OK–it’s time to just come out and say it. So-called liberals must be desperate, because–with regard to the Ground Zero mosque (as with so many other past cultural issues)–Barack Obama has sided against the American people–again. How do I know this to be true? Well, let’s just look at the steady stream of hysterical op-eds coming out of The New York Times slandering the American people as racist, Islamaphobic, unpatriotic dumb-dumbs. (Yes, I know, so-called liberals must be pretty desperate to play the patriotism card–I thought they thought that patriotism was gauche.)

For instance, last weekend, TV entertainer, Dick Cavett, wrote a column titled, Real Americans, Please Stand Up. (Did you get that? If you disagree with him about the Ground Zero mosque, you aren’t a “real American”.) In this op-ed, Cavett goes on to lament how “ashamed of us” he is, and he even goes so far as to write the following insanity–

As a war kid, I also heard an uncle of mine endorse a sentiment attributed to our Admiral “Bull” Halsey: “If I met a pregnant Japanese woman, I’d kick her in the belly.”

So now, not only am I not a “real American”, but I want to kick pregnant Japanese women in the belly.

Oh, but Mr. Cavett is not alone in his inane ramblings. On Sunday, theater critic, Frank Rich, wrote a column titled, How Fox Betrayed Petraeus, and on Monday cultural writer, Nicholas Kristof, wrote a column titled, Taking bin Laden’s Side.

Now, just from the titles of these op-eds alone, it should be painfully obvious what The New York Times is trying to do–i.e., “otherize” all opponents of the Ground Zero mosque as bigoted, anti-American rednecks with the worst possible motives. However, all of these columns were rich in over the top rhetoric, but deeply lacking in any information about the previous troubling, statements from Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf (the man behind the mosque), or the fact that that Iman Rauf has not been at all transparent about where the money’s coming from to build this mosque at Ground Zero. So, for flat out slandering the American people as anti-American bigots–and being disingenuous as to why they are really upset about the Ground Zero mosque–The New York Times deserves to wear “The Cone of Shame”.

Speaking of Imam Rauf, I would very much like to take a closer look at him before going much farther. To be specific, soon after 9/11, Imam Rauf called America “an accessory to the crime” (in reference to 9/11–see embed below), has refused to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization, has stated that, “The US has more Muslim blood on it’s hands than Al Queada”, and has refused to swear off money from Iran or Saudi Arabia for the one hundred million dollar Ground Zero mosque (that could very well be terrorist/blood money).

Second of all, it seems to me that Imam Rauf is being deliberately provocative by calling the Ground Zero mosque “The Cordoba Mosque”, which would be named after The Cordoba Mosque in Spain built by the Moors when they conquered the Christians in 600 AD. (It is a well-known fact that Muslims build a mosque on ground after they conquer it. Why don’t they just call the Ground Zero mosque the “We Conquered Your Ass/Who’s Your Daddy?” mosque and get it over with?)

Furthermore, I find the sheer size of the mosque–or the fact that it looks like a skyscraper or a giant monument to Islam, rather than a house of prayer–to be deliberately provocative as well. Now, in his recent column, Nicholas Kristof shamefully compared the Ground Zero mosque to a YMCA. However, how many YMCAs look like the image below? I rest my case.

[FYI, my husband and I went to Egypt on our honeymoon and we toured a slew of Medieval era mosques--NONE OF THEM looked like that, but I digress.]

By the way, it’s not just me who feels like this. Real moderate Muslims–you know, the ones who don’t blame America for 9/11 and who have no problem calling Hamas a terrorist organization–have stated that the Ground Zero mosque is in poor taste and is deliberately provocative. To be specific, on The O’Reilly Factor, moderate Muslim, Raheel Raza, called the Ground Zero mosque “confrontational, in bad faith, and a slap in the face to all Americans” (see embed below). (Ms. Raza has since received a threatening phone call from the property owner of the Ground Zero mosque for speaking out against it.)

Moreover, a secular/moderate Muslim, named Neda Bolourchi whose mother was killed on 9/11, wrote a column for The Washington Post titled, Build Your Mosque Somewhere Else. Specifically, she wrote the following with regard to the Ground Zero mosque–

From the first memorial ceremonies I attended at Ground Zero, I have always been moved by the site; it means something to be close to where my mother may be buried, it brings some peace. That is why the prospect of a mosque near Ground Zero — or a church or a synagogue or any religious or nationalistic monument or symbol — troubles me.

I do not like harboring resentment or anger, but I do not want the death of my mother — my best friend, my hero, my strength, my love — to become even more politicized than it already is. To the supporters of this new Islamic cultural center, I must ask: Build your ideological monument somewhere else, far from my mother’s grave, and let her rest. “

Oh, but silly me. I forgot. According to Dick Cavett and The New York Times, Ms. Bolourchi is just an Islamaphobic bigot who wants to kick pregnant Japanese women in their bellies.

However, what I find to be the most troublesome feature of the whole Ground Zero mosque brouhaha, is the fact the Imam Rauf has referred to America as “A Sharia compliant state”.

Now, why is calling America a “Sharia complaint state” so troubling? Well, to understand why that statement is so troubling, one has to first understand what exactly Sharia Law is and what it entails/allows for.

Sharia Law is a particular type of fundamentalist Islamic law that dates back to the time of Muhammed, and deals specifically with many topics addressed by secular law, including crime, politics and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexuality, hygiene, diet, prayer, and fasting. Classic Sharia Law is most famously practiced in Iran and Saudi Arabia (two places that Imam Rauf won’t swear off taking money from). For instance, under Sharia Law, hanging homosexuals is perfectly OK (warning–Allahphundit has the photos of this happening in Iran in this link and they are disturbing)–which is why Greg Gutfeld has called for a Muslim gay bar to be built right next to the Ground Zero mosque. Furthermore, strong adherents to Sharia Law have absolutely no problem with beating women, or even disfiguring them, if they disobey their husband. (For example, we’ve all seen the, now, infamous image below of the woman whose nose and ears were cut off by the Taliban. However, The New York Times was mad at Time magazine for running the image–they called it “war porn”–instead of the Taliban and Sharia adherents for cutting her face up in the first place.)

However, I would say that the worst part about Sharia Law is that it condones honor killings of women (which have recently been on the rise in America)–and, in particular, stoning them to death. Below is an embed of an exert of a film called The Stoning of Soraya M that NewsReal’s own Chris Yogerst has written about in great detail. It is extremely painful to watch (it, literally, gave me nightmares), but it is important that we don’t turn away and avert out eyes from this horror simply because it makes us uncomfortable.

Now, after gazing into the horrible face of Sharia Law, I can’t help but be reminded of David Horowitz’s chilling exchange with a member of the Muslim Student’s Association when he asked her if she would condemn Hamas (who also condones Sharia Law).

Here is a piece of the exchange (see embed below for the entire exchange)–

Horowitz:

If you don’t condemn Hamas, obviously you support it. Case closed. I have had this experience at UC Santa Barbara, where there were 50 members of the Muslim Students Association sitting right in the rows there. And throughout my hour talk I kept asking them, will you condemn Hizbollah and Hamas. And none of them would. And then when the question period came, the president of the Muslim Students Association was the first person to ask a question. And I said, ‘Before you start, will you condemn Hizbollah?’ And he said, ‘Well, that question is too complicated for a yes or no answer.’ So I said, ‘Okay, I’ll put it to you this way. I am a Jew. The head of Hizbollah has said that he hopes that we will gather in Israel so he doesn’t have to hunt us down globally. For or Against it?

MSA member:

For it.

Horowitz:

Thank you for coming and showing everybody what’s here.

So, in conclusion, I would like to ask all of the so-called liberals at The New York Times who are in support of the infamous Ground Zero mosque–”Are you for it or against it?”, with regard to the US becoming “a Sharia compliant state”, as well as Imam Rauf’s refusal to condemn Hamas. These are not issues that you can sit back and shamelessly sip your latte while you try to morally equivocate by uttering idiocies such as, “Radical Christianity is as big a threat as radical Islam!” or, “But, George Bush!!”. You are either for honor killings, or you are against them. You are either for hanging homosexuals, or you are against it. You are either for stoning women, or you are against it. You are either for mutilating women, or against it. You are either for rounding up all of the Jews and killing them, or you are against it. There is no middle ground on these issues or wiggle room for a nuanced position. And, if you take money from countries who support these kinds of activities in order to build a mosque at Ground Zero, refuse to call out Hamas as a terrorist organization, or support the building of a mosque by someone who thinks that “America is a Sharia compliant country”, then that is the same thing as being “for it” in most sane people’s book, who don’t want any part of America to be “Sharia compliant”, much less Ground Zero.

Moreover, it’s quite obvious to me what happened here–or rather, how The New York Times (and so-called liberals in general, not to mention President Obama) found themselves on the wrong side of this issue and siding with an Imam who actually praised the 1979 Iranian Revolution. The New York Times, as well as many of it’s readers, reflexively and shamefully side against the majority of Americans and always assume that they are racist or have bad intentions. (One only need to look to the fact that Frank Rich wrote an entire column bashing America on The Fourth of July as evidence of this unfortunate fact.) In other words, if the bitter, gun-clingers in Middle America are against the Ground Zero mosque, then The New York Times is reflexively for it, without even looking into it, or asking any hard questions about the project. They, blindly, took this Imam at his word that he was a “moderate”. (By the way, I went to medical school with several moderate/secular Muslims, and they would be insulted if you lumped them in the same category with this Imam.) And now that they got caught with their pants down not having done their homework, they are screaming “Raacist!!” in order to shut people up and distract from their own incompetence. I think that Mark Hemingway put it best when he wrote the following–

It reminded me a of a joke from last season’s “30 Rock,” where Alec Baldwin’s character was being told that in order to protect the feelings of a co-worker, he needed to “lie to her, coddle her, protect her from the real world.”

Baldwin’s retort? “I get it. Treat her like the New York Times treats its readers.”

The media seem to think they must reflexively defend any minority thrust into the public square from intolerant hordes throwing nooses around lampposts. But since 9/11 there’s been almost no violence or concerted oppression of America’s peaceful Muslim community.

At the same time, Americans remain clear-eyed about the fact certain Muslim attitudes are on a collision course with Western society. The mosque’s backers may be tolerant relative to the Taliban and other Muslim extremists. However, their refusal to condemn Hamas and the fact that they won’t rule out taking money from Iran cannot be considered tolerant by any enlightened standard.

Furthermore, Dick Cavett’s shameful ignorance was on full display for all to see when he wrote the following–

“What other churches might be objectionable because of the horrific acts of some of its members? Maybe we shouldn’t have Christian churches in the South wherever the Ku Klux Klan operated because years ago proclaimed white Christians lynched blacks. How close to Hickam Field, at Pearl Harbor, should a Shinto shrine be allowed? I wonder how many of our young people — notorious, we are told, for their ignorance of American history — would be surprised that Japanese-Americans had lives and livelihoods destroyed when they were rounded up during World War II? Should all World War II service memorials, therefore, be moved away from the sites of these internment camps? Where does one draw the line?”

My response would be if that Christian church was funded in part by white supremacists, and refused to call out the KKK, then no, they should not be allowed to build next to a monument where blacks were lynched by whites. Not to mention, if Fred Phelps–you know, the “God hates F*gs” guy–wanted to build a church next to a military base (or even next to a gay bar in San Fransisco), I would say no to that idea as well. And finally, I think that Charles Krauthammer explained it beautifully when he wrote the following–

“That’s why Disney’s 1993 proposal to build an American history theme park near Manassas Battlefield was defeated by a broad coalition that feared vulgarization of the Civil War (and that was wiser than me; at the time I obtusely saw little harm in the venture). It’s why the commercial viewing tower built right on the border of Gettysburg was taken down by the Park Service. It’s why, while no one objects to Japanese cultural centers, the idea of putting one up at Pearl Harbor would be offensive.

And why Pope John Paul II ordered the Carmelite nuns to leave the convent they had established at Auschwitz. He was in no way devaluing their heartfelt mission to pray for the souls of the dead. He was teaching them a lesson in respect: This is not your place; it belongs to others. However pure your voice, better to let silence reign. “

Now, I realize that it’s a lot more fun for so-called liberals at The New York Times to use this issue to look down their noses at Sarah Palin and Middle America, than it is for them to actually, you know, look into this issue and do some real reporting on it. However, their inability to recognize real evil here when it is, literally, throwing rocks at their face, is shameful–and it’s actually quite racist. Why? Because they are sacrificing these Muslim women (and gay Muslim men) on the alter of multiculturalism just so that they can pat themselves on the backs about how “tolerant” they are.

[By the way, The New York Times couldn't even bother to report on a recent would be stoning in Iran that we here at NewsReal covered for days. David Swindle, our managing editor, even put up a petition in order to stop the woman from being stoned to death. Full disclosure--I signed the petition.]

I mean, suppose some small town in Middle America decided to try to pass laws allowing for the stoning of adulterous women or the hanging of gay men? I guarantee you that The New York Times would be up in arms over it–and rightfully so (especially Nicholas Kristof who fancies himself as a spokesmen for women’s rights). However, now an Imam–who would take money from countries who participate in this kind of evil, who praised Sharia Law and the Iranian Revolution, who says that the US has more blood on its hands than Al-Qaeda, and who won’t condemn Hamas–wants to build a mosque at Ground Zero, and they are attacking his critics as “anti-American”?! Please! The New York Times would never turn a blind eye like this to the plight of Western women, but they are totally ignoring the plight Middle Eastern women, just so they–initially–could shout, “I’m more multicultural than thou are!”. And now, so they don’t have to admit a mistake.

So for refusing to do any honest reporting with regard to Imam Rauf, and then for calling the critics of the Ground Zero mosque “anti-American raaaaacits!!”, The New York Times ought to be ashamed of itself.

Put them in the Cone of Shame!

This diary was originally published on NewsReal and The Minority Report.

There have been a lot of knee jerk reactions to the Ground Zero Mosque/Cultural Center. I’ve had my own, which was troubling as I generally don’t care about others’ religion except in the general sense of wanting everyone to go to Heaven. Why we’ve had such visceral reactions is not easy to put into words and most will fail at putting it into words, though I’ll give it a try.

Our understanding of Islam is that it is not “just a religion” but a whole system of government and economics as well as religion. This runs counter to the main argument being used by both sides. To date, the framers of the debate on the Ground Zero Mosque, have designated freedom of religion as the hill to die on. The problem with this approach is that it allows those debating to avoid the big issues lurking underneath.

Just as we Christians have different doctrinal flavors (Lutheran, Baptist, Episcopal, Catholic, and so on) so does Islam. The particular “flavor” of Islam that is being promoted with the construction of the Ground Zero Mosque is that of Wahhabism and Sharia Law.

The would-be builders are seeking money from Saudi Arabia and Iran among other nations that practice the above described religion, which isn’t just a religion. In addition, those builders/backers refuse to give any assurances that this new “cultural center” won’t be a repeat of this one (emphasis mine).

All signs point to a repeat of the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center debacle, in which Mayor Thomas Menino practically gave away city-owned land worth $2 million to the Islamic Society of Boston, whose founder Abdurrahman Alamoudi currently sweats out a 23-year prison term for terrorist crimes. Mayor Menino donated the public’s land for the construction of the ISB mosque — excuse me, “Cultural Center” — with the standard pleas for diversity, healing, peace, and frolicking unicorns. Of course, he didn’t bother to investigate the peaceful healing record of the Middle Eastern men he was donating to: ISB Trustee Yusuf Qaradawi, spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, who’s been banned from the U.S. and dubbed “the theologian of terror” by the ADL; ISB Trust President Osama Kandil, director of an Islamic charity designated as terrorist by the U.S. government; and ISB Trustee Jamal Badawi, an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial. But the mayor’s speeches sure sounded pretty, and that’s what counts.

When the Boston Herald and local Fox Network affiliate began exposing the ISB’s nasty connections, the ISB responded with the typical relish of democracy’s free speech hurly-burly we’ve come to expect from these types: They sued every single one of their public critics, including a refugee Muslim scholar who had translated some of their anti-Semitic, anti-American literature to enlighten the citizenry. Their brass-knuckles intimidation worked beautifully: the media went silent on reporting anything negative about the ISB, while the private citizens they sued were ordered by lawyers to keep daintily quiet. The ISB bigwigs sashayed to their opening ceremony in June 2009, where they were fulsomely feted by top politicians, Harvard scholars, and Christian and Jewish clergy.

For more on the Boston Mosque read here: A Mosque Grows in Boston and the full article as quoted above can be found here: A Sneak Preview of the Ground Zero Mega-Mosque

At what point does the doctrine of tolerance become the doctrine of oppression? The short answer is when tolerance demands something that runs counter to our culture, our values, and, most especially, Our Laws.

The biggest of these is our constitutional form of government, the very thing being used to beat about the heads of those opposing the mosque, with that very clause that is being debated on both sides of the issue. Again, this is not just a religion, it’s a whole system of government. Plainly and simply, Sharia is incompatible with our Constitution and with that clause used as a weapon of intolerance by the left because of the inextricable intertwining as also an economic and legal system.

To wholesale adopt the position of the Cultural Center builders/backers is to create and sanction a government within a government; a government that runs counter to our own. The builders/backers are not being open about their intentions and have refused to be open about their intentions. In fact, they are now “whitewashing” their websites to hide their intentions (emphasis mine).

After two years of work, the Sharia Index Project’s working team of Sunni and Shi’a legal scholars from Morocco to Indonesia achieved consensus on a final structure on philosophy, methodology, and approach to providing the general public, opinion leaders, and state officials in both the Muslim and Western worlds with an Islamic legal benchmark for measuring “Islamicity” of a state.

Tolerance is a two way street. Those exhorting tolerance return none. At some point when it flows only one way, it stops. We do not need a repeat of the Boston Cultural Center debacle or any other similar setup. Does tolerance demand that we allow terrorist and terrorist organizations to set up shop within our own country?

In the U.K. the Archbishop said Sharia was unavoidable and the U.K. allowed that government within a government, the effects of which are just becoming apparent. In France, the burqua has been banned. Here in the states, there have been instances of honor killings.

Until these builders/backers are open and forthright about their full intentions, I cannot support the building of this “Cultural Center.” If those who want this thing want to yell intolerance, I really don’t care. They offer no tolerance of our laws or culture while demanding tolerance of theirs. If they find our laws and culture too open for their liking, I really don’t care. They have the freedom to leave any time they wish. Otherwise, they just need to deal with it. No exceptions.

Crossposted at Redstate.com

Recently on The O’Reilly Factor, a moderate Canadian Muslim woman by the name of Raheel Raza spoke out against building the now infamous Ground Zero mosque. (She has previously written about her feelings as well.) First of all, her performance on O’Reilly’s show tonight was gangbusters. She blew him away with her extremely well articulated reasoning for being against the building of the Ground Zero mosque. To be specific, Ms. Raza stated that, “It’s confrontational, it’s in bad faith, and it doesn’t set up any real dialogue or discussion on tolerance.” Then, she went on to further state that, “Bleeding heart, white liberals don’t understand the battle that moderate Muslims face and how radical Islam has grown since 9/11 because of political correctness.” She was so terrific and spot-on that she, literally, left Bill O’Reilly speechless–all he could respond with was, “What a great answer!”. (You can watch Ms. Raza’s entire interview in the embed below.)

Folks, what this woman did on O’Reilly’s show took guts–I’m not going to mince words. You know that she’s going to catch all kinds of hell when she gets back home from “tolerant liberals” who can’t tolerate any apostasy from their PC ideology. We need to give Ms. Raza, and moderate Muslims like her with the courage to speak out against radical Islam, as much support as possible. It’s the right thing to do.

Update: This diary was originally posted a week ago in a Live Wire for The Minority Report, but it looks like I was quite prescient when I wrote that Raheel Raza was going to “catch hell” when she went back home to Canada. Yesterday, Kathy Shaidle of NewsReal reported that Ms. Raza has already received a threatening phone call from the property owner of the Ground Zero mosque. Again, now more than ever, the Raheel Razas of the Muslim world–with the fortitude to take a stand against radical Islam–need and deserve our support.



Y’all know the drill. When the story first broke regarding General Stanley McChrystal supposedly “committing an act of insubordination” by trashing President Obama to Rolling Stone magazine, the conventional wisdom was to say that “he should be fired”. Well, then, after reading Michael Rulle’s excellent article titled, “Has Anyone Actually Read the Rolling Stone Article?”, it became apparent to me that A.) most of the general public and the mainstream media had not read the infamous article, and B.) that it is foolish to take anything that the MSM says at face value. In other words, this whole story began to stink as though a skunk had scurried across the backyard.

He made a series of insightful points in his piece. However, It was Michael’s final paragraph that should inspire true journalists and bloggers everywhere to do some serious digging of their own:

“Maybe the Afghanistan strategy is wrong; I have no idea and that is not my point. McChrystal is dynamic and charismatic, but does not strike me as a cowboy. Yes, I can see how the article can irritate “real men”. But “real men” would pick up the phone and say to the General “chill out, we need you, fix it”. The fact that McChrystal took full responsibility for this manufactured “crisis of insubordination” indicates strong character. The crocodile rage (the Left) and tears (the Right) manufactured by the media and the politicians over this article shows incredible weakness by us as a nation. Remember the “strong horse” versus “weak horse” analogy made so infamous by Osama Bin Laden? Well, our weak horses just fired our strong horse.

God help us.”

Now, after doing some extensive research, I have come to three big conclusions about this “McChrystal insubordination” story.

The first conclusion is that the MSM is going for General McChrystal’s jugular, because they are attempting to do some serious CYA for The One. How does one come to this conclusion, you ask? Well, why don’t we take a look at this quite revealing video montage from Newsbusters, and you tell me what you think.

Our word for the day boys and girls is “brilliant”. Man, the JournoList strikes again, because those guys all had their talking points down pat. But seriously, listening to those Obama sycophants prattle on, one couldn’t help but be reminded of Inigo Montoya from “The Princess Bride” when he said the following–

“You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means”.

First of all, if Obama is so “brilliant”, why did it take him months to finally send General McChrystal the troops that he requested? It seems that a “brilliant” man would understand that you need soldiers to win a war–not unicorn farts and pixie dust. Second of all, wouldn’t a “brilliant” man know that it’s probably a good idea to meet with your commander in Afghanistan for more than, say, just 25 minutes on Air Force One? Furthermore, wouldn’t a “brilliant” man know that winning the war in Afghanistan is more important than pitching Chicago to the International Olympics Committee? And finally, wouldn’t a “brilliant” man command more respect from his commanders and soldiers in the field than Obama does? Just a thought.

Oh, and here’s a little more food for thought. Barack Obama didn’t even support General Petraeus during the surge or condemn that awful MoveOn.org ad calling him “General Betray Us”. However, now, Obama is “brilliant” for hiring George W. Bush’s general who is going to be McChrystal on steroids? (Petraeus will ask for even more troops and more time than McChrystal did.) Sorry, but that’s a little hard to swallow.

Conclusion 2: What does this story say about its writer and publisher?

Now, the second conclusion regarding the whole McChrystal/Rolling Stone circus that most reasonable people should come to is that Michael Hastings is an unpatriotic, military hating skunk of a human being. Greg Gutfeld discussed this aspect of the McChrystal situation on Huckabee the other night–particularly, when he stated that Rolling Stone is known for its hatred of the military. (Specifically, Gutfeld said that, “The only thing that they (Rolling Stone) hate more than war, is winning a war”, and Mike Huckabee called Michael Hastings “a far left-wing reptile”.)

Find more videos like this on The Activity Pit

It should interest one that Michael Hastings’ top ten most famous pieces are all anti-war and anti-military. Not to mention, Bill O’Reilly stated on his show the other night that Hastings called Rudy Giuliani a “maniac” and referred to John McCain as “Captain Ahab”. Is this true, you ask? Well yes it is, because Hastings, himself, admitted to both statements when asked about them by Howard Kurtz.

However, Hastings’ image really began to sour when some of his colleagues in the MSM started to trash him for unethical behavior.

For instance, The Washington Post recently had an article implying that Hastings behaved unethically, and that most of the incendiary statements made about the Obama Administration were made by aides at McChrystal’s 33rd wedding anniversary–and, it was understood that those statements were off the record. Specifically, the WaPo wrote the following with regard to this matter:

“A member of McChrystal’s team who was present for a celebration of McChrystal’s 33rd wedding anniversary at a Paris bar said it was “clearly off the record.” Aides “made it very clear to Michael: ‘This is private time. These are guys who don’t get to see their wives a lot. This is us together. If you stay, you have to understand this is off the record,’ ” according to this source. In the story, the team members are portrayed as drinking heavily.”

Now, what’s particularly interesting about this, is that this WaPo column was partially written by none other than Rajiv Chandrasekaran, the guy that wrote a very famous book that was hyper-critical of the war in Iraq titled Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq’s Green Zone. So, if Chandrasekaran is criticizing you for biased, unethical war reporting, let’s just say you’ve got problems.

[Just to be clear, NO ONE is equating Chandrasekaran with Hastings. There is absolutely nothing wrong with writing a scathing critique of how a war is being fought and suggesting that we should have done X instead of Y. There is something very wrong with printing off the record comments by inebriated aides at McChrystal's wedding anniversary in the hopes of ruining his career and sabotaging the war effort.]

Furthermore, Chandrasekaran is not alone in his opinion that maybe Mr. Hastings’s behavior wasn’t entirely on the up and up. For example, Toby Harnden of Telegraph wrote that Rolling Stone deliberately reported that McChrystal voted for Obama — when his team had asked them in writing not to — and, Harnden referred to Rolling Stone and Hastings as “a disgrace to the profession”. (Can’t get more direct than that, now can we?) Not to mention, veteran CBS war correspondent, Lara Logan, also criticized Hastings to Howard Kurtz and stated that–given what she knows about McChrystal– his reporting just “didn’t add up”. The Huffington Post then reported the following exchange between Kurtz and Lara Logan–

Host Howard Kurtz asked Logan if there is an “unspoken agreement that you’re not going to embarrass [the troops] by reporting insults and banter.”

“Absolutely,” she said. “Yes… there is an element of trust.”

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury of public opinion–as to Hastings’ (as well as Rolling Stone‘s) character, I rest my case. Yes Mr. Hastings, your patriotism is being questioned–write it down, take a picture, do whatever floats your boat.

Now, onto the third and final conclusion about this ridiculous scandal that wasn’t involving General Stanley McChrystal.

Come to think of it, NOT ONE leftist pundit who said that McChrystal should be fired has ever contradicted anything that he, or his aides, have said. Yeah, sure they’ve all mindlessly prattled on about Obama’s supposed “brilliance” in hiring General Petraeus (probably the only general that he knows), and about how “insubordinate” McChrystal was (let this be a lesson to us all–don’t have one too many drinks at your boss’ wedding anniversary if you are within earshot of some pathetic journalistic skunk). However, no one has heard anyone say that McChrystal was wrong and that Obama showed decisive leadership with regard to the war in Afghanistan, or that the civilian leadership isn’t horribly bungling things in Afghanistan. In fact, Toby Harnden summed it up perfectly when he wrote the following–

“McChrystal and his “Team America” vented about Ambassador Karl Eikenberry betraying them with a leak; portrayed special envoy Richard Holbrooke as an egotist in fear of losing his job; joked about Vice President Joe Biden being a bit of a blowhard; and suggested James Jones, National Security Adviser, was an ineffectual relic of the Cold War.

These are hardly controversial opinions – even within the White House. Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s chief of staff and a man whose salty language would make a sailor blush, probably says worse things about his colleagues to a reporter before breakfast on most days of the week.”

Furthermore, while we’re on the subject on non-controversial opinions, even liberal pundits are in agreement that Obama dithered with regard to Afghanistan, and took way too long to send McChrystal the troops that he needed. In fact, Maureen Dowd wrote the following last fall to describe President Obama’s tenure in office–

” If we could see a Reduced Shakespeare summary of Obama’s presidency so far, it would read:

Dither, dither, speech. Foreign trip, bow, reassure. Seminar, summit. Shoot a jump shot with the guys, throw out the first pitch in mom jeans. Compromise, concede, close the deal. Dither, dither, water down, news conference.”

Moreover, in his latest column, Mark Steyn (who describes the president as “unengaged”) even quoted Thomas Friedman admitting that the Obama Administration never wanted the Afghan surge in the first place–

“The ugly truth,” wrote Thomas Friedman in The New York Times, “is that no one in the Obama White House wanted this Afghan surge. The only reason they proceeded was because no one knew how to get out of it.”

Oh, and did you hear that some of McChrystal’s aides implied that Vice President Joe Biden might be a bit of a blowhard? The hell you say! Wait a second–is this the same guy who just called some manager of a custard shop a “smartass” for asking about his taxes? OK, well Biden might be a bit of a blowhard, but we never would have figured this out on our own if it weren’t for the leaks from McChrystal’s guys. (Rolls eyes.)

So basically McChrystal (a four star general) was fired because his aides let off a little steam at their boss’ 33rd wedding anniversary and uttered some things that everyone in their right mind accepts as universal truths?! Really?! Someone please stop me before my head explodes.

So, in conclusion, I just want to say to General Stanley McChrystal–on behalf of patriotic Americans everywhere–thank you. Thank you so much for for you stellar military career that spans more than three decades. Thank you for running the black ops missions in Iraq, and for hunting down and killing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Thank you for putting your life on the line everyday in that hellhole called Afghanistan, and for actually trying to win the war there (imagine that!). You will always have our deepest appreciation and gratitude. Sir, with this video below, we salute you.

PS–And to you Michael Hastings, well, let’s just say that I have a “salute” of my own that I would like to give you–but, being a Christian woman and being in polite company…it’s not gonna happen. However, I can offer you some advice. Dude, take a shower. Seriously, in every single picture, you look like you haven’t bathed in days. The troops that had to sit next to you on an airplane should get hazardous duty pay. Damn dirty hippie skunk.

This diary was originally posted at NewsReal and The Minority Report.

Obama’s many faces on terrorists & Miranda rights… Once again, the presidents actions don’t match his words!

Cross posted from Upload Liberty.com

This is the first in a series, focusing on the governing concept of President Barack Obama that we identified early in his Administration and dubbed “expostfactObamalism”, due to ObamaDems’ attempts last Spring, to retroactively tax AIG-bonuses at a 90% confiscatory rate and to criminalize the enhanced interrogation techniques and the giving of legal advice justifying same, that CIA agents and Justice Department lawyers used to keep us safe after 911.

The recent decision to provide Khalid Sheik Mohamed (pictured, courtesy of TMR) with a civilian trial and return to the scene of his horrific handiwork near Ground Zero in New York City inspired the need to return to this issue, given its departure from fundamental American principles and comparability to the the regular criminalization of politics by Third World banana republics.

Actions of this kind so violate fundamental fairness that  the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions explicitly state, for example, that:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. – US Const. Art. 1, sec. 9

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, retroactive law, or any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall be made. – Texas Const. Art. 1, sec. 16

U.S. Supreme Court precedents have severely limited the applicability of these concepts to criminalization of deeds deemed legal at the time, but have allowed their applicability, at least in the criminal realm to similarly-situated groups rather than just named individuals. However, our culture and traditions have, until the rise of the ObamaDems, have mostly followed the concepts embodied by the most detailed language of the Lone Star State’s language cited above.

Our purpose today, is to re-introduce the concept of expostfactObamalism in a number of contexts, which we will revisit over the coming week in more detail, as indicated below:

KSM trial in NYC

Possibly the most vile and cynical action taken by the liberal Democratic Administration, the decision to refuse to accept a guilty plea from the mastermind of 911 is a direct assault on previous administration. Such a trial serves no useful purpose as Attorney General Eric Holder (in the role of Janet Reno as Bill Clinton’s Waco raid foil) admits that KSM can be held indefinitely as an enemy combatant.

KSM was about to be convicted and executed under the rights-sensitive, U.S. Supreme Court-demanded, Democratic Party majority passed and signed  by Obama into law, military tribunals at Gitmo. The result of civilian trial in NYC can produce no better outcome, and promises to be a show trial that indicts President George W. Bush et al, with KSM and the other four terrorist defendants testifying essentially as witnesses corroborating the “testimony” of candidate Barack Obama’s campaign criticisms of the United States at war.

As we have oft repeated, Dems say and do for free, what the terrorists would gladly pay them to say and do. We suspect the irony of Mohamed echoing the words of ObamaDems, including Barack Hussein Obama and other ObamaDems, will not be lost on the American people.

Jobs summit fraud

The stimulus wasn’t, but could have been. Even the Keynesian part wasn’t. We know this because now ObamaDems are post-2009 Election Day in Virginia and know that they don’t have enough wealth to spread around to cover the stench of the fact that Dems Don’t Care about the poor and middle class.

If ObamaDems cared about actual people having actual jobs (save for government and union jobs), they would have front-loaded the recovery act with shovel-ready jobs. That they didn’t is an admission that they only care about the perception of progress on jobs leading up to Election Day 2010.

If they cared about creating jobs, they would celebrate the cooling Earth of the past 11 years, breathe a sigh of relief that we discovered the fraud of the global warming/climate change claim, and accept the reality of oil as the now and indefinite future fuel of prosperity and liberty. Read George Will, here.

We will have extensive coverage of this issue after the President’s address to the nation on Tuesday, but suffice to point out for now that:

• Obama is whining about the deficit and consequent lack of resources after his $1.8T first budget deficit, squandered the moment and our currency on a government growthulus bill posing as a stimulus;
•  ObamaDems reject any and all of the proven supply-side policies that produced the Reagan-Clinton 25-year recovery and tie all proposals for tax relief to crony capitalism that requires investors to follow the advice of federal bureaucrats;
• Seeks to monopolize mortgage, student and small business loans within the federal government’s discretion in order to enforce the above; and
• Creates two Americas that John Edwards never hinted at, i.e. One Union, One Non-Union, and guess which gets the shaft.

The non-surge in Afghanistan is expost facto pre-911 mentality

West Point address admits ObamaDems’ Bushlied Era and campaign claims that the Afghan war was one of necessity was a fraud

Charles Krauthammer’s paraphrase of Winston Churchill as Obama:

We shall fight in the air, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields, we shall fight in the hills — for 18 months. Then we start packing for home.

President Obama’s cynical use of West Point cadets as props for his diatribes, insults and lies against his predecessor as Commander in Chief (and oh, btw, I am sending 30,000 more of you chumps into war) showed just what a small man he is. I got through two pages of the eight-page transcript before having to write this column, the main follow-up to which will detail the vile hurlings from Obama’s mouth later in the week. For now, consider:

1. No mention of victory
2. Enemies of liberty described as mere ”extremists”, never terrorists
3. No praise for Iraq victory
4. Blames Cold War muhajadeen strategy that defeated the Evil Empire, for 911. We “allowed” 911 to happen
5. Blames Taliban resurgence on Iraq War
6. Lies concerning supposed denials of Afghan Theater troop requests by then Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld
7. Ad nauseum ad infinitum….in next column

 The AJC’s Jim Wooten Thinking Right:

It is tacky and disrespectful of the Office of the President for the Commander-in-Chief to assemble his troops, as Obama did at West Point, and use the occasion to trash their former Commander-in-Chief. This is the action of a small-bore leader.

We were told during the Bushlied Era, that we had to get Usama bin Laden, but now, not so much. But a war tax? We need that.

More later, every day this week…

But before we conclude part one, one comment on the relatively strong support the President has received from prominent Republicans, like Newt Gingrich, for his decision to send 30K troops to Afghanistan. Newt, like Karl Rove and Bill Kristol, disagree with exit strategies that telegraph to allies and enemies alike that we haven’t the stomach to finish the job, but do think that General Petraeus can win the war with the extra troops.

I was asked by an Astute Conservative Political Observer in Alabama is Newt had gone over to the dark side due to his praise of Obama’s decision on the increase of troops in Afghanistan.

No, he hasn’t, although some of his actions on climate change, support for moderates in contested GOP primaries and other actions do show he has been inside the Beltway too long.

However, the main lesson to be drawn from this exercise as contrasted with the behavior of Democrats (including then Senator Obama who refused to vote the fund the troops as a campaign game of chicken with Hillary) is the consistency of Republicans in supporting Commanders in Chiefs and troops in the Field.

By contrast, Democrats use war and the troops as political issues and pawns.

Dems are vile.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed

Strict Constructionism is civilization’s friend when applied to the U.S. Constitution and the Bible. Not so when applied to the Koran and other authoritative writings of Islam.

The latter fact is a major factor in the rise of Islamist terror, as the plain and obvious meaning of the actual words of Allah in the Koran lend credibility to those the extremists in the Muslim and Arab worlds and at the same time put peace-loving Muslims on the defensive. It appears that the only thing that reverses their respective roles in their homeland is when a liberty loving Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States is provoked to defend America, and post-regime change, empowers those that have “re-interpreted” Islam’s admonitions of “jihad”.

It appears that when American power kills enough of those that are actually faithful to the words of the book shared my all Muslims as Holy, the “reformationists” choose soccer and pizza over burka-garbed teen suicide pizza-parlor bombing as sport.

Three Blind Mice and/or See, Hear and Speak no Evil Monkeys?

Since 911 concentrated this Baptist mind, I have long contended that one can’t be a good Muslim and a good American, that is, if the actual words of the Book matter to you. For instance, consider these passages from a column that suggests that those who deny the clear import of the words are “Still Willfully Blind”:

At his blog today, Andrew Bostom, a scholar of jihadism, cites the following passage from “Reliance of the Traveler,” a widely distributed manual of Islamic law produced by al-Azhar University in Egypt, the most authoritative interpreters of theology and sharia jurisprudence in Sunni Islam, the dominant tradition among the world’s Muslims:

Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and, is etymologically derived from the word, mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion [of Islam]…The scriptural basis for jihad is such Koranic verses as “Fighting is prescribed for you” (Koran 2:216); “Slay them wherever you find them” (Koran 4:89); “Fight the idolators utterly” (Koran 9:36); and such hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] as the one related by (Sahih) Bukhari and (Sahih) Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: “I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And the final reckoning is with Allah”; and the hadith by (Sahih) Muslim, “To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.”

As Dr. Bostom points out, the first hadith referred to in the passage — the one in which Mohammed explains that Allah has commanded the Muslims to fight non-Muslims — was cited by Nidal Hasan in slide 43 of the June 7, 2007 presentation that Jonah discusses in his excellent column today.

How long will the Three Blind Mice of moderate Muslims, the political left (see liberals and Democrats) and our Commander in Chief keep their hands over their eyes and ears and refuse to speak of evil by its name? Must Hyde Park in Chicago of Honolulu be vaporized before the Apologizer-and-Inappropriate-Bower-before-Potentates-and-Emperors-in-Chief gets reality?

It is these same leftist mice and monkeys that spew a political correctness (see cowardly liars) of violent tendency equivalence between the Koran and the Bible; Christianity and Islam; and Osama bin Laden and Timothy McVeigh. The blindness required for such dismissive scoffing would render Stevie Wonder 20/20, as once has to ignore the actual words of the respective holy books; travel back centuries to find Christian church leaders justifying anything approaching justification for murder; ignore the disconnect between what authorities within the respective churches say and don’t say about individuals’ self-justifications for murders vs the position of the respective churches (Christian church leaders and neatly ALL Christians denounce all murder and especially including forced conversion based murder or infidel extermination. Islams leaders are mostly mute); and the exponentially large disparity in the numbers of victims.

In fact, when the left cites those non-Muslim terrorists that they say prove equivalence with Islam, they really help prove my point as the exceptions prove the rule. All they have are the OKC bombing, a few (2-3 incidents since 1973) of abortion clinic bombings and 1-2 murders of abortionists, with victims numbering less than 200. All this despite the fact that a majority of Americans are pro-life. The non-violence of the pro-lifers is self defining.

What of the numbers of victims of Islam, in the name of Islam, with mostly cricket chirps in protests from Mosques? 3000 on 911. Thousands of others since since Sirhan Sirhan gunned down RFK in 1968. Billions spent by the peace-loving to defend against terror. Israel under constant siege and the threat of extermination by Iran’s Mullahs in search of the end of time.

The Books

But DeVine Law, why so much emphasis on the words of the Koran, and how about those village genocides in the Old Testament? After all, look at all those years before the latter half of the 20th century when the Arab and Muslim worlds were mostly benign?

I could mention that America was born partly due to the refusal of Americans to pay tribute to Barbary Pirates (see Islamist terrorists). I could mention that the oil to fuel terror was not discovered in the Muslim world until well into the 20th Century. I could bring up the Cold War between two superpowers that kept the Islamists at bay (but at too high a price given the exponential evils and slaughter of Communism).

I do thank God that most Muslims eschew the real Prophet Muhammad and the actual words of the Koran in favor of a “reformed” Islam that makes kill mean pray and holy war mean strive to do right. Thank God for blind mice, up to a point.

But words matter, both in Holy Books and Constitutions. Men are flawed. Men have, at times twisted the words of the Bible to justify heinous acts. Yes, the numbers of religiously justified heinous acts are dwarfed by the numbers killed by godless Kaiserism, Hitlerism, Fascism, Socialism and Communism, throughout history. But one murder is one too many, no matter the justification, and given the civilization-essentials provided by faith, and especially the Judeo-Christian version, it is quite dangerous for the truth to be transmogrified.

The fact is that the actual words of the Bible, Old and New Testaments, are not only the eternal, spiritual soul-saving truth for believers, they also form the basis for the principles that have made Western Civilization the tolerant and prosperous miracle of history that it is.

No admonitions to murder in the Bible

Nowhere in the Bible will you find admonitions from God or anyone else to prospectively kill. You will find some history of past admonitions at particular times and places in the OT. Moreover, nowhere in the Bible will you find any calls to convert or be killed.

The Koran can make no such claim. For this reason, Islam will always be a danger. Words matter.

So, we conservatives, who properly insist that contracts of all kinds, from home mortgages, up to including Constitutions, be interpreted by the plain meaning and intent of the actual words, must pray that Muslims choose the equivalent of “activist judges” to call black, white for us to have peace.

The better alternative, of course, would be for them to convert to a Book whose strict construction produces peace. Let us pray. But in the meantime, I would be willing that some of our liberal friends that have re-written the US Constitution to justify abortion and the Bible to justify Government loving my neighbor with my money, apply the same logic to the Koran and make jihad mean scoring Goal in the World Cup.

God bless.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.

White House Is Drafting Executive Order to Allow Indefinite Detention of Terror Suspects

The Obama administration, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, is drafting an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely, according to three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations.

Such an order would embrace claims by former president George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war. Obama advisers are concerned that bypassing Congress could place the president on weaker footing before the courts and anger key supporters, the officials said.

After months of internal debate over how to close the facility in Cuba, White House officials are increasingly worried that reaching quick agreement with Congress on a new detention system may be impossible. Several officials said there is concern in the White House that the administration may not be able to close the facility by the president’s January deadline.

SMITH: Leon Panetta intimated the former vice president was playing politics with national security issues. The former president has intoned his own displeasure with some of your policy changes. I think they feel like some of the things that you’ve done, in fact, are treacherous.

OBAMA: Well, I think when it comes to Vice President Cheney, he and I have a deep disagreement about what’s required to keep the American people safe. And I think that disagreement has been amply aired and certainly he has a right to voice his opinions. I would argue that our policies are making the American people safer, and that some of the policies that he’s promoted in the past have not.

Michael Barone has a great piece that speaks to this and other issues he sees with the Obama Administration:

But transferring large segments of the American economy from the private to the public sector has proved to be tougher than winning Democratic primaries and caucuses. And Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il have proved to be harder to charm than American mainstream media. It’s generally good for American presidents to have long-term strategies. But in setting public policy it’s important to get the details right. And in guiding the nation in a dangerous world it’s vital to adjust to face hard realities and adjust to unexpected events.