That are going to make my head explode. First, news that the ten executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are still operating in the red, and which are largely to blame for the housing crisis, got BONUSES. And I am not talking little bonuses, either. Those ten mo-fos got = and you better sit the hell down and swallow whatever you are drinking – $12.79 MILLION DOLLARS. Yes, you read that number correctly.

Gosh, I hate this Administration:

The Federal Housing Finance Agency, the government regulator for Fannie and Freddie, approved $12.79 million in bonus pay after 10 executives from the two government-sponsored corporations last year met modest performance targets tied to modifying mortgages in jeopardy of foreclosure.

The executives got the bonuses about two years after the federally backed mortgage giants received nearly $170 billion in taxpayer bailouts — and despite pledges by FHFA, the office tasked with keeping them solvent, that it would adjust the level of CEO-level pay after critics slammed huge compensation packages paid out to former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines and others.

Securities and Exchange Commission documents show that Ed Haldeman, who announced last week that he is stepping down as Freddie Mac’s CEO, received a base salary of $900,000 last year yet took home an additional $2.3 million in bonus pay. Records show other Fannie and Freddie executives got similar Wall Street-style compensation packages; Fannie Mae CEO Michael Williams, for example, got $2.37 million in performance bonuses. (Click here to read the rest.)

So they got these massive bonuses for mild improvements after getting $170 BILLION of our taxpaying dollars. Are you freakin’ KIDDING me with this? Outrageous, just outrageous.

Just in case you need a reminder, check out this hearing from 2004:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Good grief, this makes my blood boil.

Next up is the Federal Government’s continued attacks on South Carolina, this time about our new Immigration law set to go into force in January. (You may recall that the NLRB went after SC for Boeing opening up a manufacturing plant here rather than in a union state, despite Boeing having plants in other states with unions, and which cost zero union jobs.)

Yes, the DOJ, that bastion of fairness and justice – cough, choke, cough – is attacking the state’s immigration law, which is similar to Arizona’s. If someone commits a crime, and the police have reason to suspect they are illegal, they can ask for proof of citizenship. If the person is illegal, the police officers will call in the appropriate immigration personnel to handle the offender. Additionally, businesses have to ensure their employees are here legally. (I thought everyone had to do that ANYWAY. I have had to prove my citizenship numerous times for positions I have taken.) But this DOJ takes umbrage with all of that, so it has filed a lawsuit against SC, naming Governor Haley as the defendant.

Now, let’s be clear – in no other country can you expect to go on your merry way if you are discovered to be there illegally. If you think you can live and work easily in another country without a visa, passport, or green card, go check it out. I’ll wait. Oh, no, I won’t because your ass will either be in jail, or on a plane home. No other country, including the two with whom we share borders, will allow you to live and work inside their country ILLEGALLY. Their laws are strict, and THEY ENFORCE THEM, unlike the United States.

The Federal government claims that this is their bastion – that’s their beef. Our governor, a daughter of LEGAL immigrants herself, Nikki Haley, said the government is not doing its job, it is not protecting our borders, it is not keeping out illegal aliens, and they are taking our jobs. Considering SC has higher unemployment than the national average, that is no small thing.

Here is more about both the law, and the complaint against it:

[snip] he government wants a judge to stop enforcement of the legislation, which requires that officers call federal immigration officials if they suspect someone is in the country illegally following a stop for something else, U.S. Attorney Bill Nettles told The Associated Press.

“The Department of Justice has many important tasks,” Nettles said. “Two of those important tasks are the defense of the constitution and ensuring equality is afforded to all.”

The law says all law enforcement officers are required to call federal immigration officials if they suspect someone is in the country illegally. The question must follow an arrest or traffic stop for something else. The measure bars officers from holding someone solely on that suspicion. Opponents railed against the measure as encouraging racial profiling.

[...]

The law also makes it a felony for someone to make fake photo IDs for illegal residents and creates a new law enforcement unit within the Department of Public Safety to enforce state immigration laws. It also makes it a felony for illegal immigrants to allow themselves to be transported.

Nettles said the law is unconstitutional and violates people’s right to due process.

I’m sorry, but none of those things sound all that egregious to me. The state wants to ensure people are living and working in the state legally, and it wants to punish those who try and get around that by making fake IDs, which I would think is illegal anyway. And this violates” due process”??

You know, if the DOJ wasn’t already such a laughing stock for the crap it has been pulling with not going after actual offenders, like the New Black Panther Party, or lying its freaking ass off over “Fast and Furious,” I might give them a tad more leeway. But they don’t deserve it. Not by a long shot.

Oh, but wait, there’s more. This is from none other than Janet Napolitano:

In a news release, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said South Carolina’s law “diverts critical law enforcement resources from the most serious threats to public safety and undermines the vital trust between local jurisdictions and the communities they serve, while failing to address the underlying problem: the need for comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level.” (Click here to read the rest.)

Oh, freakin’ spare me already. DO YOUR JOBS!!! This is just another wordy excuse for not doing what the US Constitution declares is the role of the Federal Government – to protect the country and its citizens from “invasion.” Do your damn job, and stop attacking states when they have to resort to taking care of their own borders for lack of federal action.

And speaking of the DOJ and lying its ass off over programs like “Fast and Furious,” the DOJ dumped a TON of emails on Congress the night before another hearing on this program. Yep. They have had months to do this, but waited until the very last minute to release 650 pages. Why? Well, because there was a hearing scheduled for the next day, that’s why.

But get this – not only are there more Congresspeople demanding Holder step down, but the data dump revealed the following:

[snip] The new documents, according to Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, “indicate that contrary to previous denials by the Justice Department, the criminal division has a great deal of culpability in sweeping the previous Wide Receiver strategy under the rug and then allowing the subsequent Operation Fast and Furious to continue without asking key questions.”

“Most importantly, officials raised very appropriate questions related to Operation Wide Receiver at the same time that many of these same officials were receiving briefings on Operation Fast and Furious,” Grassley said in a statement. “It begs the question why they didn’t ask the same important policy questions about an ongoing case being run out of the same field division.” [snip](Click here to read the rest.)

Have I mentioned how much I hate this Administration?

So, sorry if this makes your head explode, too. I just had to share. I am sure there are things going on in your neck of the woods or with this government that are getting on your last nerve, too. Feel free to share that with us, too. I need an aspirin…

Let the White House Proclaim:

Happy Hugo Chavez Day!

Happy Ramadan!

Happy 100th Anniversary of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire!

Happy Eid-ul-Fitr

Happy Earth Day!

Happy Eid-ul-Adha!

Happy Nowruz!

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

Huh?

According to this Daily Caller piece:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That does seem pretty specifically Christian to me.

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

If it is even mentioned, that is…

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

[snip] “O’REILLY: Are they a threat?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– Allah is our objective.

– The Prophet is our leader.

– Qur’an is our law.

– Jihad is our way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Americans are notoriously naïve.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

Ms. Powers seems to be of the same opinion:

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remember how Obama went on and on about the mosque-builders and freedom of religion, as if this had anything whatsoever to do with freedom of religion? I know, I know, how could anyone forget THAT little debacle.

But get this. Now the concern is about those of us who are speaking OUT about building the mosque near Ground Zero are inciting terrorists. Yes, if we have the audacity to be upset that Imam Rauf wants to build his cultural center and mosque at a site he picked SOLELY for its proximity to Ground Zero and as a site that was hit by part of the jet that disintegrated flying into the Twin Towers, we are empowering the terrorists.

Oh, how I wish I was making this up, but it was reported by no less than NPR in this piece by Dina Temple-Raston, “Rancor Over Mosque Could Fuel Islamic Extremists.” Oh, oh – someone didn’t get the memo that we don’t use that term anymore – “Islamic Extremists.” What, are they bigots or something? Ahem. Anyway, yes, by us utilizing our Constitutional Right Of Free Speech, we are giving ammunition to the Islamic Extremists who want to do us harm, according to this article:

Experts worry the controversy surrounding an Islamic center near ground zero in Lower Manhattan is playing right into the hands of radical extremists.

The supercharged debate over the proposed center has attracted the attention of a quiet, underground audience — young Muslims who drift in and out of jihadi chat rooms and frequent radical Islamic sites on the Web. It has become the No. 1 topic of discussion in recent days and proof positive, according to some of the posted messages, that America is indeed at war with Islam.

“This, unfortunately, is playing right into their hands,” said Evan F. Kohlmann, who tracks these kinds of websites and chat rooms for Flashpoint Global partners, a New York-based security firm. “Extremists are encouraging all this, with glee.

“It is their sense that by doing this that Americans are going to alienate American Muslims to the point where even relatively moderate Muslims are going to be pushed into joining extremist movements like al-Qaida. They couldn’t be happier.”

Ah, yes. It is all our fault that we want just a little sensitivity from this Muslim cleric. How dare we. (And if you want to read the rest of the NPR piece, click HERE.)

Hmmm – what does it say that there is a concern that even “moderate Muslims” in the US, because people are asking for sensitivity, not a pox on all things Islamic, could be coerced into acting against the country in which they live? I can’t decide if that is a backhanded slap against moderate Muslims that they could so easily be pushed, or an attempt to silence critics in general.

But here’s a little newsflash: We don’t have to do a damn thing but be Americans to incite these Islamic Extremists. I’m serious. All we have to do is be who we are, and that is sufficient. Remember the first WTC bombing in 1993? I don’t recall anyone going out of their way trash-talking Islam to incite that event. Remember 9/11? The WTC, the Pentagon, and whatever the target was of the plane that was wrested away from the terrorists and crashed into a field in Pennsylvania? Was anyone going out of their way to talk smack about Islam? No, I don’t think so. How about the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000?

If you want to get an idea of how much Islamic terrorists have wanted to attack us for a period less than a decade, click here to read a statement to the Joint Chiefs from 2002 listing the numerous terrorist attempts on the US or our territories. That is just from 2/93 – 9/01.

Unfortunately, I could go on and on and on. No amount of political correctness, or respect for Islam in general, can negate the reality that there are Islamic radicals who want to attack Americans here and abroad. And if we stop exercising our rights as American citizens to try and pacify them, to not raise their ire against us, then THEY HAVE WON.

If that is the case, then all of those who died in the attacks on the US Embassies, those 17 sailors who died on board the USS Cole, and the thousands who died on 9/11, did so in vain. And that cannot stand.

We cannot allow the threat of more violence to silence us, whatever the issue is. We cannot be coerced to give up our Constitutional rights on the possibility that our fulfillment of these same rights might feel antagonistic to those who wish us harm. We cannot stop being Americans lest we somehow, whether consciously or not, enrage a group by our sheer existence.

Can we?

*Update* Check out this interview of Andrea Mitchell and Ambassador Ahmed. Apparently, what we should be concerned about is how those of us who oppose the mosque in that location are going to impact President Obama’s desire to reach out to the Muslim World. Oh, wow…

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.

George W. Bush. No, really – I’m serious. They want George W. Bush to weigh in on the building of this particular mosque near Ground Zero. Would I lie to you? No. And wait until you see who a couple of the writers are requesting Bush’s input in this Byron York article in the Washington Examiner, “Mosque supporters beg George W. Bush to come to Obama’s rescue“:

It’s time for W. to weigh in,” writes the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd. Bush, Dowd explains, understands that “you can’t have an effective war against the terrorists if it is a war on Islam.” Dowd finds it “odd” that Obama seems less sure on that matter. But to set things back on the right course, she says, “W. needs to get his bullhorn back out” — a reference to Bush’s famous “the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!” speech at Ground Zero on September 14, 2001.

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson is also looking for an assist from Bush. “I…would love to hear from former President Bush on this issue,” Robinson wrote Tuesday in a Post chat session. “He held Ramadan iftar dinners in the White House as part of a much broader effort to show that our fight against the al-Qaeda murderers who attacked us on 9/11 was not a crusade against Islam. He was absolutely right on this point, and it would be helpful to hear his views.”

And Peter Beinart, a former editor of the New Republic, is also feeling some nostalgia for the former president. “Words I never thought I’d write: I pine for George W. Bush,” Beinart wrote Tuesday in The Daily Beast. “Whatever his flaws, the man respected religion, all religion.” Beinart longs for the days when Bush “used to say that the ‘war on terror’ was a struggle on behalf of Muslims, decent folks who wanted nothing more than to live free like you and me…”

Come on, isn’t that hilarious? These are the same people who vilified Bush routinely, routinely!!! And now, now that the man they supported after consuming massive amounts of Kool Aide, and smoking tons of Hopium, and shoved down our throats, refusing to do any vetting whatsoever, has made such a mess of this issue, they want BUSH to weigh in? This is one of the funniest things I have heard in a while. Maureen Dowd?? Eugene ROBINSON?? Oh, wow.

Well, someone else who has weighed in is Debra Burlingame, from the 9/11 Families. Did she ever have something to say, especially about Madam Speaker Pelosi’s remarks about funding:

Well, Ms. Burlingame certainly didn’t mince words. Agree with her or not, there is no misunderstanding from where she is coming on this issue.

There is one group from whom we have not heard on this whole mosque business. And that would be moderate Muslims. What is their take on Imam Rauf’s building the mosque near Ground Zero? They, too, are quite clear: don’t build it. That is the upshot of this Daily Caller article by Caroline May, “Moderate Muslims Oppose Location of Cordoba Mosque – On Religious Grounds.” This article is well worth the read, but a few salient quotes:

[snip] Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, told TheDC that moderate Muslims have been silent on the matter, despite possible disagreements, due to religious concerns. According to Fatah, however, the need to avoid causing another person pain should trump such conflicts.

“There is a widespread belief among Muslim teaching that anyone who opposes the construction of a mosque, which is the house of God, is committing a sin,” he said. “So a lot of people who want to voice their opinion do not want to become a part of the controversy. But especially during the month of Ramadan it is important that our actions not cause pain to anyone. Any action by a Muslim that causes any pain to anyone else should be halted!” [snip]

That explains a lot – the widespread belief, that is. It helps to know why moderate Muslims have been quiet throughout this discussion. There is more:

Fatah believes the mosque plans are moving forward because they have the support of the American government. “I think they have an official green light either from the State Department or the White House telling them to, ‘Go ahead, you have our full backing,’ and they want to use this Islamic center as a place for diplomacy to the Middle East to demonstrate that the United States is a place where Muslims thrive. But that has backfired because this could have been done in many other ways.”

Jasser said that the building of this mosque is ‘fitna,’ a religious term meaning mischief-making, which is severely frowned upon in Islam. “‘Fitna’ is anything that causes chaos in society,” he said. “This mosque is causing chaos, it is causing ‘fitna’ and that is not the Islamic thing to do … This is ‘fitna’ and ‘fitna’ is wrong.”

Fatah agreed saying that ‘fitna’ is an ethical and moral issue that ought not be taken lightly. “If a step taken by an individual causes disharmony then it is ‘fitna.’ [The mosque] has caused so much pain. There are many mosques already in New York, nobody has ever opposed a mosque, if there is opposition to a mosque on grounds of hatred I would be the first to confront it. But over here it is a matter of sensitivity and there is no residential community even near the community center.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

“Mischief-making.” Yes, that seems to be a good term for what Imam Rauk is doing, along with Obama, I might add. And yes, the State Department sending Imam Rauf on a tour of the Middle East on our dime, at a cost of $16,000, certainly appears to condone the building the mosque by essentially endorsing Rauf.

But Fatah said it all. This is not about hatred. It is about sensitivity (about which I wrote recently, too). This decision is causing pain, to a number of people. Two thirds of New Yorkers oppose building the mosque there. Two thirds of Americans oppose building the mosque within two blocks of Ground Zero. Not because they/we/I oppose building mosques in general, but because we oppose it being built THERE, overlooking where Ground Zero stands, a hallowed ground to New Yorkers, to our nation.

George W. Bush can say something or not, doesn’t really matter to me. As far as I am concerned, the opposition is about sensitivity to those who lost loved ones, and to a nation that suffered a devastating attack there. It is not a matter of “freedom of religion,” or “freedom to practice religion.” It is about ceasing the mischief making, an “ethical and moral issue” of some weight.

I think that pretty much says it all, don’t you?

But Larry is not the only one with something to say about Obama’s proclamation. Here are just a few more statements being made this morning, compiled by AOL News:

[snip] Fitting Statement, But…
President Obama’s remarks about the community center and mosque planned for the neighborhood of Ground Zero were a fitting restatement of fundamental American fealty to freedom of religion….That said, it must also be recognized — and unfortunately Obama did not do so fully — that the hallowed ground of 9/11 stirs the deepest of emotions. That’s why, even as most of those polled saw the right to build, 64% still said the location was simply wrong for a mosque and Islamic-related facility…Those are legitimate sentiments, born not of bigotry but of reverence. They must be respected. — Editorial, New York Daily News

Not Hedging a Bit
The foes of the Islamic center have been trying to drag Obama into this debate, and some have urged Obama to avoid wading into it. But now he has, and he isn’t hedging a bit: He’s saying that opposing the group’s right to build the Islamic center is, in essence, un-American. I look forward to the response from the project’s opponents. – Greg Sargent, The Washington Post

Missing the Point
Like so much of the other stuff Obama says, this is an exercise in missing the point. The issue is not, legally, whether the Muslims can construct a mosque at Ground Zero — that is, whether state action should prevent them from doing so as long as they operate in “accordance with local laws and ordinances.” Of course not. That would be unconstitutional. But there’s a lot of stuff that’s legal that still isn’t right. And so, when it comes to the mosque, the real question is whether it should be built, and at only this one particular site — whether constructing it at Ground Zero is decent, and kind, and respectful of Americans’ sensitivities. – Carol Platt Liebau, Town Hall [snip]

I agree with Ms. Liebau – Obama is missing the point, as is Greg Sargent. This is not about freedom of religion – of course Muslims are free to practice their religion in the United States, as we all are (including the freedom not to practice religion). This is a canard, the purpose of which is a deliberate attempt to distort the real issue.

So, let’s be clear here. This mosque is not just any mosque, but one headed up by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. A man who is currently on tour of the Middle East courtesy of our State Department, and our dime. A man who refuses to condemn Hamas. A man who says we are partly to blame for 9/11. A man State Department spokesweasel P.J. Crowley says won’t be talking about religion, and won’t be fund-raising when he goes to countries like the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia to pay for the mosque he wants to build near Ground Zero.

But here’s the thing – Rauf has been offered other property on which to build his mosque by Gov. Patterson. He declined. He WANTS it to be in the shadow of Ground Zero. It begs the question: why?

This isn’t about freedom of religion. It is about reverence, about sensitivity to one of the most horrible acts of war on our shores, committed by Muslim extremists. That is not a right wing talking point, that is reality, a fact. The Twin Towers were brought down by Muslim extremists who sought to do us harm. And they did.

Perhaps President Obama, and all of the liberals who are working so hard to be “politically correct” and paint those who desire to not have this mosque so close to Ground Zero as a bunch of intolerant, insensitive yahoos should take a look at the video below, and remember. Remember what happened that day, not just to New Yorkers, but at the Pentagon, in a field in Pennsylvania, to all Americans, and to the world. This isn’t about freedom of religion. It is about this:

No, this is about reverence. It is about honoring the memories of all who were lost in this devastating attack at the hands of Muslim extremists. It is about sensitivity to those families and friends who lost loved ones, and to all Americans who lost a sense of safety that day. It is about all of us, whose lives were changed forever the day those planes were flown into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and the field in Pennsylvania.

How dare anyone try and make this out to be anything other than that. It is not about freedom of religion, or the right of one group to practice that religion. It is about a modicum of grace. A modicum of respect. We would no more accept a KKK headquarters in Selma, or a Japanese WWII memorial at Pearl Harbor, or a German Cultural museum on the beaches of Normandy. No, we wouldn’t, and we shouldn’t accept this as a “freedom of religion” issue. It isn’t.

Imam Fauk was offered another piece of real estate in the city of New York, which already has more than 100 mosques. He declined. He is determined to have it near Ground Zero.

And again I ask, why?

This video explains why I haven’t uploaded many videos lately. It is the first in a three-part series that tells of a musical I have been working on, which I hope will at least provide some entertainment for my friends on No Quater and on my Youtube channel.

If you enjoy musicals, you might enjoy this affectionate parody of musicals in general and some of the great classic musicals like West Side Story, My Fair Lady, Damn Yankees, Singing In The Rain, a Chorus Line, Hello Dolly, How to Succeed in Business (Without Really Trying), and a number of others.

Two more videos are to follow (unless everyone hates the first one!)`

Naturally, my prejudices are evident in the video, even if it is about something as seemingly innocuous as musicals. Political correctness is one of them.

Actually I think they are a bunch of socialized capitalists because they want you to buy this CD for your friends, family and self so they can donate $4.00 from each CD to the NoQauarter spam-killer for mandatory, voluntary reeducation.

Actually it will go towards this website’s operating costs, and that’s good for the Nuts because they are counting on NQ people to provide them fodder for their 2010 release, tentatively titled “ “ to accurately depict all of the great DC accomplishments of late.

The debut CD was written around political and governmental shenanigans that seem to be repeated every cycle by the parties in power. So, instead of burning the few electron-producing chemicals that remain in my head trying to tell you more about the GoverNuts, I will just drop in a few lyrics from the CD.

Hide your wallet. Politika Rock

The polilitika rock is a pile of crock
But I guess we like the rhythm of the blues
Everybody’s swaying to political sayings
And turning on the late night news

Now the GoverNuts got a brand new band
And they think it’ll go all the way
But when they put your hands in your pockets
You can almost hear them say

Politika roll (big money) politika rock
Well we vote ‘em in because we think it’s a sin
To see a politician work a real job

Chicago Politics, most interesting politics
The circus is coming to your town
With jerks, buffoons and elephants
From the House of Delegates
And certified administrative clowns

The big boys put a contract out on capitol hill
Well here’s the deal. Why don’t you all just go home!
We’ll take over. We won’t write no bills
There’ll be no more debates under the capitol dome

Balanced budget. Who do we owe this money to anyhow
Who was dumb enough to loan us this much in the first place

Hail, hail to the mob – We’re going to get it right
- No more parlimentary gobligook
- Peace. Not democracy
- Our way is your way
Hail, hail to the mob –

It’s the Chicago Way.

And evening with me could be the thrill of your life
My shift is almost over let me give you a ride
I got a suitcase full of goodies that I saved form a bust
And the local bar is part of my security trust

We’ll..Turn this whole damn town
Into a pornographic pit
Run out all the preachers
And bring in all the pimps

Put a banner on the interstate
Saying: “Welcome Everyone”
To the world’s largest
Pornographic pit

..they’ve given a whole new meaning
To home town U.S.A.

Come one – Gather all. Now is the time for the Chicken Liveration. Chicken’s Rights!
Brak bak ba ..

Over on the hill by the chicken house
The chicks were having a ball
With pigs at the door, a real live band
And corn from wall to wall

Well everything was going fine
Till off in the distance they heard
A band of people (people!) people
Speaking those people words

It was a very good year because we ate a lot of chicken

Well Clara McClacker said: “Stop the ball!”
Now’s come a time for one and for all
To gather together in the Chicken Liveration

We woke up and saw what they’d done
They’d given us no place to run
The moral minority is now the majority
“Let’s pray” is the priority.

It’s balanced.

The GOP holds a party
And puts a gorilla with religion at the door
While the democrats gather down at the river
And pass around the hat for more.

When I’m dead please bury me in downtown Chicago
So I can still keep casting my vote!

Following on the heels of their macabre Afghan war protest at a White House Halloween party that targeted children of military families for psychological abuse, leftist Obama ally Code Pink issued a statement justifying the terrorist attack at Fort Hood as opposition to the war from officers and put out a Veterans Day appeal seeking to raise money off the Fort Hood terrorist attack.

Signed by top Obama funder Jodie Evans, the appeal was published at Code Pink’s website on Veterans Day and sent out the same day to the group’s e-mail list. The terrorist attack at Fort Hood is cited three times in the fundraising letter.

As appalling as cashing in on the mass murder of 14 innocents is, Code Pink tops that by invoking sympathy for the alleged terrorist as a reason to give money to Code Pink–even putting his act of terrorism on the same moral plane as the recent protest resignation of a former officer who left his diplomatic post in Afghanistan over Obama’s war policy:

“This Veteran’s Day, you can support Under the Hood and the soldiers who walk through their doors with a cash or in-kind donation…

“Click here to see how else you can support Under the Hood (in-kind donations accepted too).

“Our soldiers clearly need more care; the last thing they need is to be put into more harm’s way. Even US military officers think so–Matthew Hoh resigned from the Foreign Service in protest of the lack of clear mission and achievable results in Afghanistan, and of course the Ft. Hood shooter was a Major who did not wish to be deployed to Afghanistan.”

Think about that. Code Pink says a mass murder terrorist act against unarmed soldiers is the moral equivalance (sic) of a protest resignation.

I don’t know about you, but this is disgusting. I don’t know how else to categorize it. It is disgusting to equate one man’s respectful resignation to another man’s alleged mass murder. What the hell is WRONG with these people?? If only it stopped there:

Code Pink is even more direct in their justification for the terrorist attack allegedly by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan in a statement posted to their website that they encourage opponents of America in Afghanistan to send to President Obama:

The recent shootings at Ft. Hood and the resignation of top Foreign Service officer Matthew Hoh demonstrate how even our military officers are opposed to US strategy in Afghanistan.

Code Pink claims the money will be used to fund a campaign operated out of a coffee shop near Fort Hood called Under the Hood that preys on soldiers and their families. However, the donation link goes to Code Pink’s fundraising page and not to Under the Hood’s website. Note, fundraising links in this story are deliberately not active.

This is some organization with which Obama has aligned himself, isn’t it? I am just thoroughly disgusted. TO read the rest of the story, which includes more about “Under the Hood,” the relationship between Obama and Jodie Evans, and additional articles about Code Pink, please click HERE. Disturbing, just disturbing.

And it makes this Krauthammer piece that much more salient, Explaining Away Mass Murder. Indeed That is exactly what the Code Pink fudnraisers are doing with their despicable fundraising efforts:

– What a surprise — that someone who shouts “Allahu Akbar” (the “God is great” jihadist battle cry) as he is shooting up a room of American soldiers might have Islamist motives. It certainly was a surprise to the mainstream media, which spent the weekend after the Fort Hood massacre downplaying Nidal Hasan’s religious beliefs.

“I cringe that he’s a Muslim. … I think he’s probably just a nut case,” said Newsweek’s Evan Thomas. Some were more adamant. Time’s Joe Klein decried “odious attempts by Jewish extremists … to argue that the massacre perpetrated by Nidal Hasan was somehow a direct consequence of his Islamic beliefs.” While none could match Klein’s peculiar cherchez-le-juif motif, the popular story line was of an Army psychiatrist driven over the edge by terrible stories he had heard from soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Uh huh. And why is it that someone can’t be nuts AND a terrorist? Many people would see those words as not being the least bit contradictory when used in conjunction. Oops – silly me – inserting logic into that ridiculous argument:

They suffered. He listened. He snapped.

Really? What about the doctors and nurses, the counselors and physical therapists at Walter Reed Army Medical Center who every day hear and live with the pain and the suffering of returning soldiers? How many of them then picked up a gun and shot 51 innocents?

And what about civilian psychiatrists — not the Upper West Side therapist treating Woody Allen neurotics, but the thousands of doctors working with hospitalized psychotics — who every day hear not just tales but cries of the most excruciating anguish, of the most unimaginable torment? How many of those doctors commit mass murder?

It’s been decades since I practiced psychiatry. Perhaps I missed the epidemic.

But, of course, if the shooter is named Nidal Hasan, whom National Public Radio reported had been trying to proselytize doctors and patients, then something must be found. Presto! Secondary post-traumatic stress disorder, a handy invention to allow one to ignore the obvious.

And the perfect moral finesse. Medicalizing mass murder not only exonerates. It turns the murderer into a victim, indeed a sympathetic one. After all, secondary PTSD, for those who believe in it (you won’t find it in DSM-IV-TR, psychiatry’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), is known as “compassion fatigue.” The poor man — pushed over the edge by an excess of sensitivity.

I wonder if Dr. Krauthammer would pay a visit to the entire fundraising staff, Obama’s allies, at Code Pink? Now THAT would be a visit I’d like to see, especially since Dr. Krauthammer, like me, thinks this is, well, in my word, obscene:

Have we totally lost our moral bearings? Nidal Hasan (allegedly) cold-bloodedly killed 13 innocent people. In such cases, political correctness is not just an abomination. It’s a danger, clear and present.

Consider the Army’s treatment of Hasan’s previous behavior. NPR’s Daniel Zwerdling interviewed a Hasan colleague at Walter Reed about a hair-raising Grand Rounds that Hasan had apparently given. Grand Rounds are the most serious academic event at a teaching hospital — attending physicians, residents and students gather for a lecture on an instructive case history or therapeutic finding.

I’ve been to dozens of these. In fact, I gave one myself on post-traumatic retrograde amnesia — as you can see, these lectures are fairly technical. Not Hasan’s. His was an hour-long disquisition on what he called the Koranic view of military service, jihad and war. It included an allegedly authoritative elaboration of the punishments visited upon nonbelievers — consignment to hell, decapitation, having hot oil poured down your throat. This “really freaked a lot of doctors out,” reported NPR.

Nor was this the only incident. “The psychiatrist,” reported Zwerdling, “said that he was the kind of guy who the staff actually stood around in the hallway saying: Do you think he’s a terrorist, or is he just weird?”

Was anything done about this potential danger? Of course not. Who wants to be accused of Islamophobia and prejudice against a colleague’s religion?

One must not speak of such things. Not even now. Not even after we know that Hasan was in communication with a notorious Yemen-based jihad propagandist. As late as Tuesday, The New York Times was running a story on how returning soldiers at Fort Hood had a high level of violence.

So many excuses, so little relevance:

What does such violence have to do with Hasan? He was not a returning soldier. And the soldiers who returned home and shot their wives or fellow soldiers didn’t cry “Allahu Akbar” as they squeezed the trigger.

The delicacy about the religion in question — condescending, politically correct and deadly — is nothing new. A week after the first (1993) World Trade Center attack, the same New York Times ran the following front-page headline about the arrest of one Mohammed Salameh: “Jersey City Man Is Charged in Bombing of Trade Center.”

Ah yes, those Jersey men — so resentful of New York, so prone to violence.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Indeed. Ahem. That organizations like Code Pink are painting this mass murderer of unarmed soldiers in such a sympathetic light, and with such moral superiority, indicates just how far from our moral base we have strayed. At a time when the fallen from that massacre are being buried, for this organization to depict Hasan as nothing more than a victim of US policy, and on the same level as a distinguished war veteran and US State Department employee who resigned with integrity is simply reprehensible.

In other words, the fundraisers at Code Pink, Obama’s ally, have lost their frikkin’ minds. I would say they should be ashamed of themselves, but they clearly, CLEARLY, have no shame at all. And that is most disturbing of all.

One last thing, to the families and friends of those fallen, it breaks my heart that in addition to such a grievous loss, you now have to deal with such outrageous fundraising attempts by a group excusing the actions of this man, Nidal Malik Hasan. I regret that you have to even deal with such additional lunacy an disrespect at this very difficult time. My heart and prayers go out to you all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Decisive Action

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

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

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

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

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

“I don’t want to die.”

“This really hurts.”

“Help me get out of here.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sgt. Munley got her question answered:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaking of family:

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

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

Facebook Tributes to Fort Hood Hero

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

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

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

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

Whatever one may think of Rush Limbaugh, the controversy surrounding his attempts to participate in a consortium buying the Rams has made for some strange bedfellows. Apparently Limbaugh was falsely accused of making racist statements he did not make. Juan Williams of FOX News stood up for the truth and was told he should “get back on the porch.” Understandably, Mr. Williams was furious. While he has at times been critical of President Obama, it is not his habit. Imagine his horror when he realized that if he dares for once to tell a truth that is not “politically correct,” he too will be thrown under the bus by race baiters.

Mr. Williams interviews commentator Tammy Bruce and the Rev. Ken Hutcherson, PhD, a former NFL player, conservative pastor and African American who is close friends with Mr. Limbaugh. This 7:45 video is well worth your time…*

This segment speaks truth to power. What do you think?

But here’s the problem for me. I had really liked President Carter. I had a lot of respect for him, in fact. I was young and naive when he was in office, but certainly the work he had done AFTER leaving the White House was commendable. For instance, the work he and his entire family did for Habitat for Humanity has helped numerous people, including in my home town. I have experienced firsthand seeing the joy and pride the new homeowner as she looked at her house, and talked about what it meant to her. And the group of university students with whom I was working, all female, becoming more empowered, more sure of themselves, because they were helping to build someone a HOUSE, and the sense of pride and accomplishment that gave them.

The work Carter has done in Africa, helping to eradicate a horrible disease of worms that infiltrate too many areas there, doing horrible damage to the people they infest. Or his work in monitoring elections. Heck, even his recent decision to leave his church of many years because they will not ordain women.

My partner and I have visited the Carter Presidential Library in Atlanta, GA, a beautiful place in a calming and serene environment. I walked through that buildung filled with a sense of awe, seeing what he gave up, and subsequently his wife, when he left his commission as a Naval officer behind to go back to Georgia and help out the family. As I saw photographs marking historic moments, actual papers from events I had read about, or seen on tv. I was in awe as I saw his actual Nobel Peace Prize. And with pride, we have supported the Carter Peace Center for years now with monthly contributions…

(Photo by rachydachy)

But, things have been changed now. It began with some of his statements about Israel. Then President Carter inserted himself into the Primary Campaign, making some unkind remarks about my hero, “>Hillary Clinton. And now this. Being called a racist because I oppose the way by which Obama became President, but even more, because I oppose his policies. When someone calls me a racist, I gotta say (as we do down here in the South, “Them’s fightin’ words.” And so, I have written this letter to send to the Carter Center when my next payment is due:

Dear Carter Center,

Sincerely,
The Rev. Amy

What a sad day, for me personally, but also for this nation, when a former president makes such a grievous, and unfounded, charge against over half of the population. Because we have the audacity to judge the president by his CHARACTER, rather than the color of his skin, as Martin Luther King, Jr., charged us to do, we are called a heinous name. How sad, and how infuriating.

President Carter, as respectfully as I can muster after being called a racist, I would suggest it is time for you to go into retirement, and leave off sharing your political opinions. You are not doing yourself or your legacy any good, to be sure. Even more, you are not doing this nation any good. Rather, you are fanning flames that divide us, not unite us, all to provide cover for a man who, had he been properly vetted in the first place, and had the DNC followed its own rules, would never have gotten this far. Speaking for me only, I am judging Obama on the merits, not the color of his skin. I suggest you do likewise.