If the pope called for the destruction of all the mosques in Europe, the uproar would be cataclysmic. Pundits would lambaste the church, the White House would rush out a statement of deep concern, and rioters in the Middle East would kill each other in their grief. But when the most influential leader in the Muslim world issues a fatwa to destroy Christian churches, the silence is deafening.

And this is a problem with B.O. how?

The White House has placed international outreach to Muslims at the center of its foreign policy in an effort to promote the image of the United States as an Islam-friendly nation. This cannot come at the expense of standing up for the human rights and religious liberties of minority groups in the Middle East. The region is a crucial crossroads. Islamist radicals…are testing the waters in their relationship with the outside world, looking for signals of how far they can go in imposing their radical vision of a Shariah-based theocracy. Ignoring provocative statements like the mufti’s sends a signal to these groups that they can engage in the same sort of bigotry and anti-Christian violence with no consequences.
Mr. Obama’s outreach campaign to the Muslim world has failed to generate the good will that he expected.

DUH!

In part, this was because he felt it was better to pander to prejudice than to command respect.

DUH, again!

When members of the Islamic establishment call for the religious equivalent of ethnic cleansing, the leader of the free world must respond or risk legitimizing the oppression that follows. The United States should not bow to the extremist dictates of the grand mufti, no matter how desperate the White House is for him to like us.

True, but too late with the warning. Stuff like this contrinutes to polling results showing that many state that B.O. is really Muslim. By their fruits ye shall know them? Just sayin’…

The future independent Palestinian state will not include a Jewish minority, a top Palestinian official told USA Today on Wednesday…

Hmmmm. This has already been tried, when a leading Euro power set the goal of becoming “Jew-free”…except that they called it “Judenfrei”:

Synagogue in German-occupied Bydgoszcz. The inscription reads: “This city is free of Jews”
And B.O. demands that Israel knuckle under in “negotiations”, while the United Socialist Nations plans on effectively converting Israel into a giant ghetto.

“Jesus wept.”

Ever wonder how much a Tomahawk missile costs? How about 110 of them? And what effect will those prices have on GOP attemps to trim the budget? Those are the questions that many are asking as American involves itself in yet another international conflict. And the answers aren’t too settling.

Well, DUH! Fighting even a limited high-tech war is an expensive business, in any sense of the word!

The question that remains unanswered is what in the world are we really trying to accomplish with this one. There’s info out there that the best organized eastern Libyan opposition to Qaddafi is our old fave al-Qaida. Not wouldn’t THAT be an improvement to Muammar? (NOT!)

We would be better advised to husband our resources, and not be involved with this one….Like, if you’re hiking down the trail and come upon a scorpion dueling with a rattlesnake, would you choose a side and get involved? No thanks!

Hamas leaders are committed to a systematic ”witch hunt” and 150 women were arrested in 2010 in Gaza for having made recourse to witchcraft of some sort. During a symposium held in recent days in Gaza, it was stated that in the eyes of Hamas, the activities of these women represent a real social danger, also because they risk ”breaking up families,” causing divorce and frittering away of money. Sometimes their activities also have criminal repercussions. One awareness campaign against ”the witches” was launched using large posters in mosques, universities and public offices frequented by women.

These are the people that some expect and demand that Israel and/or the USA should negotiate with? Really?

The Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s largest opposition group,is in talks with other anti-government figures to form a national unity government without President Hosni Mubarak, a group official told DPA on Sunday.

Although the Muslim Brotherhood is officially banned from running for elections for parliament, some movement members have presented candidacy for parliament as independents.

This would NOT good for the U.S., indeed or for Western Civilization itself:

The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is a “Civilization-Jihadist” process with all the word means. The Ikhwan [M.B.] must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” their 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 religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who choose to slack. [This description was in a Dallas Morning News piece by Rod Dreher, but is apparently no longer accessible there.]

For a bit more up to date explanation and treatment go here. This link includes an instructive look at one of the previously noted apologists ostriches.

Administration mouthpieces, and others who are currently downplaying any threat from the Muslim Brotherhood, either have a severe case of poor situational awareness, or some other agenda than the national interest and survival of United States constitutional principles.

Is Yemen the most dangerous new front in the war on terror?

In case you don’t recall, one of Major Hasan’s internet e-mail pen pals is Yemeni Sheikh Anwar al-Awlaki.

Sheikh Anwar’s latest blogpost describes Major Hasan as a “hero”, a man of conscience. Given that the cleric says other Muslims have a right, or a duty, to behave similarly, army investigators will no doubt be keen to see who else was in contact with him. But the blog is worth reading for other reasons, too. Last month, for instance, Sheikh Anwar told us to expect the unexpected. But the message had nothing to do with Fort Hood. Instead, his focus was closer to hand: “Could Yemen be the Next Surprise of the Season?” he asked.

The Yemen situation is truly what the Brits might refer to as “a sticky wicket”.

The multiple crises afflicting Yemen are not a surprise to anyone who has been watching, and certainly not to those in Washington. There is every reason to suppose that the US authorities are far more alarmed over events there than they were over Major Hasan, but they have been similarly unsure how to react. Some commentators in the Middle East are starting to see this as a trend: an uncertainty over how to deal with the Muslim world is leading to disaster.

Yemen, which occupies an important position at the tip of the Red Sea and on the borders of Saudi Arabia, is home to three separate conflicts. One is against al-Qaeda, which has put down strong roots in the territory, the ancestral home of the Bin Laden clan. One is against secessionists in the south. The third is the most obscure, the most seemingly pointless, but the most destructive: a long, drawn-out campaign against an insurgency by a group of Shia tribalists known as the Houthis.

Fir the gory details of Yemen (“It ain’t that pretty at all.”) go to the piece. Meanwhile, on other fronts of WW-IV, formerly known as the G.W.O.T., things aren’t much better:

…In the Occupied Territories, America has scuppered its Palestinian ally Mahmoud Abbas by allowing him to set conditions for talks with Israel which it then allowed Israel to ignore.

On Iran, Washington set a deadline for a response to a proposed deal on enriched uranium, and then let the deadline pass. Israel and Saudi Arabia, who both regard Iran as a mortal enemy, are taking counsel.

In Afghanistan, it has just given itself more time to decide whether to send extra troops. Can Hamid Karzai even consider himself a friend of America any more?

The trend was summarised by Riad Kahwaji, the chief executive of the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis, in a research note yesterday: “It is a bad time to be an American ally.” He quotes one Arab official as asking, “With a weak and hesitant ally, who needs enemies?”

No such uncertainty affects the Houthis, whose slogan could not be clearer: “God is Great; Death to America; Death to Israel.” [emphases added]

As is common these days…one needs to go to the UK press to get a decent picture of events.

An Army psychiatrist who reportedly feared an impending war deployment is in custody as the sole suspect in a shooting rampage at Fort Hood in Texas that left 12 dead and 31 wounded, an Army official said Thursday night.

The news that the suspect, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, was alive and in stable condition came as a sudden reversal of early reports that the gunman was among the dead.

“I would say his death is not imminent,” Lt. Gen. Bob Cone said. Col. Ben Danner said the suspect was shot at least four times.

Dang! Survived four bullets. Too bad.

The rampage was believed to be the deadliest at a U.S. military base in history. The exact motive wasn’t clear, though Hasan, a Virginia native and a Muslim, reportedly was against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and had been the target of harassment for his ethnicity.

The Chief has experienced harassment in a military setting. It can be a real annoyance, but certainly survivable without taking out frustrations by attacking his fellow sailors.

UPDATE: Troubling portrait emerges of Fort Hood suspect

His name appears on radical Internet postings. A fellow officer says he fought his deployment to Iraq and argued with soldiers who supported U.S. wars. He required counseling as a medical student because of problems with patients.

There are many unknowns about Nidal Malik Hasan, the man authorities say is responsible for the worst mass killing on a U.S. military base. Most of all, his motive. But details of his life and mindset, emerging from official sources and personal acquaintances, are troubling.

According to the reports he had a problem with some of his fitness reports, and apparently had some sort of problems dealing with patients. That may or may not have any significance, but the following does raise some concerns:

At least six months ago, Hasan came to the attention of law enforcement officials because of Internet postings about suicide bombings and other threats, including posts that equated suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the lives of their comrades.

They had not determined for certain whether Hasan is the author of the posting, and a formal investigation had not been opened before the shooting, said law enforcement officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the case.

Wonder what it takes to get investigated these days. (Probably bad-mouthing B.O.!) They probably couldn’t proceed due to fears of being caught “profiling”.

One of the officials said late Thursday that federal search warrants were being drawn up to authorize the seizure of Hasan’s computer.

They can hack out anything that’s there…even stuff that had been erased…of course, that doesn’t mean that anything about it will ever see the light of day. For instance, the IMMEDIATE response was that this was no way terrorism.

Uh…how could they know, if there had been no previous investigation? Also, IMHO, a terrorist is as a terrorist does. One does NOT have to have an official notarized al Qaida membership card to be a terrorist. By MY reckoning, this sure seems like terrorism to me!

UPDATE II: Fort Hood shooting: Nidal Malik Hasan ‘said Muslims should rise up’

Maybe some of this has to do with being harassed:

Col Terry Lee, a retired officer who worked with him at the military base in Texas, alleged Maj Hasan had angry confrontations with other officers over his views.

Maj Hasan was reportedly fighting orders to be deployed to Iraq at the end of the month, claiming that he was the victim of harassment and insults because of his Arab background and his faith….

“He was making outlandish comments condemning our foreign policy and claimed Muslims had the right to rise up and attack Americans,” Col Lee told Fox News.

“He said Muslims should stand up and fight the aggressor and that we should not be in the war in the first place.” He said that Maj Hasan said he was “happy” when a US soldier was killed in an attack on a military recruitment centre in Arkansas in June. An American convert to Islam was accused of the shootings.

Col Lee alleged that other officers had told him that Maj Hasan had said “maybe people should strap bombs on themselves and go to Time Square” in New York.

This is in side of an Army community…is it any wonder that this might get a negative reaction?

What is this about?

It has received far less notice than it deserves, but last week the United States joined with Egypt in sponsoring a resolution appoved by the UN Human Rights Council that could blow a gaping hole in the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech and other civil liberties most of us take for granted.

The resolution encourages member nations to define as criminal “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.” Who defines what constitutes “national, racial or religious hatred?” Why, the government, of course. Who decides whether any given statement “constitutes incitement?” You guessed it.

In other words, if you live in a country that adopts this approach to freedom of speech, be very careful what you say about any other nation, racial group or religious faith. And you better not make anybody in power mad because you would be amazed what can be construed by governments as “incitement” to “hatred.”

If you are an American with the notion that the First Amendment will protect your right to say whatever you want whenever you want about whomever you want, be advised that this resolution embodies exactly the conceptual assumptions about law and rights that lead directly to those speech codes that restrict civil liberties on hundreds of U.S. college campuses at this very moment….

In other words, bunky, if you think the First Amendment will protect you from Obama and the UN, you’re still living in the 18th Century when people believed individual rights were theirs simply by virtue of being born under the U.S. Constitution, not as a dispensation of those in power.

So, what’s it have to do with Longshanks?

The UN resolution is quite literally medieval.

I guess this will make the Islamic world feel right at home…back to the 13th Century!

Consider the provision of Westminster I in 1275 under King Edward I in England (If you saw “Braveheart,” you will recognize him as the hated Longshanks. Trust me, he was every bit as bad as Randall Wallace’s wonderful screenplay made him). Westminster I banned the telling of “tales whereby discord or occasion of discord or slander my grow between the King and his people, or the great men of the realm.” And who defined what tales tended to sow discord? Why, the King and great men of the realm, of course.

But Westminster I was no Longshankian exception to the rule in mediavel England. Roll forward several centuries and we find Henry VIII, he of the many wives. Nobody could print a book without Henry’s permission. A law passed in 1542 proclaimed that “nothing shall be taught or mainained contrary to the King’s instructions” concerning the Bible or other religious matters. Violate that law three times and you went to the stake to be burned to death.

A century later, a 1662 statute provided the death penalty for those selling “heretical, schimatical, blasphemous, seditious and trasonable books, pamphlets and papers.” Why? Because such publications allegedly were “endangering the peace of these kingdoms and raising a disaffection to his most excellent Majesty and his government.”

That is the essential legal background from England that helped spark the English Reformation and ultimately led to the adoption of the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. Why on earth would anybody want to go back to that barbaric world in which you could lose your head for saying the wrong thing?

If you are interested in learning more about the bloody history that came before the First Amendment, see former University of Texas journalism professor Marvin Olasky’s “Telling the Truth” and the chapter on “a great cloud of witnesses.”

At this rate might it take the 2nd Amendment to preserve the 1st Amendment?  One can only hope not.

Obama hosts Ramadan dinner at White House

Showcasing the contributions of American Muslims he said represent “extraordinary dynamism and diversity,” President Obama hosted a White House dinner Tuesday to celebrate the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

Mr. Obama was extending a presidential tradition and pushing forward his goal of reaching out to the Muslim world in an attempt to show cultural understanding.

Now, where’s the administration’s appropriate response to the following bit of Islamic diversity?  (Hint: ALthought B.O. says we should meet with the mullahs, in reality it DOESN’T involve “cultural understanding!)

Ahmadinejad’s Imam: Islam Allows Raping, Torturing Prisoners

Let’s see now…the U.S. administration is going through contortions to insure that no one offends Islamioterr prisoners, purportedly with the idea that if we’re nice, then they’ll be nice too.

Guess again! Here is what the Iranians have to say about THAT:  [emphasis added]

A highly influential Shi’a religious leader, with whom Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regularly consults, apparently told followers last month that coercion by means of rape, torture and drugs is acceptable against all opponents of the Islamic regime.

Notice the respect for the Geneva Convention? You don’t? Neither do I. But wait, there’s more from these blithe practitioners of the “Religion of Peace”.

According to the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC), an independent Israeli intelligence analysis organization, Mesbah-Yazdi is considered Ahmadinejad’s personal spiritual guide. A radical totalitarian even in Iranian terms, he holds messianic views, supports increasing Islamization, calls for violent suppression of domestic political opponents, and, according to the ITIC, “declared that obeying a president supported by the Supreme Leader was tantamount to obeying God.”

At the Jamkaran gathering, Mesbah-Yazdi and Ahmadinejad answered questions about the rape and torture charges. The following text is from a transcript alleged by Iranian dissidents to be a series of questions and answers exchanged between the ayatollah and some of his supporters.

Asked if a confession obtained “by applying psychological, emotional and physical pressure” was “valid and considered credible according to Islam,” Mesbah-Yazdi replied: “Getting a confession from any person who is against the Velayat-e Faqih (“Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists”, or the regime of Iran’s mullahs) is permissible under any condition.” The ayatollah gave the identical answer when asked about confessions obtained through drugging the prisoner with opiates or addictive substances.

“Can an interrogator rape the prisoner in order to obtain a confession?” was the follow-up question posed to the Islamic cleric.

Mesbah-Yazdi answered: “The necessary precaution is for the interrogator to perform a ritual washing first and say prayers while raping the prisoner. If the prisoner is female, it is permissible to rape through the vagina or anus. It is better not to have a witness present. If it is a male prisoner, then it’s acceptable for someone else to watch while the rape is committed.”

There’s more gory details in the linked piece, go look to see more of what can be meant when they remind us that “Islam” equals submission. Now you know HOW to submit!

The Mary Robinson caper; who done it?

I don’t think we’ve commented on President Obama’s decision to bestow the Presidential Medal of Freedom on Mary Robinson, the former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights who headed up the Durban Conference Against Racism that became an anti-Semitic hate-fest (the Unites States and Israel boycotted it, to Robinson’s dismay). Robinson’s history of consistent animosity towards Israel has caused Abraham Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, to criticize the selection. Foxman calls Robinson “a lead cheerleader for the Palestinian narrative” during her time as High Commissioner. He explains:…

In addition to examining the reasons for severely doubting the worthiness of Ms. Robinson for this award, the post goes on to make an attempt to see exactly whose fingerprints in the B.O. administration are on this smudged award.