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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Brock, the conservative turned liberal advocate, has recently garnered a considerable amount of press coverage for his attacks on Fox News for, among many other things, allegedly taking over leadership of the Republican Party. What the news coverage has ignored is his use of tax-free funds for his organization, Media Matters for America (MMA), for these attacks — a form of government support for activities that clearly do not merit tax-exempt status and that as a result infringe on Fox News’ First Amendment rights.

MMA was originally established as an Internal Revenue Service Section 501(c)(3) organization, that is, an organization that can receive tax-deductible contributions to engage in educational activities. The more precise purpose was to counter alleged media bias and so to “identify occurrences of excessive bias in the American media, educate the public as to their existence, and to work with members of the media to reduce them.”

What MMA actually is doing, however, moves far afield from identifying possible bias to mounting a campaign to undermine a major media outlet and to promote the Democratic Party and progressive causes associated with it. Mr. Brock himself has described this new strategy as “a war on Fox,” an effort “to disrupt [Rupert Murdoch‘s] commercial interests” and look for ways to turn regulators against News Corp.’s media outlets. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

It does not matter if you like Fox, or hate it, but for taxpayer dollars to go to support an alleged non-profit that has a clear political agenda is unacceptable, regardless of whose political agenda it is. There are laws in this country against that sort of thing, after all. And there is that pesky matter of the US Constitution and the First Amendment. Taxpayers should NOT be funding this organization. If George Soros wants to fund it, that’s his decision, but Media Matters sure should not receive our money as a “non-profit.” That is just ridiculous.

And speaking of money, Obama was in New York Thursday night at a few fundraisers, trying to fill his coffers. I just have to ask – who is it that can afford a $35,800 a plate dinner?? That is not a typo – there are five numbers there on purpose. Just wondering.

While Obama was at it, he did a little pandering to the LGBT community, claiming he thinks we should have the same rights in this country as everyone else. I agree with that, but what CNN was not so great about reporting was that Obama also said he thought it should be a state matter. Huh – that’s the same thing Michelle Bachmann said in the recent debate (to give you a comparison).

Meanwhile, DADT is STILL the law of the land over 6 months later after the big hoopla in December. Yep, the government has not finished what it needs to do to change that. Big surprise, huh? Yeah, I didn’t think so…

Add to that Obama misspeaking about a Medal of Honor recipient while pandering at Fort Drum:

[snip] “Throughout my service, first as a senator and then as a presidential candidate and then as a President, I’ve always run into you guys. And for some reason it’s always in some rough spots.

First time I saw 10th Mountain Division, you guys were in southern Iraq. When I went back to visit Afghanistan, you guys were the first ones there. I had the great honor of seeing some of you because a comrade of yours, Jared Monti, was the first person who I was able to award the Medal of Honor to who actually came back and wasn’t receiving it posthumously.”[snip]

Except it was. Oops…

There is more going on, and feel free to discuss whatever you wish!

No, Anthony Weiner has no one but himself to blame for the mess he is in. His long time friend (and for a brief period, girlfriend), Kirsten Powers, came out with a scathing post about Weiner on Wednesday, June 7th. She has been friends with him for years, and unknowingly carried his water on “Hannity” in defense of Weiner. She is not carrying it any more, as this post highlights:

[snip] Narcissism doesn’t begin to describe this kind of behavior. It seems there was nobody he didn’t lie to. The New York Times reported this morning that he told donors a week ago that the scandal was the result of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” and that “everything [would] be fine.” We also learned after his press conference that he coached a former porn star with whom he had communicated online on how to lie to the media.

But even if I could see past the lying and extreme narcissism that is noteworthy even by Washington standards, there is the issue of his attitude toward women. What has emerged is a picture of a predator trolling the Internet for women—some half his age—with which to engage in cybersex. We know only about the women who were responsive to his overtures. The odds are very high that he struck out with many, and other women were victim to his unsolicited sex talk. Women should be able to “friend” a married—or unmarried—congressman on Facebook or follow him on Twitter without fear of being the recipient of lewd talk or behavior. Just because a woman “likes” your video on Facebook doesn’t mean you can send her a picture of your penis. This is textbook sexual harassment. It may not be illegal, but it’s definitely unethical. He is in a position of influence, and many women—especially a 21-year-old—would be afraid to report a congressman doing that to them because he holds so much power. Also, he claims none of the women he contacted were underage, but how could he possibly know that?

By far the most disturbing information that we have been privy to—there is, no doubt, more out there that we don’t know—is the transcript of a nine-month “sexting” relationship Weiner had with a Las Vegas blackjack dealer. Radar Online posted the transcript, and it is rife with misogyny and distorted views about women…

[...]

A whisper campaign has started in New York that Weiner’s wife was partly to blame for what happened. “You know, she does travel a lot” is what one New York political operative told me they have heard from multiple reporters. So now we have the “blame the woman” campaign even though what Weiner did had zero to do with sexual satisfaction and everything to do with his own mental issues and attitude toward women. And, by the way, plenty of men have wives who travel and they don’t start preying on women on the Internet and sending pictures of their private parts. [snip] (Click here to read the rest, and believe me, it is well worth your time.)

Again, Powers’ post is well worth your time – there are some things in there to support her charge of misogyny, and she is right on the money.

Unlike Chris Matthews, whose sexist, boorish behavior have been on display for a number of years. You may recall that even Media Matters took him to task for his sexism toward Hillary Clinton, though his expression of such seems to have only scratched the surface:

[snip] One young conservative female guest who appeared several times on Matthews’ show told TheDC that bizarre comments toward women were part of his off air banter as well.

“During one appearance, during the commercial break, Matthews informed me he loves it when women wear baby doll dresses,” she said. “It’s his favorite thing to see women wear.”

[...]

Liberal watchdog groups such as Media Matters and the Daily Kos have hit Matthews hard for his poorly chosen, even misogynistic words toward liberal women.

Media Matters noted Matthews’ poor math in trying to figure out how many women governors there were in 2008.

“Where are the big-state women governors? Where are they? Name one. They don’t exist,” Matthews said of the potential for a future female presidential candidate.

Media Matters subsequently pointed out that in 2008 there were in fact many female governors with populations comparable to the big name former governor presidential candidates, such as Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell, and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.[snip]

Holy crappydoo. Seriously?? “Babydoll” clothes? Unaware that there are a number of women governors??

Yeah, this guy is a lunatic:

[snip] His emotional rants have become commonplace on “Hardball,” and made his show must-watch TV for the likes of Mediate, NewsBusters, Real Clear Politics and even The Daily Caller — all waiting with bated breath for Matthews to inevitably say something “insane.”

When asked by TheDC why he watches so religiously, Ian Schwartz, Real Clear Politics video editor, did not mince words.

“‘Hardball’ is a reminder that I am sane,” said Schwartz. “Chris Matthews is more of a gaffe machine than Joe Biden and the ignorance of his sexism and bigotry makes the show entertaining to watch.”

“He’s a freak show” said another media reporter. [snip]

You got that right, for so, so many reasons.

But you know who one of his favorite targets is:

[snip] Sarah Palin is another of Matthews’ punching bags. He has called the former Alaska governor and former vice presidential nominee “profoundly stupid,” “a dolt,” and an “empty head.”

“He’s a known sexist pig. It’s not misogyny based on political party,” Amy Siskind, president of the women’s advocacy group The New Agenda, wrote at TheDC. “No, Matthews has a familiar pattern: he purposefully strikes out at any woman who is rising in power.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest. I have just scratched the surface of this outstanding article.)

Matthews thinks Palin is “profoundly stupid” and a “dolt”? Wow. This is just yet another uninformed opinion put forth by this brain trust.

I will allow Gov. Palin herself to dispel the biased, sexist attack by Chris Matthews in this synopsis of her recent bus tour:

Just WHO is “profoundly stupid,” Mr. Matthews? I’ll give you a hint. It ain’t Gov. Palin.

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

[snip] “O’REILLY: Are they a threat?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– Allah is our objective.

– The Prophet is our leader.

– Qur’an is our law.

– Jihad is our way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A team of 250 federal investigators and 130 local detectives trying to understand why Jared Lee Loughner went on his alleged killing spree has conducted more than 300 interviews with family, friends and neighbors since the shooting. But they remain stumped about what ultimately prompted the 22-year-old’s descent into violence. [snip]

What? There wasn’t a ton of Tea Party pamphlets in Loughner’s bedroom? He didn’t have an “I Heart Sarah Palin” tattoo or anything? Out of all of those interviews, explosive rhetoric from the Right did not jump out at all of these investigators??

Wow. Imagine that.

The article continues:

Investigators have had little success gaining information from either the uncooperative Loughner or his parents, who have told authorities that they had little recent contact with their son, law enforcement sources said.

With so little help coming from the immediate family, investigators are probing associates and witnesses for details that could help them fill out a portrait of Loughner, a task one source described as completing a “jigsaw puzzle.”

[...]

It could take weeks for investigators to fully determine Loughner’s state of mind in the days leading up to the rampage, the sources said. Virtually every member of the FBI’s 200-person Phoenix field division, coupled with 50 additional agents from Washington and Tucson and more from the Capitol Police and the U.S. Marshals Service, have fanned out across southeastern Arizona. About 130 detectives from the Pima County sheriff’s office also are involved.

Investigators have had little success gaining information from either the uncooperative Loughner or his parents, who have told authorities that they had little recent contact with their son, law enforcement sources said. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

There is a clear answer as to why this young man did this – he is mentally unstable. That is the only snap assumption to be made. It had nothing – nothing – nothing to do with any of those folks targeted by the Left. What they did was cruel, irresponsible, and amounted to hate mongering.

Sarah Palin was on The Hannity Show, Sean being another target of the Left. I do not watch him, as a rule, but do make exceptions, like when Sarah Palin is on, which she was on Monday night. Despite the immediate framing by some on the Left that she has now been made small (gee – I wonder who set out to do THAT?), she seems resolute, clear, articulate, and, well, sad. In case you missed it, here is part of the interview:

I have to say, whenever I see her speak, I gain more respect for her. Who among us could be so reasoned, so calm, so solemn, after the vicious, hateful, mean spirited attacks on not just HER, but her family, as well. After what she went through just in the past 10 days, after being demeaned and belittled for defending herself, being accused of “interjecting” herself after those on the Left falsely accused her of contributing to this heinous crime, her tone was just right.

And to hear that her children have also received death threats is nothing short of shocking. What the hell is wrong with people???

Wow. I must say, when Gov. Palin said, “If the Left didn’t have double standards, they would have no standards at all.” Well, it sure seems that way, doesn’t it?

Love her, hate her, be indifferent to her (I swear, I said the same thing about Hillary Clinton, didn’t I? The media/Leftists did the same thing to her to a degree.)), she does not deserve this kind of horrendous treatment. No one does. The hue and cry if this kind of attack was directed at any one news personality or Democratic governor would be deafening. But when it comes to Palin, the only thing that is deafening are these hellacious attacks on this woman with the sole purpose of destroying her, and her family as well. It is reprehensible.

It will be a relief is when this meme, this lie, about what caused Loughner to go off, is put to rest once and for all. Since so many FBI agents and local personnel have found no link whatsoever to Palin, Hannity, the Tea Party, or others, surely this must put an end to this lie. Those who continue to perpetuate this false, destructive, meme should get their comeuppance, and it cannot come soon enough for me.

Frankly, I think Palin should sue the shit out of the ones who put this out there. What they have wrought against her, and her children, is obscene, and they should be held to account.

Yuck. I don’t know about you, but after hearing about the kinds of attacks Palin, and her family, have endured, I feel like I need a break. In case you need a bit of a break, too, I have another way in which you can view your taxpaying dollars at work. I got the following from my niece, whose husband is a Gunnery Sergeant, and stationed in the Middle East for a year. Anyway, I hope you enjoy:

After dealing with this craploa, the raging hatred, the cruelty, of those who, unfortunately, have access to the MSM, and are using it to attack someone, this was a welcome relief. Or at least it was for me. How about you?

Bernie Goldberg discussed Obama’s Fall from the MSM’s “slobbering love affair” recently, based on research he conducted for his book of the same title Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media, and evidenced by recent statements from prominent members of the media:

Gee – is it possible that some folks are really starting to get what we were trying to tell them (and for which we were roundly dismissed with charges of racism, sour grapes, and much worse)? Even some folks in Hollywood are getting it now:

Here’s the thing, Gene – maybe if you had actually done some homework, maybe looked at the local Chicago papers, or thought to yourself, “huh – I wonder why we can’t see Obama’s transcripts, or medical records, or any paperwork at all from his time in IL?” Or even, “why did Obama have to get everyone thrown off the ballot to win his IL seat?” Or how about, “Why did Obama’s team expose the sealed divorce records of both front-runners for the US Senate seat?” Or maybe, just maybe, THIS question: “Why is this guy running after being in the U.S. Senate for 143 days?” Maybe then you wouldn’t have wasted your vote, and be regretting it now.

I have to say, I LOVE Jane Lynch, so I was thrilled to see that she got it. I have tried and tried and TRIED to tell my Obot-loving family that Obama does NOT support same-sex marriage, just the same as the woman they love to hate, Sarah Palin.

While I am speaking of Obama, SC Gov.-Elect Haley was on Greta discussing Obamacare the other night (and thanks to fellow writer, Eastan, for alerting me to her appearance):

Yep – she’s going to be representing our state, and I have to say, I am glad of it.

Anywho – so some in the media continue to wake up (others, not so much – three words, Olbermann and Maddow), but there are signs of life now among not just the media, but the Hollywood cheerleaders, too.

Okay, so NOW do I get to do my “Told You So” dance? Hmm – that wouldn’t be in keeping with the spirit of the season, so how about this: Welcome. We have been waiting for you.

Breaking News: As of this writing, the Senate has voted to allow DADT to advance. Finally. I knew this was going to happen – it would be left until right before the new Congress came in. But it appears DADT will finally be repealed, thank heavens (and no real thanks to Obama – if anyone should be thanked for this, it is Rep. Patrick Murphy, who has pushed for repeal tirelessly). A final vote should be forthcoming this weekend, but it looks good for repeal!

The Courage Campaign has highlighted an important aspect of DADT repeal about which you may not have heard. This from an email I received today:

Here’s the skinny: the Senate vote was the last legislative obstacle. Now the bill will head to President Obama’s desk for his signature. But even after the President signs this law, no one can serve openly. Certification is first required from the President, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Secretary of Defense. It’s part of a backroom deal cut months ago, and it’s ridiculous. We’ve seen how the Administration has dragged their feet over the past two years on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. We can’t let that happen again.

It is not a done deal yet. We must keep the Administration’s feet to the fire on this issue so that all Americans who wish to serve may serve.

I came across an article recently that confirmed what many of us have suspected: the media helps shape opinions on female political candidates. Anyone who has heard the stories about Nikki Haley’s alleged affairs (proven false as her released emails demonstrate, though you rarely hear that), or the alleged one night stand with Christine O’Donnell, which turned out to be hogwash (sexist, misogynistic hogwash at that, so much so that even N.O.W. felt compelled to defend her), or Meg Whitman being called a whore by her competitor’s aide, know of what I speak.

That is to say, the focus seems to be less on their actual political positions than airing unsubstantiated claims, usually of a sexual nature or involving a sexist characterization. That distinction was highlighted in a recent Christian Science Monitor piece, “Ending the ‘Hot Or Not’ Factor For Nikki Haley And Female Candidates.” The authors of this piece, Swanee Hunt and Kerry Healey are mighty powerful women in their own right, the former being an Ambassador to Austria, the latter the former Lt. Gov. of Massachusetts. They know what it is like to be a woman in the political world.

Their commentary is based on the results of a recent survey by the Lake Survey Partners. The entire piece is well worth your time, and I encourage you to read it. Some of the highlights follow:

American women hold twelve percent of governor’s seats and make up seventeen percent of Congress. If these numbers sound low, that’s because they are. The United States ranks a stunning 85 in the world in women’s parliamentary representation. No matter which side of the aisle prevails in the upcoming mid-term elections, both sides can agree the US needs to draw on one hundred percent of its citizens’ talents to meet our huge challenges.

Many factors contribute to the gender gap in political leadership, but a recent study sponsored by the new “Name It. Change It.” campaign highlights the key role of sexism in the media’s treatment of female candidates. This sexism acts both to deter women from running for office and also decreases their chances of success when they do throw their hats in the ring.

[...]

In the past few months, the experiences of South Carolina gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley (R), Representative Betty Sutton (D) of Ohio, and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Elena Kagan have demonstrated how women of all parties and branches of government get slammed by the same denigrating treatment. Despite differences in backgrounds, careers, and ideologies, as they’ve traveled the road of women in public life, their journeys – a congressional seat, a gubernatorial nomination, and the highest bench in the land – have been regrettably similar.

As the piece goes on to say, these women, despite the odds stacked against them by numerous media outlets, persevered. Nikki Haley not only won the primary, but she just received the endorsement of the Post and Courier, Charleston’s newspaper. Haley is no flash in the pan, after all – she has served in the SC House since 2004, and has a tremendous amount of experience preceding her time there. Though one would be hard-pressed to know much more about her than the allegations of infidelity.

Back to the Christian Science Monitor piece:

Now that we know the real and lasting damage to public discourse and political representation caused by offhand sexist remarks in the media, we all have a duty to push back.

Sexist commentary isn’t a harmless joke. Just last week, Boston radio station WRKO plumbed new depths when it stood by a producer’s mocking “endorsement” of Karyn Polito’s campaign for state treasurer that included an obscene comment about her body. That kind of endorsement hurts, not helps, and now we have the research to prove it. In the past two weeks, “Name It. Change It.” has called for public response to this and 12 similar sexist attacks on Republican, Democrat, and Green Rainbow candidates. As a result, WRKO was flooded with calls protesting the producer’s outburst.

Every election day, we two travel to the polls to cancel each other’s votes. But we, and millions like us, must stand together and “name it” until media outlets “change it.”

Amen to that. If you want to make a difference fighting sexism in the media, just click here: “Name It. Change It.”

And don’t forget to vote. One of the other important pieces highlighted by Hunt and Healey was this:

[snip] This makes voters less likely to cast a vote for female candidates who have been the subject of media assaults that target their gender or their sexuality. [snip]

Let’s not allow the media to make our decisions for us. If you have questions about a candidate’s position, don’t rely on the media’s interpretation of their policies. Go to the candidates’ websites and look for yourselves.

We must hold the media accountable for how they present information to us. In the case of women, we cannot allow them to present the candidates solely in terms of their gender, or their sexuality.

But it isn’t just in terms of gender that we must keep an eye on the very institution charged with bringing us the news we need to be informed citizens. As we know, the JournoList gang kept important information that was likely detrimental to Obama from being published, specifically related to Rev. Jeremiah Wright. In addition, they targeted Sarah Palin once she gave her acceptance speech, realizing that she was a force with which to be reckoned.

Well, the media is at it again, and interestingly, still in Alaska. It turns out that a CBS affiliate tried to craft – check that- create negative stories against Joe Miller, particularly hoping to find anyone who supported him that may be a sex offender. Wanna know how the Miller camp found this out? The “journalists” left a message on a Miller campaign worker’s cellphone. No, I am not making this up! They were talking about how to gin up a story on Miller, preferably one that involved a child molester. Naturally, the general manager for the affiliate, KTVA, Jerry Bever, came up with a whole bunch of hooey about how yeah, there’s this recording and all, but, um, well, uh, everyone is just misunderstanding what they are saying. Yeah. Right. That’s the problem. Because how could anyone think for one second that’s what these “reporters” mean when they were saying this:

FEMALE REPORTER: That’s up to you because you’re the expert, but that’s what I would do…I’d wait until you see who showed up because that indicates we already know something…
[Laughter]
[INAUDIBLE]
FEMALE REPORTER: Child molesters…
MALE REPORTER: Oh yeah… can you repeat Joe Miller’s…uh… list of people, campaign workers, which one’s the molester?
[INAUDIBLE]
FEMALE VOICE: We know that out of all the people that will show up tonight, at least one of them will be a registered sex offender.
[Laughter]
MALE REPORTER: You have to find that one person…
[INAUDIBLE]
FEMALE REPORTER: And the one thing we can do is ….we won’t know….we won’t know but if there is any sort of chaos whatsoever we can put out a twitter/facebook alert: saying what the… ‘Hey Joe Miller punched at rally.’
FEMALE REPORTER: Kinda like Rand Paul…I like that.
[Laughter]
FEMALE REPORTER: That’s a good one.

Wow. This is a CBS affiliate. As in, they are using OUR airwaves for this kind of rumor mongering.

Sarah Palin is mighty fired up about this whole Miller thing, as one might expect. I believe she used the term, “corrupt bastards” to describe what they attempted to do to Miller. Given Palin’s own experiences with the press making crap up about her and reporting it as fact, she makes the case for Hunt and Healey. Here she is on Greta Van Susteran discussing the state of journalism in general:

Unfortunately, we cannot have a “Do-Over” before the upcoming election, but we can, we must, demand a Fourth Estate that is reporting, not creating news. We must demand that journalists are not just reporting the pieces that helps their favorite politicians, or conversely, not reporting information that would harm their faves. We must demand that they stop framing women politicians on the basis of their sexuality, and/or gender. They must stop with their sexist and demeaning attempts to tear down women in politics. In short, they must return to being reporters, to journalists in the truest sense of the term. We have our eye on them…

UPDATE: This just out: “Producers Involved In Alaska ‘Phonegate’ Fired.” The article stated that: [snip] KTVA’s General Manager released this statement on the station’s web site:

“KTVA today released findings of its internal assessment of allegations that the “news director for CBS Anchorage affiliate KTVA, along with assignment editor Nick McDermott, and other reporters, openly discussed creating, if not fabricating, two stories about Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, Joe Miller,” as alleged by the Miller campaign. KTVA states that its review included multiple staff interviews, a review of that day’s actual news coverage and a forensic transcript of the recorded audio conversation. [snip] (Read the rest here.)

Wow, how about that?

No, not Election Day, though yeah, that’s right around the corner (thank heavens). No, I mean my very last visit with my Physical Therapist. YAY!!! And he came about an hour earlier than usual, too, so that was good. Oh, what a relief. Not that I am done with physical therapy, not by a long shot. That is a lifelong event for me. But I no longer have to deal with Rico Suave (as he sees himself) on a regular basis. And no more political discussions with him, either.

Or so I thought. I had already been doing physical therapy exercises for about 1 1/2 hrs before Mr. Suave showed up, and then he had me do some more exercises. Our time together generally culminated in a walk up and down my (long)driveway, and this visit was no different. I was so relieved, having noticed he already had his glasses with him, and his clipboard, so clearly, he was going to leave as soon as we got back to his car.

Except we started talking about the state of education on the walk, and by the time we got to the car, he said,”Yeah, I wanted to mention something just a little bit political.” He then launched into his impressions of Nikki Haley, going on and on about her platform, though he threw in a dig about Sarah Palin saying that at least Nikki Haley is more eloquent than Palin. I told him that Palin really didn’t say she could see Russia from her house, that was Tina Fey, and mentioned that Palin’s dad was a teacher. That was all I could get out before he brushed it off, didn’t want to hear anything else (because really, why – he had already decided she was a moron, so why listen to anything that might contradict that?).

So, he talked on and on about what Haley wants, and when he took a breath, I said, “Well, what about Vincent Sheheen? What’s HIS platform?” His response? “I don’t really know, but, well, um, uh, probably neither one of them will be all that good” (or words close to that effect). Uh huh. And back to Haley. He made a point of watching Haley, looking for anything he could criticize (that she wants to cut taxes is one of the things on which he focused since SC schools are so crappy). But her male competitor? What was HIS stance on taxes and education? How the hell would the PT know? He just knew he was going to try and convince me not to vote for Nikki Haley. I hadn’t said anything about her one way or the other, so ALL of his pontificating was completely unsolicited. (For the record, Vincent Sheheen has talked about tax reform after being pushed by a small business owner on the rates small businesses pay.)

Imagine my, um, delight, when Mr. PT said he would drop by if he was out this way, and was going to keep my number. Oh, joy. That’s just jake…

While I am talking about SC politics, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the platform for the Democratic candidate for US Senator, Alvin Greene. He is happily campaigning along on this platform: the recession is all Senator Jim DeMint’s fault. Huh? Now, I am no big fan of DeMint’s but honestly, I had no idea the man was that powerful. And if he is, I am going to ask him to pick my lottery numbers for me so we can get that little place down in Montserrat on which I’ve had my eye. Want to know what is REALLY surprising? That DeMint is leading him by ONLY 37%!! Really? Not, say, 100%?? That is pretty scary, if you ask me. Just in time for Halloween!

Okay, I have said some unkind things about N.O.W. recently, all deserved, IMHO (like endorsing Jerry Brown over Meg Whitman), but they have finally realized that they were supposed to represent ALL women. Yep – they have now come out and condemned an online tabloid for running an anonymous article about Christine O’Donnell, US Senate candidate in Delaware:

[snip] O’Neill said that while NOW “finds O’Donnell’s political positions dangerous for women … that does not mean it’s acceptable to use slut-shaming against her, or any woman.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

A bit backhanded “support,” but there you are.

Finally, I asked my good buddy, Divine Democrat, a Chicago suburg resident (who may be posting again at Bad Habit come November – YAY), about how things are playing out in IL with the two candidates running for Obama’s seat. She responded with the following (and I post this with her permission, and with a few edits for typos and space):

Well, elections in IL are always down and dirty so it’s never a surprise to us when the dirty tricks begin. I knew when Obama became President he would be bringing his dirty style politics to Washington with him and he hasn’t disappointed. The thing is, most people blamed it all on Rahm (who is a real sleezeball), but it wasn’t just Rahm, it’s Obama making the calls on the real sleezy stuff…especially if it’s sneaky and backroom style. For instance, that mess in FL with Clinton pressuring Meek to quit. On Greta Van Susteran last night, she was interviewing Crist and he said that he knew about it and that he had spoken to “someone in the White House” about it. Greta, bless her heart, tried to get him to tell who it was but he refused so she started rattling off names…but he said “no, it wasn’t him”. But the one name she didn’t mention was Obama, himself. I know it was him! That’s the way Obama works. I also know if she had mentioned Obama’s name to Crist that he would not be able to say “no” so convincingly. He’s a real sleezeball, too.

In IL, I don’t think Quinn has a chance in hell of winning the Governor race. Everywhere I go I see Brady signs. Oh..and Alexi Giannoulias will only win if the numbers are cooked (which they probably will be, I heard the dead vote will be coming out in droves). I also see Kirk signs wherever I go (although I haven’t been in the Chicago city limits since the last Sox game)…(Alexi) doesn’t look like he’s put in an honest days work in his entire life. Just like Obama, he’s had everything handed to him on a silver platter.

I can tell you this, if the Republicans do well in IL, say they take the Senator and Governor position, it won’t bode well for Rahm Emanuel when he runs for Mayor. Rahm will just be seen as another Obama lackey and Obama is not that well loved, even in IL…

I only wish Dick Durbin was up for re-election this term…I’d love to kick his ass out of office, too.

Divine Democrat made some more interesting comments about Rahm Emanuel in a follow-up email as I asked if the residency issue had been swept under the rug. She wrote:

No one in Chicago is really talking about the eligibility of Rahm, that was buried along with the rest of the corruption within the Chicago political hierarchy. I did hear something about the “Anybody but Rahm” coalition forming which first started within the City Council with aldermen who don’t want another “bully” mayor. It seems to be spreading to Latino and African American leaders. So, we’ll see, I guess. I still won’t count him out, though…I’m sure he’ll get enough Union leaders who will take a few of those aldermen to the back room for a beating…er, talking to.

Short of it is, that Rahm is not popular, but given his methods, one cannot count him out. Yep, we know all about those methods, don’t we?

Well, I’m going to stop rambling now go try and recover from my physical therapy. What is happening in your neck of the woods on the political front? I’d sure be interested to know…

UPDATE: So, not only did my PT give me a hard time about politics, with only his opinion counting, but he gave me his COLD, too! Sheesh! Talk about adding insult to injury…

Happy Halloween, folks! Just for fun, here’s a little toe-tapper for you to take your mind off my crazy PT, and the upcoming election. It’s a classic!

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.

My physical therapist doesn’t know that I dwell in the world of politics except when recovering from major surgery (and thanks, everyone, for your support and concern. More on that below…). At my last visit with him, he brought up politics. First, he bashed Fox News, and anyone who would watch “such trash”, claiming they make up news to suit their points, not report the news. I mentioned to him that Bret Baier routinely has someone from NPR on for the discussions at the end of his show (since he mentioned he likes NPR), and that Fox routinely has Democrats on. He said they were only the wimpy ones, though, not tough ones. Hmm. So, you know, they don’t count. Like the current head of the DCCC, Chris Van Hollen, I suppose. Okay. Whatever. Let’s find a way to not let facts influence our opinions. (I might add, before 2008, I had the same opinions about Fox, having never watched it. I believed the spiel from the DNC, Jon Stewart, MSNBC, and others. But they (Fox) were the only ones who treated Hillary Clinton with a modicum of respect, especially Greta Van Susteran, so I started giving them a chance. Turns out, they are not as horrible as the Democrats made them out to be.)

Meanwhile, my PT thinks MSNBC is just fine, naturally, and really only operates to counteract the vileness that is Fox. You know, they are performing a service, see, lest people fall under the spell of that horrible Fox machine. Misogynistic rhetoric by Keith Olbermann directed at Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Campaign was not something my PT noticed, but if there was anything, he suggested that I probably just noticed it since I am a woman. He couldn’t think of any instances in which he heard anything misogynistic from Olbermann at all.

I am not kidding. He said all of this with nary a thought that he could be making an ass of himself, or that he was being just a tad sexist his own self by minimizing my saying something was sexist because I’m a woman. (I wonder if a person of color says something is racist, does his/her saying so automatically mean they are just being too sensitive? Or is this something left more for us little ladies when we cry foul on sexism?)

That set the tone for what came next. The PT insisted that I was completely, flat out, absolutely, completely, couldn’t possibly be right, wrong when I said that that Obama stated there are 57 states, or that he said the Great Lakes are in Oregon, or that his parents were inspired to have him because of the March On Selma, even though that event occurred 4 years AFTER his birth, unless this information came solely from Fox News. You know how we women folk don’t really know nothing and all. Well, I quickly found him an article from the LA Times, “Barack Obama Wants To Be President of These 57 United States,” and asked if THAT was sufficient for him, even reading him this quote:

At a later stop Obama was talking with reporters and expressed concern he’d also mis-stated the number of potential cyclone victims in Burma. He said, “”I hope I said 100,000 people the first time instead of 100 million. I understand I said there were 57 states today. It’s a sign that my numeracy is getting a little, uh.” At that point, an aide cut him off and ushered journalists out. Before he could mis-speak again?)

I asked him if the LA Times would suffice. His response? He would have to look it up for himself. He is sitting there, seeing the LA Times masthead on my computer, but even that was not sufficient. Yeah, whatever, dude. Not only did he refuse to acknowledge any of the above instances of Obama misspeaking, but also blew off Obama’s claim that Hillary Clinton won Kentucky because it borders Arkansas, apparently, not understanding that Kentucky borders Illinois’ Southern border. His explanation? That for the people there, at least, it was a “psychological” closeness, so it made sense they would go for Hillary Clinton. Huh?? Wow. Oh, and I mentioned to him that the MSM did not do its job vetting Obama, that had Bush or ANYONE else, said these kinds of things, they would still be talking about them. Seems maybe MSNBC didn’t provide him with as much information as he thought it did (or Jon Stewart, whom he mentioned as one of the people from whom most young people get their news). Ahem.

And you know what his immediate response was to the litany of “mistakes” Obama made? One thing – Hillary and Bosnia. Right. Her exaggeration of one story is equivalent to all of the misstatements and flat out lies of Obama’s. Gotcha.

But here’s the thing – that example cam tripping right off his tongue, but he knew NOTHING about Obama’s gaffes and lies. That is telling in and of itself, isn’t it?

But that is just one guy. We know there are so many more who don’t notice the sexism because they are not women (according to my PT’s logic). For instance, how about California gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown denying that a woman being called a whore is as bad as a racial slur? Not only did he deny it, he dismissed it out of hand. He sure does know how to win a woman over, doesn’t he?

I can make it a bit more local. Our SC Democratic nominee for the US Senate, Alvin Greene, was apparently just trying to flirt with a young woman when he showed her pornographic photos for which he has now been charged with a felony. At least that seems to be what his attorney was saying in this Washington Post article when the attorney said this:

“He was attempting to flirt with a young lady who had no interest in him,” Eleazer Carter told The Associated Press. “While the charges are very serious, I think it boils down to, when a lady turns you down, has it reached a criminal offense?”

That’s all it was, people – why is everyone making such a big deal out of it? Sheesh, c’mon, already – you little women need to stop being so sensitive.

Which is apparently what the California chapter of N.O.W. thinks in terms of calling women derogatory names. Yep – turns out they think it is A-Okay. You know what I mean – the Jerry Brown “hey, baby, being called a whore ain’t such a bad thing,” from the recent debate with gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman. WTH??? Add to that Alvin Greene’s “just flirting” assertion, and I just had to share this recent experience. Holy Moley.

And speaking of physical therapy. I am still pretty busy with my daily regimen of physical therapy and dealing with high levels of pain (so, um, that’s my excuse if there are any typos or anything. The PT did say this is what happens when your bone and muscle are cut. It hurts, like being hit with a police baton right on the tibia over and over 24/7 for 6 – 8 weeks. Yep, sounds about right.). I have missed our conversations, but also haven’t been in a place where I can give the time I would like to fully engage. So, thank you again, everyone, for your thoughts and prayers. It means a lot to me. I am working up to writing more regularly, I promise.

That is just apples and oranges – yes, there is a mosque four blocks away from Ground Zero, but it has been there for DECADES. Its site was not chosen specifically because it was close to an area targeted by Islamic extremists. The Masjid Manhattan was not chosen precisely because [art of the landing gear of a jet that had been turned into a WMD fell into it, as was the case for the Park 51 mosque. There is a world of difference between the two. It is disconcerting that people like Alex DiBranco, who wrote the article linked above, or since you've probably not heard of him, Mara Liasson of NPR, who made that argument Monday, 8/30, on Fox News All Stars:

[snip] Right, the critics of the project do have a responsibility to say where in Manhattan it would be OK, because there is a mosque four blocks from ground zero, currently. Would they like that one moved?

If it’s just the location, and it’s not the fact that a mosque is being built, where would it be OK? On Staten Island, the upper west side? Where would it be OK? Because there have been other anti-mosque demonstrations elsewhere around the country that are very far from ground zero.

So I think it’s important for the people against this to be extremely clear about exactly what they’re against.[snip]

Well, gosh, Ms. Liasson, I think people have been EXTREMELY clear about why they do not want this mosque built in that location by this developer and why.

Good grief. There is a serious lack of logic operating there (or rather, not operating). How can these people be so obtuse? Is it intentional, or do they really not see there is a huge difference between the two?

The same goes for Obama and his ridiculous, uh, I mean, “brilliant” statement to the effect if Jews wanted to build a synagogue there, or Christians a church, a Hindu temples, etc., that should be A-Okay. No problem with that at all. Well, for once I agree with him, but not because of the conflation and distortion he is utilizing, but because, yes, those groups should be able to build near Ground Zero if they wish (or perhaps an interfaith center to house them all). Why? Because THEY DID NOT MURDER THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS as a direct result of their faith (distortion that it may be). That’s why.

Jews, Christians, Hindis, Buddhists, Wiccans, any other group you can think of, did not pick a location close to where a group affiliated with their religion murdered thousands of people BECAUSE it was close to that site.

And it wasn’t their first attack on that site, either, though too many people seem quick to forget that. This was the second time in less than ten years that Muslims attacked the World Trade Towers. Again, they weren’t terrorists who happened to be Muslims, but because of their particular belief system, were terrorists because they were Muslims.

Just yesterday, we had two more Muslims from Detroitpicked up in Amsterdam who were conducting a dry run to see if they could get materials on board a US flight. The scary thing is, they were able to do so. There was the “Christmas Day” bomber. The NYC bomber. There are Muslim extremists planning – actively planning – to do us harm.

Of course, that does not mean all Muslims are bad, or out to get our country. We understand that, too. But to continue to deny that there ARE terrorists out there who want to harm the US because of their Muslim faith is the worst kind of “tolerance.” That isn’t “tolerance,” that is stupidity.

So, yes, there are over 100 mosques in New York City. We know this. That’s fine. Whatever. And yes, there is one four blocks away that was built decades ago. So? All these folks making that point, or what they think is a point, just need to stop trying to act like its the same thing. It is not.

As I have said before, it is about decency and compassion for those who lost loved ones at Ground Zero, and for the whole country, which may not ever fully heal from that attack on our soil. Conflating this one mosque being built (by a developer with a rap sheet a mile long, I might add) near Ground Zero in a building that had part of the jet land in it has absolutely NOTHING to do with where other mosques are, especially ones that have been there for decades. Nor does it have anything to do with other religious faiths being able to build near Ground Zero.

These are red herrings, obfuscations, the sole purpose of which is to deny the reality of what happened at Ground Zero through the appearance of “tolerance.” Maybe Mara Liasson can forget it. Maybe President Obama can forget it. But the majority of Americans cannot, have not, and will not.

You know, when I saw the CNN report, I just knew that CNN was under-reporting the numbers of those opposed to the mosque being built near Ground Zero. And CNN made it seem as if there were a couple hundred protesters on BOTH sides. I knew they were full of crap:

[snip] Hundreds of critics and supporters of the proposed center in New York showed up despite an overcast and drizzly sky to express their views amid the national debate over the facility.

Police estimated that supporters of the center numbered up to 250, and critics numbered about 450 during the demonstration. [snip]

Uh huh. Nothing like inflating the numbers on one side, and deflating them on the other. Oh, you just gotta love the LMSM (Lame Mainstream Media). Or not.

By the way, if you think for one second Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf did not know that the landing gear from one of the planes flew into that building, and the relevance of it being so close to Ground Zero, you are sadly mistaken. That is why he picked that location, and why Muslims started coming to that building to pray. At least according to this December 8, 2009 NY Times article, “Muslim Prayers And Renewal Near Ground Zero“:

[snip]But for months now, out of the public eye, an iron gate rises every Friday afternoon, and with the outside rumblings of construction at ground zero as a backdrop, hundreds of Muslims crowd inside, facing Mecca in prayer and listening to their imam read in Arabic from the Koran.

The building has no sign that hints at its use as a Muslim prayer space, but these modest beginnings point to a far grander vision: an Islamic center near the city’s most hallowed piece of land that would stand as one of ground zero’s more unexpected and striking neighbors.

The location was precisely a key selling point for the group of Muslims who bought the building in July. A presence so close to the World Trade Center, “where a piece of the wreckage fell,” said Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the cleric leading the project, “sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Nope, that site was no accident. It was chosen PRECISELY because it is close to Ground Zero, and because part of the landing gear fell.

Again, to those who keep acting like this is just some random site and those opposed to it are off our rockers, here’s the proof. From Imam Rauf’s own mouth. Satisfied yet? Yeah, that’s about what I expected – no amount of facts will matter. Whatever.

And then there is this story. It is no secret that California has been struggling mightily with its budget and deficits. That makes the following story even more disturbing than it would be otherwise:

Have these people lost their minds? Marble? In a public high school? While they are having to cut back on Education? That is just nuts.

Okay, one more, if you can stand it. This is the former head of the DNC, failed presidential candidate, and former governor, Howard Dean, giving advice to the Obama camp. Wait until you hear it. There is a bonus discussion about an organization funding Republicans:

Oh. My. Gosh. A bit of advice, Governor Dean – put down the Hopium pipe. You have had way too much…

And George Soros doesn’t hide behind an organization? Really? Huh. Is there an organization he funds that supports Democrats that has his name in it? If so, lemme know.

There ya go – a few stories of the day. Feel free to talk about these, or any other, stories.

The answer, of course, is fear.

And fear, when stoked by demagogues and poured over a volatile flammable mass only needs one match to create a frightful conflagration.

Witness the American “Tea Party” movement, a ragtag group whose initial goal of protesting the bank bailouts has devolved into a mass movement featuring silly costumes, misspelled signs glorifying racism and paranoia, and sometimes weaponry.

Those who wish to turn away from the Tea Parties and their embarrassing antics will find little solace in the Republican party. A recent Harris poll reveals that two-thirds of Republicans think Barack Obama is a socialist, 57 percent a Muslim—and 24 percent say “he may be the Antichrist.” Not surprisingly, respondents without a college education are vastly more likely to believe such claims, while Americans with college degrees or better are less easily duped.

To quote the 19th-century educator Horace Mann, “Ignorance breeds monsters to fill up the vacancies of the soul that are unoccupied by the verities of knowledge.”

Of course, the media don’t help.

It’s easy to blame FOX News and talk radio for this sorry and dangerous state of affairs. Their right-wing propaganda draws a large and loyal audience. But CNN, MSNBC and other mainstream networks are also to blame. By treating the more mentally unstable and incoherent members of the lunatic right with deference and respect in order to present “balanced” coverage, they have bestowed a kind of legitimacy on paranoid hate-mongerers, racists and the flat-out ignorant. Having a person on to argue that Barack Obama is not a native-born citizen of the United States serves no newsworthy purpose. It is an act of sheer provocation and showmanship.

Consumers of Pakistani media are probably familiar with this phenomenon – demagogues blathering nonsense from their media perches; the spreading of rumor and conspiracy as fact; an apparent lack of editorial control on the irresponsible material being broadcast or printed; blaming outside forces (Jews, the CIA, the Mossad, RAW) for internal problems, thereby alleviating the public of any responsibility for an ensuing catastrophe; suspicion of The Other…the list goes on and on.

So to those who think the Kerry-Lugar Bill is a Trojan Horse masquerading sinister imperialists scheming to erode your sovereignty, meet your comrades in arms: The Tea Party attendees who think passing universal health care will lead to death panels, fascism and Nazi death camps.

–
Crosspost: ThePakistanUpdate.com

Secretary Gates, after a 45 day review, suggested the following:

Here is a list of the changes:

The rank of the person who can initiate a fact-finding inquiry or separation proceeding will be raised to a one star general or flag officer in the servicemember’s chain of command.

The rank of those who can conduct a fact-finding inquiry will be raised Lt. Col, Navy Commander or above

The rank of those authorized to separate an enlisted member to general or flag office in the servicemember’s chain of command

A revision of what constitutes credible information to begin an inquiry or separation proceeding by, for example, specifying that information provided buy third parties should be given under oath and by discouraging the use of hearsay

We will revise what constitutes a reliable upon whose word an inquiry could be initiated, with special scrutiny on third parties who may be motivated to harm the servicemember

Finally certain categories of confidential information will no longer be used in support of discharges, including information provided to lawyers, clergy, and psychotherapists.

These modifications will take effect immediately. And will apply to all open and future cases

Gates also said, ”I do not recommend a change in the law before we have completed the study . . . doing it hastily is very risky.”

Well, it’s a start. I don’t know why it has taken so long to make these changes in anticipation of Congress taking this up, but that’s just me.

And for more on where we go from here on Health Care, here is Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) talking with Greta van Susteren:

In the midst of all of the hoopla, the fact that this is Women’s History Month has been backburnered. So, here’s one NQ regular Portia Elizabeth posted the other day:

Oh, I love that Martina McBride! Happy Women’s History Month, friends!

Update: Confused American found this McBride video, and thinks it reflects how many of us are feeling these days with Obama:

This is a Saturday Night Open Thread. What’s on your minds?

Whooey, this is some article Peggy Noonan had in the Wall Street Journal, Now For The Slaughter; On the road to Demon Pass, our leader encounters a Baier. As is obvious from the subheading, she references the recent interview with President Obama conducted by Fox News, Brett Baier. (If somehow you missed the interview, click HERE for the video and transcript.)

The article is a bit of a two-fer. It looks at the possibility that the House, currently wrangling over the Healthcare bill, may forego an actual vote, utilizing a tool referred to as, “Deem and Pass.” More on that below, and you can click HERE for additional information. The other part, obviously, is the Baier/Obama interview.

Now to the article:

Excuse me, but it is embarrassing—really, embarrassing to our country—that the president of the United States has again put off a state visit to Australia and Indonesia because he’s having trouble passing a piece of domestic legislation he’s been promising for a year will be passed next week. What an air of chaos this signals to the world. And to do this to Australia of all countries, a nation that has always had America’s back and been America’s friend.

How bush league, how undisciplined, how kid’s stuff.

You could see the startled looks on the faces of reporters as Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, who had the grace to look embarrassed, made the announcement on Thursday afternoon. The president “regrets the delay”—the trip is rescheduled for June—but “passage of the health insurance reform is of paramount importance.” Indonesia must be glad to know it’s not.

The reporters didn’t even provoke or needle in their questions. They seemed hushed. They looked like people who were absorbing the information that we all seem to be absorbing, which is that the wheels seem to be coming off this thing, the administration is wobbling—so early, so painfully and dangerously soon.

Well, again, it isn’t like many of us didn’t know that was gonna happen. Many of us knew that Obama was the most ill-equipped, ill-prepared president to ever be sworn in, and it will be a cold day in hell before I forgive the DNC for gaming the Primary for him. Because I, along with many of you, knew this was going to happen, didn’t we?

But I digress:

Thursday’s decision followed the most revealing and important broadcast interview of Barack Obama ever. It revealed his primary weakness in speaking of health care, which is a tendency to dodge, obfuscate and mislead. He grows testy when challenged. It revealed what the president doesn’t want revealed, which is that he doesn’t want to reveal much about his plan. This furtiveness is not helpful in a time of high public anxiety. At any rate, the interview was what such interviews rarely are, a public service. That it occurred at a high-stakes time, with so much on the line, only made it more electric.

I’m speaking of the interview Wednesday on Fox News Channel’s “Special Report With Bret Baier.” Fox is owned by News Corp., which also owns this newspaper, so one should probably take pains to demonstrate that one is attempting to speak with disinterest and impartiality, in pursuit of which let me note that Glenn Beck has long appeared to be insane.

That having been said, the Baier interview was something, and right from the beginning. Mr. Baier’s first question was whether the president supports the so-called Slaughter rule, alternatively known as “deem and pass,” which would avoid a straight up-or-down House vote on the Senate bill. (Tunku Varadarajan in the Daily Beast cleverly notes that it sounds like “demon pass,” which it does. Maybe that’s the juncture we’re at.) Mr. Obama, in his response, made the usual case for ObamaCare. Mr. Baier pressed him. The president said, “The vote that’s taken in the House will be a vote for health-care reform.” We shouldn’t, he added, concern ourselves with “the procedural issues.”

Further in, Mr. Baier: “So you support the deem-and-pass rule?” From the president, obfuscation. But he did mention something new: “They may have to sequence the votes.” The bill’s opponents would be well advised to look into that one.

Mr. Baier again: So you’ll go deem-and-pass and you don’t know exactly what will be in the bill?

Mr. Obama’s response: “By the time the vote has taken place, not only will I know what’s in it, you’ll know what’s in it, because it’s going to be posted and everybody’s going to be able to evaluate it on the merits.”

That’s news in two ways. That it will be posted—one assumes the president means on the Internet and not nailed to a telephone pole—should suggest it will be posted for a while, more than a few hours or days. So American will finally get a look at it. And the president was conceding that no, he doesn’t know what’s in the bill right now. It is still amazing that one year into the debate this could be true.

We know now that the bill has been published after the CBO gave it the score the Democrats wanted (seriously, are we really supposed to believe they are bi-partisan? As someone pointed out recently, if they WERE, they would post their results for one and all to see at the same time. That’s just for starters. Never mind the shell games being played with the money. And honestly, how can ANYONE forecast what is going to happen in TWENTY years? That’s just crap. No offense to the CBO or anything.). We also know it will NOT be available for “many, many” days before it’s voted on, as Obama claimed (what a surprise – he lied again). Of course, it would be nice if the president actually had a clue what was in the damn thing:

Mr. Baier pressed on the public’s right to know what is in the bill. We have been debating the bill for a year, the president responded: “The notion that this has been not transparent, that people don’t know what’s in the bill, everybody knows what’s in the bill. I sat for seven hours with—.”

Mr. Baier interrupts: “Mr. President, you couldn’t tell me what the special deals are that are in or not today.”

Mr. Obama: “I just told you what was in and what was not in.”

Mr. Baier: “Is Connecticut in?” He was referring to the blandishments—polite word—meant to buy the votes of particular senators.

Mr. Obama: “Connecticut—what are you specifically referring to?”

Mr. Baier: “The $100 million for the hospital? Is Montana in for the asbestos program? Is—you know, listen, there are people—this is real money, people are worried about this stuff.”

Mr. Obama: “And as I said before, this—the final provisions are going to be posted for many days before this thing passes.”

Mr. Baier pressed the president on his statement as a candidate for the presidency that a 50-plus-one governing mentality is inherently divisive. “You can’t govern” that way, Sen. Obama had said. Is the president governing that way now? Mr. Obama did not really answer.

Throughout, Mr. Baier pressed the president. Some thought this bordered on impertinence. I did not. Mr. Obama now routinely filibusters in interviews. He has his message, and he presses it forward smoothly, adroitly. He buries you in words. Are you worried what failure of the bill will do to you? I’m worried about what the status quo will do to the families that are uninsured . . .

Mr. Baier forced him off his well-worn grooves. He did it by stopping long answers with short questions, by cutting off and redirecting. In this he was like a low-speed bumper car. In the end the interview seemed to me a public service because everyone in America right now wants to see the president forced off his grooves and into candor on an issue that involves 17% of the economy. Again, the stakes are high. So Mr. Baier’s style seemed—this is admittedly subjective—not rude but within the bounds, and not driven by the antic spirit that sometimes overtakes reporters. He seemed to be trying to get new information. He seemed to be attempting to better inform the public.

Presidents have a right to certain prerogatives, including the expectation of a certain deference. He’s the president, this is history. But we seem to have come a long way since Ronald Reagan was regularly barked at by Sam Donaldson, almost literally, and the president shrugged it off. The president—every president—works for us. We don’t work for him. We sometimes lose track of this, or rather get the balance wrong. Respect is due and must be palpable, but now and then you have to press, to either force them to be forthcoming or force them to reveal that they won’t be. Either way it’s revealing.

And so it ends, with a health-care vote expected this weekend. I wonder at what point the administration will realize it wasn’t worth it—worth the discord, worth the diminution in popularity and prestige, worth the deepening of the great divide. What has been lost is so vivid, what has been gained so amorphous, blurry and likely illusory. Memo to future presidents: Never stake your entire survival on the painful passing of a bad bill. Never take the country down the road to Demon Pass.

Is she kidding? This Administration will NEVER admit it, it will never acknowledge its role int he discord that has so beset this country. Obama and his minions will simply blame the Republicans for any and all ill will, and continue on their merry way to bankrupting this country. Which they will do in oh-so-many ways, not the least of which is the economic underpinnings of the country if this bill goes through (according to Massachusetts Treasurer, Tim Cahill, assuming it is similar to what they have in that Commonwealth).

Anyway, this Administration will never, ever take any responsibility for the chaos they are wreaking on this country. It is up to us to stop them. If not now, in November. If not this weekend with this Healthcare debacle, then throughout the year as 38 states (so far) challenge the Constitutionality of this bill. We need healthcare reform, but not this one, not like this, not at this cost. It is a cost that is far, far too high…