The world focused on the Northern areas of Pakistan to capture or kill the al-Qaeda or Taliban operatives. But the harsh reality is that even if these operatives are eliminated, there are other outfits in the rest of the southern part of Pakistan that have the same aims, will and training as that of al-Qaeda or Taliban.

After 2001 Pakistanis were spoon fed the propaganda that the violence in Pakistan is due to America’s presence in Afghanistan. As a result, many hate the U.S. intervention and see Islamists as the defenders of Pakistani sovereignty. Those who support the Islamists for their religious beliefs are relatively few in number, but they are better organized. The arrests of extremists depends on the willingness of Pakistan’s secret agencies and/or the influence of the Saudi government.

The dual policy of keeping the U.S. happy while supporting the terrorist outfits was charted out by the then-President of Pakistan Gen. Pervez Musharraf. He half-heartedly banned some 23 organizations but failed — deliberately — to bring their sponsors to justice.

The story of Southern part of Pakistan is much scarier than the Northern part. Just as the ten-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks approached, those “banned” outfits were on the rise, exploiting the anti-Americanism in the country and misusing the name of religion.

Jaish-e-Muhammad, the group blamed for an attack on the Indian parliament, is the second largest jihadi group in Southern Punjab. It carries out regular public gatherings and has strong influence in the U.K., Europe, Dubai, Saudi Arabia and even in the U.S. Libya’s Moammar Gaddafi was their financial patron-in-chief at one point. Another major financer is Saudi Arabia.

JeM changed its name a few times because of the “ban.” It went from Khudam-al-Islam to Al Rehmat Trust International to Usman Trust. Currently it is operating under the banner of Al Shafi Islamic Medical. Its publications were never out of print.

The failed Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad, spent much of his time at a JeM madrassa in Karachi. He was transported to the North later by Laskhar-e-Jhangvi for further training.

LeJ’s parent organization — Sipah Sahaba Pakistan — changed its name from Millat-e-Islamia to International Quran Movement to Ehle Sunnat wa Jamaat. Its propaganda organ publications were available to the masses outside mosques and various market places.

The LeJ formed and operated its new wing, also known as Lashkar e Jhangvi al Almi (LeJ International). With its headquarters in Pakistan, it covers Europe and the U.K. The LeJ is organized into small cells of around eight cadres each, who operate independently of the others.

LeJ leader Malik Ishaq told an Urdu newspaper about his involvement in the killings of 102 people. He was allowed a stipend and provided a mobile phone in jail. Ishaq was released this year after the courts found no evidence against him.

Gen. Musharraf’s government carried out just one operation against the Islamic fundamentalists, under pressure from the Chinese government, when he ordered the Red Mosque Siege. Pakistani intelligence officials said they found letters from Osama bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, to the leaders of the mosque, directing them to conduct an armed revolt. One of the leaders was released by the courts later.

The LeJ, JeM and Harkat ul Jihad-e-Islami (HuJI) formed a common front called Lashkar-e-Umer with countrywide branches for close cooperation and pooled resources. These groups still support each other in one form or another.

The Karachi-based Al Rasheed Trust, was “banned” and listed as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department on September 22, 2001. The group is still operating and its chief was one of the few who had direct access to bin Laden.

Similarly, another group, the Falah-e-Isnaniyat Foundation (FIF) is linked with Lashkar and Jamat-al-Dawa and protected by the security establishment. These groups are also supported and funded by the Saudis.

The freehand operations of these groups have radicalized Pakistani society. Anti-Americanism spreads while Arabization has taken hold.

There are more and more mosques in each city, many run by such outfits. In some places three separate mosques of different sects are built next to each other. The sermons delivered there go unchecked and ultimately fuel the hatred and twisted ideology of dividing Muslims and bringing ‘sharia’ of their liking to the world. Public Billboards promoting jihad and hatred of America are everywhere cloaked as appeals for “charity.”

Pakistan’s internal crises include a deep cynicism that has seeped into every nook and cranny of everyday life. Politically, the army continues to run the popular narrative. Socially, if liberals talk about rapprochement with India, they’re accused of being controlled by RAW, the C.I.A. or the Zionists — or all three. The radical view that it’s acceptable to kill Shi’a, Ahmadis, Hindus and Christians and destroy their places of worship is widespread.

Because of this chaos, ordinary Pakistanis who want to travel, work and study abroad are finding it harder to do so. In the eyes of many immigration officials around the world, to be Pakistani is synonymous with being a criminal.

It’s been said many times that 9/11 changed the world. After the attacks, Afghanistan and Pakistan felt the heat.

Ten years later, the diseases that had been contained in Pakistan metastasize more rapidly than ever. Pakistan’s militants, all of them, are a threat to international peace. If the West’s strategy for combating radicalism continues on its present parochial course, the world will feel the heat.

Nope. The Arab World. Yep, that’s right, even after Obama’s bowing and scraping to them, whether it was to Saudi King Abdullah, or the Egyptians after his Cairo speech. Yes, we have lost even more standing in the world now. (Photo found at Atlas Shrugs.)

Indeed, despite Obama’s numerous overtures to the Arab world, seems they aren’t too happy with us. Glenn Greenwald had this article in Salon, US More Unpopular In Arab World Than Under Bush:

I’ve written numerous times over the last year about rapidly worsening perceptions of the U.S. in the Muslim world, including a Pew poll from April finding that Egyptians view the U.S. more unfavorably now than they did during the Bush presidency. A new poll released today of six Arab nations — Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Morocco — contains even worse news on this front:

The hope that the Arab world had not long ago put in the United States and President Obama has all but evaporated.

Two and a half years after Obama came to office, raising expectations for change among many in the Arab world, favorable ratings of the United States have plummeted in the Middle East, according to a new poll conducted by Zogby International for the Arab American Institute Foundation.

In most countries surveyed, favorable attitudes toward the United States dropped to levels lower than they were during the last year of the Bush administration . . . Pollsters began their work shortly after a major speech Obama gave on the Middle East . . . Fewer than 10 percent of respondents described themselves as having a favorable view of Obama.

What’s striking is that none of these is among the growing list of countries we’re occupying and bombing. Indeed, several are considered among the more moderate and U.S.-friendly nations in that region, at least relatively speaking. Yet even in this group of nations, anti-U.S. sentiment is at dangerously (even unprecedentedly) high levels.

Yikes. That is not good. If we were talking Libya, or Iran, this would not be surprising news. But that some of the ones who think less of us now among our friendlier nations is disturbing on a number of levels.

Greenwald continues:

In one sense, this is hardly surprising, given the escalating violence and bombing the U.S. is bringing to that region, its ongoing fealty to Israel, and the dead-ender support the American government gave to that region’s besieged dictators. Though unsurprising, it’s still remarkable. After all, one of the central promises of an Obama presidency was a re-making of America in the eyes of that part of the world, but the opposite is taking place.

More significantly, as democracy slowly but inexorably takes hold, consider the type of leaders that will be elected in light of this pervasive anti-American hostility. When the U.S. propped up dictators to suppress those populations, public opinion was irrelevant; now that that scheme is collapsing, public opinion will become far more consequential, and it does not bode well either for U.S. interests (as defined by the American government) or the U.S.’s ability to extract itself from its posture of Endless War in that region. Given that it is anti-American sentiment that, more than anything else, fuels Terrorism (as the Pentagon itself has long acknowledged), we yet again find the obvious truth: the very policies justified in the name of combating Terrorism are the same ones that do the most to sustain and perpetuate it.

That is precisely the issue, as we have seen in Egypt already. All of the jubilation that this small band of people were able to stage a coup (still don’t know how that happened), and that democracy was coming to Egypt, downplayed the possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood was going to be a big part of the new government. Guess what, they are. And now, our esteemed Secretary of State would welcome dialogue with this group:

“We believe, given the changing political landscape in Egypt, that it is in the interests of the United States to engage with all parties that are peaceful and committed to nonviolence, that intend to compete for the parliament and the presidency,” she told reporters in Budapest, Hungary. “And we welcome, therefore, dialogue with those Muslim Brotherhood members who wish to talk with us.” [snip]

Um, the Muslim Brotherhood has waged jihad against the United State, which spawned Hamas`, which works to impose the law of the Quran (that would be Sharia Law), and which treats women as worse than shit. To characterize it as a “committed to nonviolence” is laughable on its face. And now we are giving it legitimacy. Great job, everyone. Wow.

Believe it or not, there is more:

UPDATE: The full report on the new Middle East poll highlights several other additional striking findings:

In five out of the six countries surveyed, the U.S. was viewed less favorably than Turkey, China, France — or Iran. Far from seeing the U.S. as a leader in the post-Arab Spring environment, the countries surveyed viewed “U.S. interference in the Arab world” as the greatest obstacle to peace and stability in the Middle East, second only to the continued Palestinian occupation. . . . President Obama’s favorable ratings across the Arab world are 10% or less.

While Americans are continuously inculcated with the message that Iran is the greatest threat to that region, the people who actually live there view the U.S. in that light. And as the above-referenced links to other polls demonstrate, that is a routine finding in surveys of Arab and Muslim opinion in that part of the world.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Good grief. You know it is bad when Iran is thought of more highly than the United States. That just boggles the mind, doesn’t it?

Two and a half years after the president who has alienated Israel, our ally; threw former ally Mubarak under the bus; and literally bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, the United States has lost standing with Arab Nations. I admit, I did not see this one coming. How about you?

You know, I really should stop being astonished at the news, the sheer upside-down-ness of the world in which we live. But, no – I suppose I still expect a modicum of sanity to prevail. Sadly, that expectation fell far short when I saw some of the following news stories.

For instance, WHO would have ever thought that North Korea – NORTH KOREA – would head the UN Disarmament Council? No one, because it is insane. Yet, that is the reality:

Nuclear-armed North Korea has assumed the presidency of a key United Nations disarmament body — despite facing UN Security Council sanctions over its weapons programs.

The development comes in the same week the UN defended its decision to support Iran’s holding of an international “anti-terrorism” conference — which saw participants declaring that Western powers were the international terrorists.

UN officials point out that North Korean ambassador So Se Pyong takes on the presidency of the Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament under rules that say the chair will rotate among all 65 member states in alphabetical order.

But critics said Wednesday the rules should be changed when they allow the body — whose mandate is in part to push for world nuclear disarmament — to be led by a country that the West considers to be an international nuclear renegade.

“No system should tolerate such a fundamental conflict of interests,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of Geneva-based UN Watch, which also led protests against the UN’s input at the Iranian “anti-terrorism” conference. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Who could really be surprised, though? This is the same “august” body that put Iran on the UN Commission on the Status of Women. Does it surprise anyone that IRAN is happy about this? Yeah, I didn’t think so.Yet another institution for which I have lost all respect.

Meanwhile, the US, in its infinite wisdom in Insanity Land now recognizes the Muslim Brotherhood:

The U.S. has decided to formally resume contact with Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood group – which does not recognize Israel – in a move that could further alienate some Jewish voters already skeptical of President Barack Obama, it was reported.

One senior U.S. official said the Brotherhood’s rise in political prominence after the forced departure of former President Hosni Mubarak earlier this year makes the American contact necessary.

“The political landscape in Egypt has changed, and is changing… It is in our interests to engage with all of the parties that are competing for parliament or the presidency,” said the official, who confirmed the news to Reuters on condition of anonymity. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Do I really need to remind everyone of who and what the Muslim Brotherhood is? You know, “The Quran is our law; Jihad is our way,” including against the United States, Hamas-spawning, and Israel hating formerly outlawed in Egypt organization? Yeah, that one. The same one Obama invited leaders from to hear him babble on in Cairo while they were still outlawed. Yeah, we saw this one coming.

And as if this is not bad enough, the United States, in its infinite insanity, has designated Israel – ISRAEL – as a country that produces terrorists (h/t Gina). Just to be clear – we are engaging with the Muslim Brotherhood, a TERRORIST organization, and calling one of, hell, our ONLY, Middle East ally, a terrorist sponsoring organization:

In an implicit admission that Israel is so threatened by terrorism that it is not only surrounded by countries and territories that produce terrorists but also unwillingly harbors terrorists within its own territory in a way that most other nations in the world do not, the Obama administration is currently listing Israel among 36 “specially designated countries” it believes “have shown a tendency to promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations or their members.” {snip} (Click here to read the rest.)

Seriously, are these people out of their freaking mind? And how in the HELL can the Hillary Clinton, as head of State, support this? Don’t even get me started.

But really, what can one expect from someone like Obama, who not only plays fast and loose with the facts, but is a huge bully while doing so. I cannot go through them all, but let’s just look at Obama’s big comparison between corporate jet taxes, and student loans:

[snip] In a bit of class jujitsu, the president six times mentioned eliminating a tax loophole for corporate jets, frequently pitting it against student loans or food safety. It’s a potent image, but in the context of a $4 trillion goal, it is essentially meaningless. The item is so small the White House could not even provide an estimate of the revenue that would be raised, but other estimates suggest it would amount to $3 billion over 10 years.

Meanwhile, student financial assistance, just for 2011, is about $42 billion. So the corporate jet loophole — which involves the fact that such assets can be depreciated over five years, rather than the seven for commercial jets — just is not going to raise a lot of money. It certainly wouldn’t save many student loans. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

You know it’s bad when even the Washington Post is calling Obama a liar. But hey, if the shoe fits, as they say, and it surely does with Obama.

Blech. I wish this was all, but this is all I can handle without my head exploding.

Thank heavens, though, at least there is one bright spot in the world – it is Canada Day! The newest royal couple, William and Kate, are in Canada for the big day, delighting the Canadians with their charm:

[snip] Friday also would have been the 50th birthday of William’s mother, Princess Diana, who died in a 1997 Paris car crash. In London, her admirers gathered to leave gifts outside Kensington Palace, which was her official residence.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, as William and Kate are formally known, arrived Thursday to cheering crowds of thousands. Poised and confident, they thrilled crowds with warm, unscripted gestures, wading into throngs of well-wishers to shake hands and accept flowers and other gifts.

To cheers of delight, William addressed his hosts in both English and French, then cracked a joke about his language skills. “It will improve as we go on,” the prince quipped, then noted how much he and Kate were “truly looking forward to this adventure.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

And this is for our neighbors to the North:

I hope the Royal Newlyweds continue to enjoy their trip, and that Canada has an excellent day of celebration.

Personally, I thank Canada for diffusing the explosion in my head from the other news of the day. How about you – what news stories hit you today?

UPDATE: In response to Obama’s chiding and bullying on Weds., insisting that others should get to work, and claiming HE had been working, the NRSC came out with the following ad:

Oh, snap!

This is disturbing on so many levels, not the least of which how women continue to be treated. At first there were denials that any such thing had occurred:

A senior Egyptian general admits that “virginity checks” were performed on women arrested at a demonstration this spring, the first such admission after previous denials by military authorities.

The allegations arose in an Amnesty International report, published weeks after the March 9 protest. It claimed female demonstrators were beaten, given electric shocks, strip-searched, threatened with prostitution charges and forced to submit to virginity checks.

At that time, Maj. Amr Imam said 17 women had been arrested but denied allegations of torture or “virginity tests.”

And now, there is the justification for these, um, “tests” by the military:

But now a senior general who asked not to be identified said the virginity tests were conducted and defended the practice.

“The girls who were detained were not like your daughter or mine,” the general said. “These were girls who had camped out in tents with male protesters in Tahrir Square, and we found in the tents Molotov cocktails and (drugs).”

The general said the virginity checks were done so that the women wouldn’t later claim they had been raped by Egyptian authorities.

“We didn’t want them to say we had sexually assaulted or raped them, so we wanted to prove that they weren’t virgins in the first place,” the general said. “None of them were (virgins).”

This demonstration occurred nearly a month after Egypt’s longtime President Hosni Mubarak stepped down amid a wave of popular and mostly peaceful unrest aimed at his ouster and the institution of democratic reforms.

Afterward, Egypt’s military — which had largely stayed on the sidelines of the revolution — officially took control of the nation’s political apparatus as well, until an agreed-upon constitution and elections. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Wow. I scarcely know what to say about that admission. It is despicable, deplorable, and horrifying.

Of course, women were not the only ones tortured, as the video below makes clear:

As horrible as the treatment sustained by some of these male protesters is, and it is, it does not compare to the torture, and threat of MORE torture, the women endured. The threat of electrocution or surrender to “virginity tests” is not much of an option, is it?

And here is where the “I told you so” part comes in. Many of the Lefty stripe were celebrating turning over Egypt to the military. Picture Alfred E. Newman when you read this: “What could go wrong?”

Plenty. Not only are they teaming up with the Muslim Brotherhood (told you so about that, too), but women continue to bear the brunt of the anti-woman structure there. Can you imagine any woman in the United States, or Europe, being forced to decide between Electrocution and a Virginity Test? Hell to the no. And it is not okay that our Egyptian Sisters are being forced to do so at the hands of the military.

The rights, and dignity, of women are being subjugated in Egypt. Amnesty International is all over this, thank heavens (I am a card carrying, regular contributor to AI). But between the Muslim Brotherhood and the military, I continue to fear for the safety of women in Egypt.

And I still want to know why Obama wants to send them so damn much money given these human rights abuses, and the strong role of the Muslim Brotherhood. Again, I must ask – where is the hue and cry? So far, the silence is deafening…

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:

And that’s when it turned ugly for her:

[snip] It was a mob of more than 200 people whipped into frenzy.

In the crush of the mob, she was separated from her crew. She was surrounded and suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating before being saved by a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers. She reconnected with the CBS team, returned to her hotel and returned to the United States on the first flight the next morning. She is currently home recovering.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Let us pause and reflect on how a “celebration” results in a brutal assault, both physical and sexual, of a woman.

This is so disturbing on so many levels. But this was not the first indignity suffered by Ms. Logan while covering the Egyptian uprising. Howard Kirtz of The Daily Beast had this report regarding Ms. Logan:

[snip] The assault occurred a week after Logan and her crew wound up in the custody of Egyptian military authorities. At first, she was essentially confined to her Alexandria hotel.

“It was literally like flipping a switch,” Logan said in a video. “The army just shifted dramatically to a much more aggressive posture. They have absolutely prevented us from filming anywhere today—no cameras, no cameras, is what we’re being told.” She said when her crew went out to shoot so-called beauty shots, “they were intimidated and bullied, and in fact marched at gunpoint through the streets, all the way back to our hotel—a very frightening experience, and one that was repeated throughout the day for us.”

After that video was made, Logan and her crew tried again, and were taken into custody.*

“We were detained by the Egyptian army,” Logan told Esquire. “Arrested, detained, and interrogated. Blindfolded, handcuffed, taken at gunpoint, our driver beaten. It’s the regime that arrested us. They arrested [our producer] just outside of his hotel, and they took him off the road at gunpoint, threw him against the wall, handcuffed him, blindfolded him. Took him into custody like that.”

There was more: “They blindfolded me, but they said if I didn’t take it off they wouldn’t tie my hands. They kept us in stress positions—they wouldn’t let me put my head down. It was all through the night. We were pretty exhausted… We were accused of being Israeli spies. We were accused of being agents. We were accused of everything.” In the process, Logan said, she became “violently, violently ill.” The army eventually released Logan and the crew. And then, because it is hard to keep Logan away from a hot foreign story, she went back. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

* This is the video referred to above:

So, even before the horrendous attack against Ms. Logan, she had been “arrested, detained, and interrogated,” forced to stay in a “stress position” for hours. Wow.

Ms. Logan is a brave woman, having worked in countries like this before. For a woman in that neck of the woods, that is quite an achievement. Ms. Logan spoke about this in an interview a few years ago (h/t to Samb):

How prescient was that, sad to say?

Ms. Logan is home now, recovering from her assault, at least physically, that is.

Meanwhile, as if things were not already bad enough for women in the Middle East, the Muslim Brotherhood is working to form a recognized political party. And they are one of eight representatives on the Transition Panel. Despite attempts by some to minimize the dangers of this organization, and their “extensive terrorist operations” (and that is from the Anti-Defamation league), dangerous they are, both in Egypt, and to the West. Sharia Law, and Jihad, are an integral part of what and what they are.

Oh, and for those who keep trying to claim the Muslim Brotherhood is a moderate, peaceful organization, despite it being outlawed in Egypt for an assassination attempt against Nasser (I think that pretty much rules out the “non-violence claim,” though its connections to Hamas do that, too), their support for Sharia Law, for the denigration of women, speaks volumes. In other words, pssst, your misogyny is showing – you might want to zip it up.

It is disturbing, horrifying, infuriating, and saddening, that CBS foreign correspondent Lara Logan was so brutally attacked and assaulted. It is a glimpse into the scene there that at Tahrir Square, in the midst of a celebration, something so heinous could occur.

I cannot help but worry that, should the Muslim Brotherhood continue to ascend in Egypt, how much worse it will be for the women who live there, and the women who travel there. If something like this could happen out in the open, well, that alone is unthinkable, yet it happened, so it does not bode well for the future.

In the meantime, my heart, thoughts, and prayers go out to Ms. Logan. Sadly, she has a long row to hoe ahead of her as she deals with the effects of that day. All the best to her…

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…

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.

Does Pakistan suffer today because of his death? Yes. Does it change anything on the ground? No. 

He was slain because he called the notorious blasphemy law as black law. He stood up for a Christian woman who was accused of blasphemy and was sentenced to death by a local court. Taseer wanted his government to repeal the blasphemy law that was incorporated in the 1980s by the military dictator General Ziaul Haq. It was a legitimate demand. In his own words, “these are man made laws and men can correct this”. 

These black laws will now be repealed or not? This does not change anything on the ground either. 

Nothing will change on the ground because nothing changed a decade ago when a Christian cricket player on the national team was allegedly forced to convert. Nothing changed when pop singers one after another started denouncing their own careers and joined the elite mullah ranks. Not a thing changed when two boys were lynched publicly just last year. These were the obvious symptoms of a society turning intolerant, self-righteous, and violent. A society without the respect for law and order. 

It changed nothing back then, it will not change anything now. Hence, the events that followed Salmaan Taseer’s gruesome murder are disturbing. These events have nothing to do with a religion, or its preaching, but everything to do with the mindset that has been developed over the years. Evidently, this mindset is irrespective of class. The jubilant response on Facebook and YouTube was not by the uneducated and madrassa clan. A Pakistani blogger summed it up well: “If you go through the profiles of Qadri supporters on Facebook, you’d think Justin Bieber was the cause of extremism in Pakistan.” 

The killer’s overwhelming welcome at the courts by men who know how and why a law is made demonstrates that the liberals – a minority in Pakistan – have been reduced to an endangered species.  

And that is what has changed. And that is what matters today on the ground in Pakistan. 

Do a little math. The killer is a 26 year old man and hails from a semi-urban area. He joined the Elite force in 2003 which means he was 18 then. General Musharraf toppled a democratic government in 1999, and the killer must have been 14. And this is the age group that’s using the Internet, Facebook, YouTube and blogs more aggressively. This is the age group that went through a whole “moderate enlightenment” phase fully sponsored by Pervez Musharraf and shamelessly supported by George Bush for almost over a decade. And this is the group that has the street power in Pakistan. This is the group that is the future of Pakistan. Its mind has been infiltrated by private television, launched during Musharraf’s era. Instead of promoting freedom of speech, it promoted violence, illiteracy and conspiracy theories. It produced the “I-know-more-than-you-know-coz-I-like-that-anchor-and-you-dont-watch-that-show” minds, whereas before young men from the same age group used to extract influence from their family heads. 

The dual game of the military government ten years ago, fully supported and encouraged by the US government, produced a whole generation that detests its own constitution and Western freedom of speech values. This generation is the raw material available to and exploited by religious groups, ready to kill and get killed. My philanthropist friend Manzur Ejaz believes that the right wing in Pakistan is organized and has ideological strength. It has been supported by the State machinery through an education system and infested state institutions, while its opposition lacks committed people, organization and a cause. 

This sorry state of Pakistan is pretty much an example of Martin Niemoller’s ‘First They Came.’ 

They came first for the Communists,

and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.



Then they came for me

and by that time no one was left to speak up.

This existing situation has nothing to do with the drone attacks carried out today or the policy changed in favor of Pakistan. The ruling party was once considered a liberal group, but now its own members and sitting ministers publicly announced that they will shoot a blasphemer themselves. They align themselves with so-called “moderate” Muslim politicians like Imran Khan who have practiced Western values but sympathise with the Taliban. 

This indicates that now the dominant political philosophies are right, center to right and very right groups. It has men that have a soft heart for fundamentalists. The absence of a left–because the representative parties or groups were systematically dismantled by military dictators–will bring more extremism. 

Persons with liberal thoughts need protection, which requires some strategy as well as strength. It has to organize itself and build an anti-mullah manpower. It’s a war now, and decisions taken today will reflect the systems adopted in the future. And that will change everything on the ground.

–
Crosspost: ThePakistanUpdate.com

And so, I was interested to see to whom FIFA was going to award the 2022 World Cup, especially since the US was in the running. Well, FIFA, in their “infinite wisdom,” granted to Qatar the 2022 World Cup over the United States. That’s right. Qatar. By a vote of 14 – 8, with an all male committee, I might add. Where it is 100 degrees in the afternoon during the summer. Where wearing shorts can get you into trouble. Where Sharia law is the law of the land, particularly in “family matters, inheritance, and certain criminal acts” (though their National Human Rights Committee is working toward equal rights for women. And at least women can drive there, unlike our ally, Saudi Arabia. So there’s that.).

Are you freakin’ KIDDING me? Qatar is NOT a soccer powerhouse. Hell, it barely has soccer at all! Stadiums? What stadiums? They have to BUILD the damn things first, that’s how much of a soccer country Qatar is. This WaPo article makes the understatement of the century:

On the surface, the decision by soccer’s international governing body Thursday to award the 2022 World Cup to Qatar – a desert nation smaller than Connecticut with shallow soccer roots and oppressive summer heat – instead of the United States or three other event-tested countries made little sense.

Um, no, not just “on the surface” – below the surface, to anyone with a brain in their head, it makes no sense whatsoever. Oh, but the FIFA people can justify it with some kind of logic, just like choosing Russia over England, the birthplace of “football”. Sorry, my head is spinning. Anyway, here’s the justification:

But to those close to the process who understand FIFA’s complexities and recent mission to forge history, the results of the voting were not unforeseen.

Qatar received the most votes from the executive committee by a wide margin in each of the first three rounds, and when Australia, Japan and South Korea were eliminated, it defeated the United States, 14 to 8, for the right to host the planet’s most popular sporting event.

“It’s an election, and there are lots of things that go into that,” U.S. Soccer President Sunil Gulati said from Zurich, where, in another surprise, FIFA chose Russia over England and two other European bids to host the 2018 tournament. “It’s politics, it’s friendships and relationships, it’s alliances, it’s tactics.”

FIFA seemed to regard the United States as the safe choice – the country had set attendance records when it hosted the 1994 World Cup and offered the stadiums, infrastructure and commercial rewards to pull off another successful tournament in 12 years.

But FIFA was also charmed by Qatar’s innovative stadium plans, massive financial resources and the promise of promoting harmony in a region fractured by conflict.

[snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

They were “charmed” by it? THAT is the new standard for choosing a country with essentially ZERO sports acumen over the United States of America?? They thought the US was the “safe choice”? How about the SANE choice?!

Huh – I wonder just how much “charm” Qatar promised FIFA. I guess they don’t expect too many women from abroad to go to the World Cup. Or anyone who enjoys a cold one while at the stadium (hell, I don’t even drink, but good grief – it’s SOCCER). Or who might want to hold hands with someone who is not yet their lawful spouse. Or any number of other things that are frowned upon there…

Wow. While women in Qatar may fare better than women in other Muslim countries, say, Iran, it is still a conservative country in which women wear the burka, and where most are in arranged marriages (though either party can refuse), and where polygamy is common. Women are allowed to go to (segregated) schools, and can work, but they are not in the upper echelons of society, particularly in the work place.

And so, this is the country FIFA chose over the United States. This tiny desert country with no soccer heritage of which to speak, a conservative Muslim country that is also hot as hell. Oh, yeah – I can see why they were picked over the US – all that “charm.”

You may have heard about a recent outbreak of trash-talking on Facebook between Willow Palin and a young man who allegedly went to school where the Palins do, Tre. Tre was talking smack about Willow’s mom after the premier of the TLC show, “Sarah Palin’s Alaska.” (Palin’s show was the most watched premiere in TLC history, garnering 5 million viewers.) Willow took umbrage, and used a couple of homophobic slurs in her responses to him, calling him “gay,” and the f-word (the 6 letter one, that is). Apparently, Bristol weighed in, too, though did not use similar language.

Yikes.

Bristol regained her composure, though, and wrote this:

[snip] “Willow and I shouldn’t have reacted to negative comments about our family. We apologize. On a nicer note, thank you for supporting the great competition in Dancing With the Stars!”

Needless to say, this has raised a firestorm about Willow, and the Palins in general. The HRC has been one such organization to take aim at 16 year old Willow, though not everyone in the blogosphere is happy about that:

Some bloggers have said that as a minor, Willow should be off-limits. They also said the Palin cub was simply defending her “mama grizzly” in the inappropriate and misinformed style of a teenager.

“Willow Palin is a child, and she is not fair game,” Tommy Christopher wrote at Mediaite. “Willow and her Facebook playmates weren’t thinking about the rash of suicides related to anti-gay bullying, including young kids who were not, in fact, gay. They didn’t create a world where gay equals unequal, they are a product of it.” [snip]

Now you know I am not condoning anyone using that kind of language. Not even close. But, I do know that using those kinds of slurs are common with young people. That does not excuse it, but it is a reality, unfortunately. Heck, my own godson, who has TWO out lesbian godmothers, has been known to say things like, “that’s so gay.” He’s not the only one – other friends of mine have used that phrase to me, but claim it isn’t intended as an insult. Um, well, maybe not, but it is.

Anyway, that is all to say, Willow is 16. I said some pretty stupid stuff at 16, too, but I didn’t have it writ large on a national level. Again, not excusing it in any way, shape, or form, but I do see how it can happen. And how it is NOT a reflection on the parents themselves.

Two prominent gay and lesbian conservatives are furious with HRC and their attacks on Willow Palin. In this Daily Caller article, “Bigotry: The Selective Outrage Of The Gay Left,” Tammy Bruce and Christopher R. Barron go after HRC.

As an aside, you may recall that I was a long, long time member of the HRC – over 25 years – until they endorsed Obama over Hillary Clinton. They had just presented Clinton with a huge award for her work on behalf of the LGBT community, and they endorse the man with the virulently homophobic associates – Meeks and McClurkin come to mind – instead. Wow.

Anyway, back to the article, and the response from these two GOProud members:

For days now, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), which holds itself out as the “largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization,” has shamefully used the issue of anti-gay bullying as part of a cheap political smear against former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. HRC, never shy about doing the bidding of the Democratic Party, issued a November 18th release blaring, “HRC to Sarah Palin: Two Days of Silence, Will You Speak Up?” Is this a release demanding Palin speak out about an issue of substance affecting gay people? No, this childish call-to-arms is about trash talk issued by a 16-year-old in a flame war on a social networking site.

The “controversy” surrounding inappropriate language used by the Palin daughters on Facebook shows again how selective the gay left is in expressing outrage over perceived “bigotry.”

Politicizing the serious issue of anti-gay bullying in order to score political points is morally reprehensible. Bristol apologized on behalf of herself and her younger sister — and that apology should be the end of the story, but it’s not because the real target of this faux outrage is Sarah Palin, a woman who represents an existential threat to both political machines.

No one is condoning the use of obscenities or derogatory terms, but no one who has seen the Facebook exchange in question can seriously claim this behavior had anything to do at all with “bullying.” It also has nothing to do with Willow Palin or the substance of what she wrote. Make no mistake; this is all about destroying Sarah Palin by friends of Obama and by any means necessary.

The irony here is stunning. The adults who run HRC are participating in a morally-reprehensible organized political hatchet job on a teenager all in the name of defending the victims of bigotry. [snip}

Can the case be made that the HRC is itself engaging in bullying against a child? And if so, it seems the motive is likely political:

[snip] The nature of the attacks on Palin reveals much about what motivates her critics. HRC’s press releases are ripe with misogynistic attacks on the Governor. HRC refers to the Governor as a “reality TV show star” — a transparent attempt to diminish Palin’s almost 20 years in politics. In a November 17th release, Joe Solmonese, the man at the helm of HRC, made a thinly veiled accusation that the Facebook exchange somehow showed Palin failed as a mother — “Anti-gay language by teenagers often starts at home…” [snip]

The authors discuss how that is not quite accurate – as I noted above, it is unfortunately far too common in our schools to use this kind of language. Sad, but true, even among those who should know better.

Bruce and Barron then target the Gay Left for their silence in regard to the homophobic, misogynistic tenets of radicalized Islam:

[snip] Last June, when President Obama delivered his much ballyhooed speech to the Muslim world in Cairo, he made no mention of the treatment of gays and lesbians living under Muslim regimes — even though in Egypt, the country where Mr. Obama spoke, gays have been subject to arrest and imprisonment for simply being gay. The reaction from the gay left? Nothing. No outrage, no harshly worded statements, and certainly no around-the-clock vigil waiting for an apology.

Last September, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu bravely took to the floor of the United Nations and criticized the treatment of gay people in Iran. After speaking with such moral clarity about the need to protect gay people from violence and death, if you expected praise from the gay left you would be wrong. Indeed, the powers that be at HRC pretended like Netanyahu’s speech never even happened.

The behavior of the gay left, and in particular HRC, is shameless and disgusting. Governor Palin certainly does not owe anyone associated with HRC an apology; indeed it is HRC who should apologize. They should apologize to Governor Palin for their vicious and unfounded smear, to the real victims of anti-gay bullying who they have cheaply exploited, and to gay people world-wide for the blind eye they have turned to the barbaric treatment of gays by radical Islamic regimes. (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Interesting comparison, is it not? How is it that the Left now thinks its cool to support radical (not moderate) Islam that treats women as worse than chattel, and gays even worse than that, yet take on a teenager for some crap she wrote on Facebook. One could argue their priorities are a bit skewed.

Again, by no means do I condone the language used by Willow on Facebook. The level of bullying occurring in our schools is troubling, indeed, whether those children being bullied are gay or not. The outcome is the same.

Bristol Palin has apologized for her sister’s comments. They were out of line. But are her comments worthy of the ire of an entire organization, one that is going after a teenager? Is the HRC minimizing the very real, and troubling, number of suicides by gay teens by their demand? Are they targeting not Willow, but her mother? Will being told something is “so gay” ever be seen as POSITIVE? Perhaps that is for what we should be striving instead of being so upset when someone uses it in that kind of context (hey, I can hope, can’t I?)?

Maybe instead of the HRC focusing on some Facebook exchange between the daughter of a prominent Republican, they could push Obama to do more than give lip service to the LGBT community. Focus on repealing DADT. Focus on obtaining the same federal benefits for the LGBT community that the rest of the citizenry in this country enjoy. Push Obama to stop praising countries who treat their gay citizenry like criminals without mentioning same. You know, stuff like that.

And we need to do more sensitivity training in our schools – all of them. Our children need to know that this kind of name-calling is hurtful, regardless if the child is gay or not. It needs to stop. Adults need to stop using that kind of language, too (in a derogatory manner, that is). We need to teach our children that bullying is wrong no matter what. Period.

So, how about you. What do you think about this?

Many have written about the abrupt firing of NPR and Fox News commentator, Juan Williams, for comments Mr. Williams made regarding Muslims on a recent Bill O’Reilly program. There is no need for me to duplicate their worthy efforts (Bronwyn’s Harbor of NQ has two very good posts on the incident, and some of the fall-out of the firing. Logistics Monster has two great posts, too, one highlighting the issue of free speech, and following the money with C.A.I.R., the other has Bill O’Reilly speaking out.).

I do not always agree with Mr. Williams, but what happened to him is simply unacceptable, especially since NPR apparently caved to pressure from the Muslim organization, C.A.I.R., about which Uppity Women commented in her inimitable style:

You remember CAIR don’t you? The organization whose founder said he thought SHARIA Law in the USA would be great and Islam is not in America to be equal but to dominate? CAIR, the organization accused of having ties to Islamofascism? That CAIR?

Yep. That C.A.I.R.

Well, it turns out that not everyone is so happy with C.A.I.R’s insistence, and NPR’s caving, as this article in the Daily Caller by Caroline May indicates, Muslims Speak Out Against NPR’s Political Correctness:

While a Muslim advocacy group, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), was instrumental in getting National Public Radio (NPR) to fire Juan Williams, some Muslims are speaking out against succumbing to the censorship of political correctness.

Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, took issue with those who wrap themselves in feel-good sensitivity, while denying the fact that the majority of terrorists are Muslim. (Emphasis mine.)

Indeed, the threat is real enough even for Fatah, a liberal Muslim, who looks at women in burkas with skepticism. “I am scared when I see women in burkas, how do I know what is behind that?” Fatah said, noting that many Muslims share his concerns.

“We are victims of these guys. A number of suicide bombers who have attacked have killed people [while] wearing the burka,” Fatah said. “This is the truth, we should be speaking the truth rather than what people expect us to say. ”

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, told The Daily Caller that though Williams could have been more tactful, his ouster is symptomatic of the problems Americans continue to face when discussing Islam.

“As much as the way he said it was poorly chosen, the era we find ourselves — of political correctness — we are not able to address what this fear is,” Jasser said. “Anybody that starts talking about this fear gets shut down.”

No kidding. Those of us who have tried to discuss the building of a mosque chosen for both its proximity to the World Trade Towers and because it had part of one of the planes fall on it, know this all too well. Heck, Bill O’Reilly (of whom I am not a fan) had Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg storm off the set of The View for his FACTUAL comment that the atrocities of 9/11 were perpetrated by Muslims. What the heck? 9/11 WAS committed by Muslims – there is simply no denying that reality! What does it serve Behar and Goldberg, or anyone, for that matter, to try and revise that reality? They were extremists, sure, but they committed these acts as a RESULT of their Muslim beliefs. Not all Muslims support that belief, but to deny that many do is just childish.

So, how are all of these “politically correct” folks going to deal with MUSLIMS saying they, too, get nervous when they see women in burkas because there is no telling what they might be hiding? When Muslims acknowledge that, yes, the people who committed these acts, these people who continue to plan and plot against us, are Muslims?

How in the world can NPR legitimately report news if they are unwilling to accept that, say Major Nassan, the Army psychiatrist who gunned down a number of his fellow soldiers, did so as a Muslim? Or the Times Square bomber, who, despite failing at his task, “spoke with pride” about his attempt to kill people because he is a Muslim? You know the one, Shahzad, just sentenced to life for this attempt, who said, “Brace yourselves, because the war with Muslims has just begun” (emphasis mine)?

If NPR (and others) are willing to subject free speech, how in the WORLD can they be considered a reputable news source, especially when the opinions expressed by Mr. Williams are some shared by liberal Muslims themselves? Or when there are Muslim extremists flat out telling us to brace ourselves?

The reality of Muslim extremists targeting us was emphasized again in this article:

[snip] According to Jasser, the fact that the vast majority of national security threats emanate from the Muslim world makes Williams’ fear reasonable. Without open discussion, however, those concerns will never be conquered.

“I think that ultimately what we find when many thought leaders try to talk about it, [they say] ‘well there are some common elements to those who threaten national security,’ and the only one so far they have been able to nail down is that they come from some form of Islamic theology,’” Jasser said. “And because we have not become skilled in discussing theo-political threats, you’re having a lot of these little skirmishes happening.”

[snip]

Stephen Schwartz, executive director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, echoed Fatah and Jasser. Schwartz told TheDC that he and his organization opposed NPR’s reaction to Williams’ comments.

“Mr. Williams is basically an opinion journalist and he offered an opinion based on an undeniable reality: American Muslims have so far failed in our duty to prevent negative perceptions among our non-Muslim neighbors, and many, unfortunately, have taken the existing concerns among non-Muslims as a challenge to assert Muslim identity more aggressively, through forms of dress as well as speech that are often extravagant and excessive,” Schwartz wrote in an e-mail to TheDC.

“Mr. Williams spoke to this reality in an understated, candid way. He did not express hatred or incite violence against Muslims. He should not have been dismissed.” (Click HERE to read the rest.)

What does it serve NPR, or Joy Behar, or any of the other “PC” people to deny the realty with which we are currently living? It is one thing for Behar and Goldberg to storm off the set of an opinion show, but NPR is SUPPOSED to be a reputable news outlet, not one subject to the so-called politically correct demands of a radical organization. The reaction of NPR says WAY more about them than Juan Williams’ comment says about him. They have allowed themselves to be manipulated, and seem intent on revising our history of just who attacked us on 9/11, and why.

Should we fear all Muslims? Certainly not. But should we deny that it was, indeed, Muslims who attacked us on 9/11, shot our soldiers down at Fort Hood, tried to cause serious damage and loss of life in New York City’s Time Square? Hell, no. And that is basically what Juan Williams was saying. Perhaps he said it inexpertly, but his reasoning was sound. We have legitimate reasons to be suspicious of certain groups from their own mouths (Shahzad, for example), and to pretend otherwise is sheer folly.

NPR should be ashamed of how it handled this situation, and that it allowed itself to be used by one organization whose motives are well documented. They are an embarrassment.

Wilder’s persecution does not rival the crucifixion of Christ. His prosecution, however, may wake up America.

Imagine if a leader within the tea party movement were able to persuade its members to establish a third political party. Imagine she succeeded—overwhelmingly—and that as their leader she stood a real chance of winning the presidency. Then imagine that in anticipation of her electoral victory, the Democrats and Republicans quickly modified an existing anti-discrimination law so that she could be convicted for statements she made on the campaign trail.

These are the words of a Holland Parliament member, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who is in exile. I changed his “he” to “she” for obvious reasons for our U.S. readers. If the Justice Department lets Holland into our courts then you can go to jail for just reading this post..

I no longer think that “Political Correctness” is driving our pro-Muslim agenda today. I think our dear leaders in DC have a fear of not looking like good sophisticated Europeans and I think they are acting “stupidly.”

Geert Wilders. Remember that name. He will save America – well, if we actually pay attention to the ramifications of a current prosecution aimed at him.

He is being prosecuted in Holland, under a brand new law, for questioning if the Islamification of the Netherlands is acceptable. He is an elected member of the parliament in Holland. Note. You will see the words Liberal Party and such. They have different meanings in different countries. Wilders is no Pelosi.

At first, Mr. Wilders was dismissed as a far right-wing extremist. But since splitting from Holland’s Liberal Party six years ago, his star has only risen. In the national elections held in November 2006, his party won nine seats in parliament. When the Dutch government fell again this year, June elections saw his party take 24 seats in the 150-seat body.

This has spooked Dutch parliamentarians, particularly those wedded to multiculturalism. That’s why, in the fall of 2009, they modified Article 137C and 137D of the Penal Code to make it possible for far-left organizations to take Mr. Wilders to court on grounds of “inciting hatred” against Muslims.

Article 137C of the penal code now states that anyone

“who publicly, verbally or in writing or image, deliberately expresses himself in anyway insulting of a group of people because of their race, their religion or belief . . . will be punished with a prison sentence of at the most one year or a fine of third category.”

This is the statute under which Geert Wilders is being prosecuted. This is sad. Why? Well, there is the obvious curtailment of free speech, and there is also a question of who determines exactly what an “insult” is. But there is also something very sad about a country legislating its own freedoms away to curry favor with those who do not agree with those freedoms in the first place.

During local elections in March 2006, Muslim immigrants for the first time acted as an unofficial power bloc that could make or break a major Dutch party. They became a swing group any politician would need to get elected or form a majority.

The supposed victims of Dutch discrimination are now a force to reckon with. Thus, major parties including Labor and the Christian Democrats now support policies like increased immigration from Muslim countries and welfare benefits for Muslim voters.

And so the Dutch turn a blind eye to the implementation of informal Shariah law, particularly concerning the treatment of women. And they pass legislation curtailing free speech based on exactly whose notion of an insult? Will they not defend their own values, history or cultural place in the world? Do these people actually want their country to survive? Or are they just ready to move out to. . . where?

There are the efforts of countries in the Organization of the Islamic Conference to silence the European debate about Islam. One strategy used by the 57 OIC countries is to treat Muslim immigrants to Europe as satellite communities by establishing Muslim cultural organizations, mosques and Islamic centers, and by insisting on dual citizenship. Their other strategy is to pressure international organizations and the European Union to adopt resolutions to punish anyone who engages in “hate speech” against religion. The bill used to prosecute Mr. Wilders is the national version of what OIC diplomats peddle at the U.N. and EU.

On a more fundamental level, this trial—even if Mr. Wilders wins—could silence the brave critics of radical Islam. The West is in a war of ideas against political Islam. If free speech is not protected in Europe, we’re already losing.

Now. For all of you readers who think Obama is so cool for leading us to “European values,” adopting international law over U.S. Law, letting other countries sue our states and generally telling all of us rednecks that we are not as cool as the rest of the world, I have something to say.

What about contemporary Europe is so compelling that we would abandon our history and founding principles to become like them? Does Europe have less violence? Greater autonomy for its citizens? Greater social mobility? Greater opportunities for its workers? Do immigrants to Europe embrace European ideals?

RPC. Runaway Political Correctness has bored its bug into the brains of too many.

We like our country just the way it is. We are the beacon of light for the rest of the world to follow and, though we may have some things to learn, we have no desire to become the people we left behind over 200 years ago. Monarchy, Communism, Dictatorship, Socialism or other European models of government have never taken hold in America. We like we way we set up our country. We do not want to change. We are Americans. We are proud to say that. And if you disagree, then why are you here?

Now. Please follow Geert’s trial. It is the freedom of expression ideal that gives you the right to tell me I am wrong or dangerous without going to jail and having to register as a “feelings offender.”

Read this exiled Parliament Member’s
story in full.

Here is the short film that may put Geert in jail. He is not a Hitler person. The sign in his video was carried by the anti-Jew Islamists Wilder worries about.

Here is an interview he did before he did this film. And, don’t you know it, it is only on Fox:

Geert Wilders On Trial Blog.

Geert’s own blog.

Notes.   NoQuarter Writer LisaB helped edit this post because it was a hard one to post.

Add your own reason to go to jail here, below.