to victims of trafficking, reported no efforts to prevent trafficking in persons and does not acknowledge trafficking to be a problem in the country.”

Mere children are being sold into sexual slavery in Iraq, and it has gotten WORSE under our watch. Sadly there is more, horrifying information in this article, but Hinda’s experience is pertinent:

Hinda the activist-investigator also knows what’s its like to be betrayed by family and considered human merchandise. Raped at 16, she was disowned by her family and left homeless. In many parts of the Arab world, the stigma of compromised chastity, even if it was stolen, is such that victims are at best outcasts and at worst killed for “dishonoring” their family or community. Desperate and destitute, Hinda turned to prostitution.

Now 33, she is using her knowledge of the industry to infiltrate trafficking rings across the country. She gathers information about the victims, where they are from, how much they’re sold for and who is buying them. Most often she poses as a buyer for overseas clients, a cover that enables her to snap pictures of victims and claim that they are for her potential customers. She drags out the negotiations for several days, knowing that the victims are usually sold during that period. Playing a disappointed pimp helps keep her cover intact, she says. She can’t rescue the girls, but the hope is that when the government decides to take trafficking seriously, her work and that of others will eventually help prosecute offenders and identify victims. She moves away from each trafficking ring as quickly as she can. To linger would be to invite suspicion.

But these days, she says suspicion is getting harder to avoid. She has been beaten before, by the security guards of pimps who suspect her of encouraging young victims to escape or offering them help. But in the past week she has received several death threats, some so frightening and persistent that she penned a farewell letter to her mother. “I’m scared. I’m scared that I’ll be killed,” she says, wiping away her tears. “But I will not surrender to that fear. If I do it means I’ve given up and I won’t do that. I have to work to stop this.”

So do we. But not just in Iraq, or Afghanistan. We, too, have a government that needs to work to stop this abuse of women. I have written before about domestic violence, and rape, but in more general terms. Today, though, it will be more specific. Today, I speak out for our women in the military. Yes, I said the women in our military. More than 1 in 4 women, officers and enlisted, are either raped or sexually assaulted. More than 25% of our women in uniform are sexually assaulted. And they are assaulted by fellow military personnel (96%). These women are putting their lives on the line for US, and while in the service of our country, over 25% are assaulted in the most horrendous way possible for a woman (at least in my opinion).

The statistics above came from a House panel on Friday, March 7, 2009. Again, thanks to Cheneywatch.com for bringing these to my attention. If you do not have time to watch all 4 of them, please watch the first one:

I am sickened by this, absolutely sickened. But it is cultural, unfortunately, here in the States. Valuing men above women, using women as a means to an end, using women as objects, treating them with callous disregard and with violence.

In our military, where women go to serve their nation, too, too many are being subjected to the most despicable form of violence, taking something by force that can never be returned, and from which most never fully recover. By their contemporaries. With whom they are forced to remain in contact. Can you even begin to imagine the psychological effects this has on them?

We saw the most qualified person, a woman, with the majority of support by members of her party, forced to concede her victory to a lesser qualified, far more inexperienced man. This was able to happen because of the tacit acceptance of rampant sexism and outright misogyny (as a reminder – misogyny means HATRED of women), perpetrated by men in that party and in the media, as well as from the women who wanted, no, craved, men’s approval. It is a matter of degrees, and in this country, we have made it quite clear – even the very best, most qualified women are not as good, not as WORTHY, as the worst of con men with little to offer.

And this has effects on all of us. The lessons it teaches us, our daughters, our nieces, our grandchildren, is that they are less than, they are tools to be used, they are objects. Like Afghanistan and Iraq, while some strides may be made, there is always a price to be paid, and too many women in our country, in our military, are paying that price. That is simply unacceptable, and it must stop. Now.

Some of us have been warning that it was not healthy for the U.S. media to have deified rather than questioned Obama, especially given that they tore apart Bush, ridiculed Palin, and caricatured Hillary. And now we can see the results of their two years of advocacy rather than scrutiny.

We are quite literally after two weeks teetering on an Obama implosion—and with no Dick Morris to bail him out—brought on by messianic delusions of grandeur, hubris, and a strange naivete that soaring rhetoric and a multiracial profile can add requisite cover to good old-fashioned Chicago politicking.

Well, I sure cannot disagree with him there. It is really astonishing to me the lengths to which people have gone to convince themselves that Obama was not a part of Chicago-style politics, all evidence to the contrary. I know, I know – that was one of just many things about which they turned a blind eye and deaf ear, but it is a big jumping off point.

Hanson continues with his review of Obama in the White House:

First, there were the sermons on ethics, belied by the appointments of tax dodgers, crass lobbyists, and wheeler-dealers like Richardson—with the relish of the Blago tapes still to come. (And why does Richardson/Daschle go, but not Geithner?).

Second, was the “stimulus” (the euphemism for “borrow/print money”) that was simply a way to go into debt for a generation to shower Democratic constituencies with cash.

Then third, there were the inflated lectures on historic foreign policy to be made by the clumsy political novice who trashed his own country and his predecessor in the most ungracious manner overseas to a censored Saudi-run press organ (e.g., Bush is dictatorial, the Saudi king is courageous; Obama can mend bridges that America broke to aggrieved Muslims—apparently Tehran hostages, Rushdie, serial attacks in the 1990s, 9/11, Madrid, London never apparently occurred; and neither did feeding Somalis, saving Kuwait, protesting Chechnya, Bosnia/Kosovo, billions to Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinians, help in two Afghan wars, and on and on).

Fourth, there was the campaign rhetoric of Bush shredding the Constitution—FISA, Guantánamo, the Patriot Act, Iraq, renditions, etc.—followed by “all that for now stays the same” inasmuch as we haven’t ben (sic) hit in over seven years and can’t risk another attack.

Remember when Obama reneged on his campaign promise to filibuster the FISA bill? Assuring his minions there was NO way he would ever vote for something so clearly un-Constitutional?? Oh, I do. He broke that promise with nary a “by your leave,” just a “yep, I did it! You’ll still vote for me, though, won’t you?!” Or something along those lines. One of my siblings, a big Obot, shrugged his shoulders and said he was “disappointed” by Obama voting for FISA. Uh, yeah, I get “disappointed” too when my country’s Constitution is being ripped to shreds by someone who got people to buy that he is a Constitutional “scholar.” Sure, Obama.

I digress:

Fifth, Gibbs as press secretary is a Scott McClellan nightmare that won’t go away, given his long McClellan-like relationship with Obama (McClellan should have been fired on day hour one on the job). Blaming Fox News for Obama’s calamities is McClellan to the core and doesn’t work. He already reminds me of Reverend Wright’s undoing at the National Press Club—and he will get worse.

Six, Biden is being Biden. Already, he’s ridiculed the chief justice, trashed the former VP, bragged on himself ad nauseam in Bidenesque weird ways, and it’s only been two weeks.

And the result of all this?

At home, Obama is becoming laughable and laying the groundwork for the greatest conservative populist reaction since the Reagan Revolution.

His claims of “CATASTROPHE!!!” if the Senate doesn’t give him all of our money for generations to come is pretty good evidence of that.
His lack of preparedness, experience, and knowledge of policy come into play, too:

Abroad, some really creepy people are lining up to test Obama’s world view of “Bush did it/but I am the world”: The North Koreans are readying their missiles; the Iranians are calling us passive, bragging on nukes and satellites; Russia is declaring missile defense is over and the Euros in real need of iffy Russian gas; Pakistanis say no more drone attacks (and then our friends the Indians say “shut up” about Kashmir and the Euros order no more “buy American”).

This is quite serious. I can’t recall a similarly disastrous start in a half-century (far worse than Bill Clinton’s initial slips). Obama immediately must lower the hope-and-change rhetoric, ignore Reid/Pelosi, drop the therapy, and accept the tragic view that the world abroad is not misunderstood but quite dangerous. And he must listen on foreign policy to his National Security Advisor, Billary, and the Secretary of Defense. If he doesn’t quit the messianic style and perpetual campaign mode, and begin humbly governing, then he will devolve into Carterism—angry that the once-fawning press betrayed him while we the people, due to our American malaise, are to blame.

Nice of Hanson to get a little slam of Hillary in there, too. Sheesh.

Anyway, yes, this whole messianic thing is just a bit of a problem. But what kind of Messiah is in constant need of ego-strokes and propping up? I speak, of course, of the “Great job, Barry!” campaign sponsored by Senators Durbin and Boxer to tell Obama that he is just doing a bang-up, job, he’s the best president ever, and this is the best two weeks any president has ever had – YAY!!! I am not kidding you. Ani, has all of the info on this “campaign in her outstanding piece, “Maureen Dowd Berates Obama While Senators Durbin and Boxer Want Us to Kiss-y the Prez and Make-y Better.”

Just think about that. People voted for a man whose ego is so incredibly delicate that he has to CONSTANTLY be on the receiving end of praise and accolades, even when he doesn’t deserve it. Otherwise, I guess he will just go sulk in the corner, or throw a hissy fit. Like I have said all along, Obama’s petulance and requirement for non-stop adulation makes George Bush look like, well, an adult.

Can you just imagine, just IMAGINE, if this had been done by two Republican Senators back in 2001 the ridicule from all of us who opposed Bush? Jon Stewart would get mileage out of that for at least a week. Maybe a month. All of the late night hosts would be making fun of the Stewart Smalley-esque needs of the president (h/t to American Girl for reminding me of the, “I’m smart enough, I’m good enough, and dog-gone it, people LIKE me!”). But Obama? I have heard not ONE word about this campaign by two long-term US Senators. I guess not enough of these jokers have gotten their heads out of their…Obama-love.

I can say this will the fullest confidence – Hillary Clinton would never, in a gazillion years, require that kind of over-the-top praise and adoration that Obama seems to need. He needs to grow the hell up already and start worrying about his job. The one for which he CLEARLY was not ready on Day One to have. She was, which she has demonstrated with her hard work already at the State Department. Obama? Well, he’s been busy trying out all the new “toys” (read: Air Force 1, etc.) of his office (really? AF 1 to fly to VA???), going before House Democrats and acting all tough with his teleprompter on those horrible Republicans who were standing in the way of his repaying ACORN with our money. Oh, yeah.

This is the guy the DNC hand-selected. The one for whom it sold its soul. Now, go get your crayons and paper, and send the poor little president a note telling him what a bang-up job he has done in the past two-plus weeks, with the massive stimulus package he wants, the tax evader he put in charge of the IRS, as well as the other tax evaders with whom he wanted to surround himself, putting off getting the troops out of Iraq, but not wasting any time expanding Bush’s Faith Based Initiatives (more on that soon), already getting it up and running, and so much more. Let him know that you know he is the quintessential Chicago-style politician despite his “words, just words.” Remember, your job is to prop him up, not hurt his little feelings, so you should make sure you draw some little rainbows, unicorns, and smiley faces on it. That should do it.

Sure did it for me. Excuse me while I go get ill.

First, there was this article in the Chicago Sun Times, Vandals Deface Three Local Synagogues:

Vandals spray-painted the words “Death to Israel’’ on two synagogues and a Jewish school early Saturday in three separate incidents police say could be linked and are being investigated as hate crimes.

In each case, the vandals — at times donning masks — used orange-colored paint, also shattering glass windows with bricks and rocks at two of the buildings.

A witness and security cameras identified the perpetrators as two men.

Moshe Perlstein, rabbi at Lubavitch Mesivta of Chicago, said cameras captured video of the men damaging his rabbinical school at 2756 W. Morse starting at around 4:40 a.m. The footage shows one man spray-painting the side of the building while the other ran around to the front and threw rocks at the front door, breaking a glass window, he said. The video has been turned over to police.

That was not the end of it. There was more:

Similar graffiti was found at Anshe Motele Congregation, 6526 N. California, rabbi Alan Abramson said.

Lincolnwood police said vandals also scrawled “Death to Israel’’ and “Free Palestine’’ on the outside walls of Lincolnwood Jewish Congregation, 7117 N. Crawford. Mitchell Sandler, past president of the congregation, said they threw at least two bricks at the front doors, damaging four windows.

Lincolnwood Police Lt. Mark Brines said police were notified at 6:10 a.m. that a caretaker in the building heard a brick crash through a window at the temple. The caretaker saw “two unknown males running from the scene,’’ Brines said.

Because all three buildings were used by orthodox Jews, Sandler said it appeared the men were targeting more devout Jews.

“This was a cowardly act in the middle of the night,’’ Sandler said. “Obviously there is dismay because of what’s been happening in the Middle East.’’

Local Jewish leaders were alarmed by what they see as a “rash’’ of incidents targeting Jews.

“It’s disturbing,’’ said Jay Tcath, senior vice president of the Chicago Jewish Federation.

Disturbing, indeed. Whenever a group is targeted, when a hate crime occurs, it is disturbing. And there is yet more:

The incidents come a little more than a week after Ida Crown Jewish Academy, at 2828 W. Pratt, received a mailed bomb threat that also made reference to other Chicago-area Jewish institutions and day schools, said Jay Tcath, senior vice president of the Chicago Jewish Federation.

And police said they are investigating as a hate crime a Dec. 29 incident in which a man hurled a Molotov cocktail at Temple Sholom of Chicago, 3480 N. Lake Shore Dr., after making “derogatory comments’’ to a passerby.

The FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force has been notified, police said.

No arrests have been made.

Next, Jewish Odysseus had this disturbing story via Mugata: German “Police” Join Jew-Hating Muslim Mob:

1:16 AM Received from Muqata Blog Reader in Germany, Sebastian M.

Today, 10.000 people demonstrated against Israel here in my hometown Duisburg (Germany) and to express their solidarity with Hamas. So, my girlfriend and me put two Israel flags out of the windows of our flat in the 3rd floor. During the demonstration which went through our street the police broke into our flat and removed the flag of Israel. The statement of the police was to de-escalate the situation, because many youth demonstrators were on the brink of breaking into our apartment house. Before this they threw snowballs, knifes and stones against our windows and the complete building. We both were standing on the other side of the street and were shocked by seeing a police officer standing in our bedroom and opening the window to get the flag. The picture illustrate this situation. The police acquiesced in the demands of the mob.

That’s a police officer removing the flag of Israel, just in case you couldn’t tell.

I understand that many people are angry and frustrated with Israel right now. I really do. Larry Johnson had a great piece on this very issue at No Quarter (”This Will Sicken You“). They are not innocent bystanders in this current conflict with Gaza, as they move into deeply populated areas clearly indicates.

That being said, I don’t think it is a stretch to say that for something like this to happen in Germany, for police officers to join in with an anti-Jew mob, raises a pretty ugly specter. We HAVE seen this before, and none of us can allow that to stand. Despite Israel’s incursions into Gaza, we cannot allow the pendulum to swing that far back again. Not in Germany. Not in Israel. Not in Gaza. Not in Bosnia. Not in Serbia. Not in Rwanda. We must be vigilant that this kind of atrocity does not happen again, that groups are not slaughtered for their ethnicity, their religious beliefs, or their political beliefs. We must be brokers for peace.

There is a group who does just that, for Israel and Palestine. For any place where there is war or injustice. Women in Blackis a collective of peace activists who realize that women have a different perspective of war. When I lived in Cambridge, Arabic and Jewish women would hold vigils – together – to call for an end to the violence between Israel and Palestine. They represented the mothers, sisters, daughters of people who had been, or were being killed. They represented the ones who brought forth those who were being killed, or tended to the wounded. Yes, they had a different perspective, indeed. Some of them had seen firsthand the devastation in the Middle East. From their website:

Who are Women in Black?

Women in Black… is a world-wide network of women committed to peace with justice and actively opposed to injustice, war, militarism and other forms of violence. As women experiencing these things in different ways in different regions of the world, we support each other’s movements. An important focus is challenging the militarist policies of our own governments. We are not an organisation, but a means of communicating and a formula for action.

It is a start to end the violence, not just in Israel and Gaza, but around the world. Mothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, granddaughters and nieces, working to end injustice in the world, and violence, whether on a whole scale like war, or on the home front, like domestic violence. These women unite for that – peace. And that would be a cause well worth “fighting” for, wouldn’t it?

From Wikipedia:

In 1988, the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives took up the case, and Hastings was impeached for bribery and perjury by a vote of 413-3. Voters to impeach included Democratic Representatives Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, John Conyers and Charles Rangel. He was then convicted in 1989 by the United States Senate, becoming the sixth federal judge in the history of the United States to be removed from office by the Senate.

Well, a couple days ago, Hastings was speaking to a group of Jewish Democrats and exhorted them to vote for Obama because Palin is dangerous.

OK, he didn’t say “dangerous.” I paraphrased. This is what he said according to CNN:

“If Sarah Palin isn’t enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention,” Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida said at a panel about the shared agenda of Jewish and African-American Democrats Wednesday. Hastings, who is African-American, was explaining what he intended to tell his Jewish constituents about the presidential race. “Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through,” Hastings added as the room erupted in laughter and applause.

Hastings clearly was speaking to a sympathetic audience and thought he could “let his [completely metaphoric] hair down.” I guess this is why:

The support of Jewish voters is shaping up to be a highly sought after prize in the general election match-up between Sen. Obama and Sen. John McCain. Jews have historically favored Democrats by wide margins in recent presidential races. But, the McCain campaign is making a concerted effort to go after the loyal Democratic constituency and Obama has been plagued by false Internet rumors that he is Muslim which have had particular salience in the Jewish community.

So, is it just Alaskans in general or only Sarah Palin who couldn’t care less about Jews and blacks? I guess Alcee forgot that old saying that when you point one finger at someone else, 3 point back at you.

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

His muslim faith? So far he has refused to acknowledge that he was raised as a muslim while a child in Indonesia. His mom was agnostic/atheist. She did not take him to church. We do not know whether his stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, was a devout muslim. Barack did learn the call to prayer in grade school but there is no evidence he maintained any allegiance or commitment to Islam when he returned to Hawaii as an eleven year old boy. Furthermore, he appears not to have had any particular religious faith until deciding to become a congregant of Jeremiah Wright.

So, why does he refer to his muslim faith and why does Stephanopolus have to remind him, “you mean your Christian faith.” The rightwing is going to have a field day with this. I think he was stressed and his mind wandered. He is not a muslim by virtue of confession or practice, but the matter sure seems to weigh on him. What do you think?

The tape (and the transcript of it) stem from a February 27, 2007 visit Kristof paid to Obama’s senate offices. A column Kristof wrote based upon this interview appeared in the New York Times on March 6, 2007.

In a column he wrote this week about Obama which was published on Tuesday, Kristof once again refers to this earlier interview. Also, he has subsequently seemed to say that his editors have reviewed it in its entirety.

What may be damning about the interview, the transcript of it and—especially—the original tape recording is that Obama allegedly provided Kristof with a recitation from memory of the Muslim call to prayer in Arabic. One of Obama’s cousins in Africa has stated in the recent past that Obama was, indeed, once a Muslim. Kristof’s interview records may prove this more definitively.

Obama lived in Indonesia until he was about ten years old. He attended a Catholic school there but was allegedly enrolled as a student of the Muslim faith. Popular psychologists have maintained for decades that what happens to children during their tenth year of life stays with them most strongly for as long as they live. Obama has admitted in one of his best-selling books that he remembers vividly hearing Muslim calls to prayer when he was growing up in Southeast Asia. But what does it mean if he remembers the call in its entirety in a language, Arabic, foreign to both Americans and Indonesians?

The issue is not whether Obama was ever a Muslim. Who could blame him if his elders exposed him to Muslim influences and even mosque attendance in the largest Islamic country in the world, Indonesia, as a child? What Kristof may, however, have raised as an issue once again—and, this time, in spades—is Obama’s inability and/or unwillingness to tell us the truth about his past in Southeast Asia, Chicago or anywhere else.