Foliehatt Friday WTF Open Thread


Hot Air:

NBC’s Engel: US allies fear Obama admin leaking information to Iran

Just how badly has Barack Obama and his administration damaged relations with our allies in the Middle East? NBC’s Richard Engel reports that the Sunni nations in the region have begun to fear that the Obama administration leaks intel to Iran as part of its efforts at rapprochement with the mullahs, which is why the US got blindsided by the Saudi-led coalition’s operations in Yemen. The White House’s “incoherence” in policy, Engel reports, has most of them losing confidence in American leadership, according to Engel’s contacts (via Free Beacon):

ENGEL (1:58): I know several people in the US military who were taken by surprise by this [action in Yemen]. Senior officials who would have been expected to know that there was going to be an operation in Yemen, they didn’t. They were finding out about it almost in real time.

And they believe, and some US members of Congress believe, that the reason Saudi Arabia and other states didn’t tell the US that it was going to launch this war against Shi’ite backed, or Iranian-backed rebels in Yemen, is because Saudi Arabia and other countries simply don’t trust the United States anymore, don’t trust this administration — think the administration is working to befriend Iran to try and make a deal in Switzerland, and therefore didn’t think that the intelligence frankly would be secure.

I think that is a situation that is quite troubling for US foreign policy, where traditional allies — like Saudi Arabia, like Egypt, like the United Arab Emirates — don’t know if the US is reliable at this stage to hold onto this information when it comes to Iran.

Initially, this looked like material for an update on my earlier post regarding the Saudi-GCC coalition and its decision to work around Obama, but it deserves its own thread for a couple of reasons. First, Engel reported this for NBC, and on MSNBC, the “Lean Forward” cable channel that usually acts as a clearinghouse for Barack Obama apologists (and the occasional slam on Middle America). Engel’s not among the apologists; he’s a first-class foreign correspondent whose reports follow no partisan agenda, and whose sources have usually provided him with highly accurate reporting.

More importantly, Engel’s report advances this to an allegation of betrayal, not just incompetence. Clearly, Saudi Arabia has little confidence left in the Obama administration; that much is evident from their actions to cut the US out of the loop on this coalition. Engel’s report strongly suggests that it’s not just incompetence that has the Saudis and other US allies rattled, but a suspicion that they’re being purposefully sold out by Obama to get a deal with Iran that will unleash their ambitions to dominate the region.


This is kind of a big deal.

Remember Bowe Bergdahl? Remember me saying that the White House was releasing a huge squirrel? Did they know this story was about to break?

I need beer.


8574295


Posted in Uncategorized | 26 Comments

The New Jim Crow?

Blogging0399


HuffPoop:

Indiana Governor Signs Anti-Gay ‘Religious Freedom’ Bill At Private Ceremony

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) quietly signed legislation Thursday that could legalize discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act would allow any individual or corporation to cite its religious beliefs as a defense when sued by a private party. But many opponents of the bill, which included business leaders, argued that it could open the door to widespread discrimination. Business owners who don’t want to serve same-sex couples, for example, could now have legal protections to discriminate.

“Today I signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, because I support the freedom of religion for every Hoosier of every faith,” Pence said in a statement Thursday. “The Constitution of the United States and the Indiana Constitution both provide strong recognition of the freedom of religion but today, many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action.”

The bill received national attention, but Pence signed it with little fanfare in a ceremony closed to the public and the press. The Indianapolis Star reported that members of the media “were asked to leave even the waiting area of the governor’s office.”


Oh, my!

Pence’s signature on the bill came despite concerns from organizers set to hold major events in the state. On Wednesday, leaders of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) sent a letter to the governor saying they were reconsidering holding their 6,000-person general assembly in Indianapolis in 2017 because of the legislation.

“We are particularly distressed at the thought that, should RFRA be signed into law, some of our members and friends might not be welcome in Indiana businesses — might experience legally sanctioned bias and rejection once so common on the basis of race,” they wrote.

Organizers of Gen Con, which has been called the largest gaming convention in the country, also threatened to stop holding its event in Indiana if RFRA became law. Adrian Swartout, owner and CEO of Gen Con, said more than 56,000 people attended the convention in Indianapolis last year, pumping more than $50 million into the city.

Marc Benioff, CEO of the tech giant Salesforce, tweeted Thursday that the company would now be avoiding Indiana.


That’s not good.

But the Human Rights Campaign, which opposed Indiana’s RFRA and other similar bills popping up around the country, has argued the potential for discrimination is huge.

“These bills are often incredibly vague and light on details — usually intentionally. In practice, most of these bills could empower any individual to sue the government to attempt to end enforcement of a non-discrimination law,” wrote the LGBT equality group in a report. “The evangelical owner of a business providing a secular service can sue claiming that their personal faith empowers them to refuse to hire Jews, divorcees, or LGBT people. A landlord could claim the right to refuse to rent an apartment to a Muslim or a transgender person.”

In a statement Thursday, HRC Legal Director Sarah Warbelow said the Indiana General Assembly and Pence have sent a message saying, “as long as your religion tells you to, it’s ok to discriminate against people despite what the law says.”

“This new law hurts the reputation of Indiana and will have unacceptable implications for LGBT people and other minorities throughout the state,” she added.


O. M. G.!

There is even a #BoycottIndiana hashtag trending on Twitter so you know this shit is serious.

But wait! There’s more!

Continue reading

Posted in LGBT Rights, Same-Sex Marriage | Tagged , | 147 Comments

Having A “Y” Chromosome Is Not A Genetic Defect

Blogging0294


This post by Rhonda Robinson caught my eye:

Is the ‘Female Way of Learning’ Destroying Boyhood?

In my house ADD is considered a personality type, not a mental disorder.

I’ll admit that there were times when homeschooling my boys felt like keeping order in an asylum rather than a classroom. After raising five girls in a row, the two boys that followed stood in stark contrast. In fact, more than once my boys dumbfounded me.

For example, the time I explained a math problem to my son, for the umpteenth time. He had struggled with the concept for several days. This time, I secretly impressed myself. A mental news roll streamed through the back of my mind. “Brilliant explanation,” I thought. “This makes it all so crystal clear.” Just as my self-congratulatory thoughts began, I saw it. That flash of light in his eyes that showed actual brain activity.

“I got it!” he blurted.

“Yes!” I thought to myself. Waiting with the anticipation usually reserved for Christmas morning, I leaned in.

“Mom, you know that motor on the old lawn mower? Can I put that on my go-cart?”

As my over-inflated bubble of expectations burst into flames, all I could muster was, “No. However, you can go outside. Don’t come in for at least 30 minutes.”

Your first impression might be that I just gave up on the boy and sent him outside to play–and you would be wrong. I released him from captivity to burn off energy. It was a necessary move so that he could come back in and concentrate.

This is where a homeschool setting has the advantage over a public educational system simmered in cultural Marxism. Unlike teachers, mothers are not required to pound their boys into a cultural and political mold.

Rather than being appreciated for the future explorers, warriors and leaders they were designed to be, boys are viewed as defective little girls. Teachers want them to love reading and play nice, and no one wants to know where their hands have been. What is the real trouble with boys? Well, simply put, they are not girls.

Boys are no longer judged by their developmental standards. We have lost sight of a very basic tenet of humanity, one that our ancestors understood since the beginning of time: girls are very different from boys. Boys with uniquely masculine strengths, once prized, are no longer valued. In fact, these traits of boyhood are considered dangerous, even pathological.

[…]

Never before in the history of the American education system have we accepted a theoretical premise that suggested that males and females would follow similar developmental pathways. It appears that recently the female “way of learning” has become the gold standard in public schools and that those who deviate from this standard are assumed to be developmentally delayed, behaviorally disordered, and/or learning disabled.

For millions of years, males have been perfecting the art of “maleness,” and this maleness was considered throughout historical time to be extremely valuable to the functioning and maintenance of society (Stolzer, 2005). What are we to do now that, for the first time in the history of humankind, we have defined these ancient and uniquely male traits as pathological? The answer is that we have constructed a myriad of disorders (i.e., behavioral disorders, learning disabilities, and so on) that are currently rampant in the education system and in many instances require that male children use pharmaceutical drugs in order to alter their behavioral patterns so that they will conform to the scripts set forth by their female constituents (Stolzer, 2005). Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, Volume 10, Number 2, 2008

The “female way of learning” has become the standard for both sexes in the classroom, and the gold standard for behavior in general.

Just as we will never fully comprehend the emptiness in the world that an aborted child might have filled, so, too, the world suffers the loss of modern-day knights, and leaders subdued in boyhood.

As long as male traits are considered defective, boys will be left to sharpen their skills in the fantasy world of a video game. While the real world, in desperate need of heroes and bravery, is content to have him sitting quietly on the couch.


Robinson thinks it started around 1990, but I think it started at least 40 years earlier.

Human beings were successfully raising their young for thousands of years without the help of social scientists and other types of liberal/progressive pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo. Then suddenly around the middle of the 20th Century some “experts” decided we were doing it all wrong.

They used to say “Boys will be boys” but now that is politically incorrect to say and boys who act like boys always have find themselves being punished or “treated” for masculine behavior.

Nonetheless, I remain optimistic for the human race. As the old commercial used to say, “It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.” She has a rather rough way of dealing with foolish attempts to control her.


Are you talking to me, punk?

Are you talking to me, punk?


Posted in Uncategorized | 88 Comments

How Soon They Forget – When Obama First Announced He Was Running The Media Gushed In Their Panties

Obama theater007


I wrote this post back in April 2008 when I was still at Corrente. It was one of my earliest blogging attempts. The reactions of the Left and the lefty media to the announced candidacy of Ted Cruz make it relevant again:

Another look at “Destiny’s Child”

Last year Rolling Stone magazine published an article about Barack Obama called “Destiny’s Child” by Ben Wallace-Wells. The story deserves a second look, because at the time Obama was a virtual unknown to most of the public.

The piece begins with Obama’s arrival in Washington D.C., then shifts to his meteoric rise in the Democratic party:

Obama’s ascent from rookie senator to presidential contender is one of the more startling and sudden acts in recent political history. Those around him aren’t quite sure what has happened, and neither, for that matter, is the senator himself. Obama says he experienced the change as a call from the crowds that always stalk him, a summoning to a new role. First there was Hurricane Katrina, when the talk shows called him, assuming he had something to say. Then there were the throngs that lined the roads on his trip to Africa last summer, and the same excitement from domestic audiences on his book tour last fall. “I realized I didn’t feel comfortable standing on the sidelines when so much was at stake,” he tells me. “It was hard to maintain the notion that I was a backbencher.” The early, wonkish humility was gone, replaced by a man who began to speak of himself in sprawling, historic terms. “Just being the president is not a good way of thinking about it,” Obama says now. “You want to be a great president.”

[…]

Most politicians come to national prominence at the head of a movement: Bill Clinton had neoliberalism, George W. Bush had compassionate conservatism, Reagan had supply-side economics. Even Obama’s rivals have political calling cards: John Edwards has devoted himself to a poverty-fighting populism, Hillary Clinton is defined by a hawkish centrism. These identities give them infrastructures, ideologies, natural bases of support. Obama is trying to pull a less-conventional trick: to turn his own person into a movement. “I’m not surprised you’re having trouble categorizing him,” one of his aides says. “I don’t think he’s wedded to any ideological frame.” With Obama, there is only the man himself — his youth, his ease, his race, his claim on the new century. His candidacy is essentially a plea for voters to put their trust in his innate capacity for clarity and judgment. There is no Obama-ism, only Obama.

“People don’t come to Obama for what he’s done in the Senate,” says Bruce Reed, president of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. “They come because of what they hope he could be.” What Obama stands for, if anything, is not yet clear. Everywhere he goes he is greeted by thrilled crowds, trailed constantly by a reporter from The Chicago Tribune who is writing a book about the senator with a preliminary title so immodest that it embarrassed even Obama’s staff: The Savior. The danger here is that the public has committed the cardinal sin of political love, forcing Obama onto the national stage before knowing him well enough to gauge whether he’s ready for it. The candidate they see before them is their own creation — or, rather, it is the scrambling of a skinny, serious, self-reflective man trying to mold his public’s conflicted yearnings into something greater. “Barack has become a kind of human Rorschach test,” says Cassandra Butts, a friend of the senator’s from law school and now a leader at the Center for American Progress. “People see in him what they want to see.”


So far the article seems on the money. The entire Obama campaign has been more a policy-free cult of personality than anything else. But the part about feeling called to run is disturbingly reminiscent of George W. Bush.

Then the article introduces us to Reverend Jeremiah Wright:

The Trinity United Church of Christ, the church that Barack Obama attends in Chicago, is at once vast and unprepossessing, a big structure a couple of blocks from the projects, in the long open sore of a ghetto on the city’s far South Side. The church is a leftover vision from the Sixties of what a black nationalist future might look like. There’s the testifying fervor of the black church, the Afrocentric Bible readings, even the odd dashiki. And there is the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a sprawling, profane bear of a preacher, a kind of black ministerial institution, with his own radio shows and guest preaching gigs across the country. Wright takes the pulpit here one Sunday and solemnly, sonorously declares that he will recite ten essential facts about the United States. “Fact number one: We’ve got more black men in prison than there are in college,” he intones. “Fact number two: Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!” There is thumping applause; Wright has a cadence and power that make Obama sound like John Kerry. Now the reverend begins to preach. “We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional KILLERS. . . . We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God. . . . We conducted radiation experiments on our own people. . . . We care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means!” The crowd whoops and amens as Wright builds to his climax: “And. And. And! GAWD! Has GOT! To be SICK! OF THIS SHIT!”

This is as openly radical a background as any significant American political figure has ever emerged from, as much Malcolm X as Martin Luther King Jr. Wright is not an incidental figure in Obama’s life, or his politics. The senator “affirmed” his Christian faith in this church; he uses Wright as a “sounding board” to “make sure I’m not losing myself in the hype and hoopla.” Both the title of Obama’s second book, The Audacity of Hope, and the theme for his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 come from Wright’s sermons. “If you want to understand where Barack gets his feeling and rhetoric from,” says the Rev. Jim Wallis, a leader of the religious left, “just look at Jeremiah Wright.”

Obama wasn’t born into Wright’s world. His parents were atheists, an African bureaucrat and a white grad student, Jerry Falwell’s nightmare vision of secular liberals come to life. Obama could have picked any church — the spare, spiritual places in Hyde Park, the awesome pomp and procession of the cathedrals downtown. He could have picked a mosque, for that matter, or even a synagogue. Obama chose Trinity United. He picked Jeremiah Wright. Obama writes in his autobiography that on the day he chose this church, he felt the spirit of black memory and history moving through Wright, and “felt for the first time how that spirit carried within it, nascent, incomplete, the possibility of moving beyond our narrow dreams.”

Obama has now spent two years in the Senate and written two books about himself, both remarkably frank: There is a desire to own his story, to be both his own Boswell and his own investigative reporter. When you read his autobiography, the surprising thing — for such a measured politician — is the depth of radical feeling that seeps through, the amount of Jeremiah Wright that’s packed in there.”


It should be noted that this article was written long before Rev. Wright became controversial, and it clearly shows Obama’s close relationship with Rev. Wright and the influence the minister had on Obama. I’m not suggesting this was a bad thing, but it clearly contradicts the current story put out by Obama that distances the candidate from his former pastor.

The article moves on to Obama’s Senate campaign:

But in 2003, when Obama began to run for the U.S. Senate, his legislative track record wasn’t enough to get him elected. He was one of seven Democrats in the field, third or fourth on name recognition and even farther behind in funds. He barely stood a chance.

Then, running preliminary polls, his advisers noticed something remarkable: Women responded more intensely and warmly to Obama than did men. In a seven-candidate field, you don’t need to win every vote. His advisers, assuming they would pick up a healthy chunk of black votes, honed in on a different target: Every focus group they ran was composed exclusively of women, nearly all of them white.

There is an amazingly candid moment in Obama’s autobiography when he writes of his childhood discomfort at the way his mother would sexualize African-American men. “More than once,” he recalls, “my mother would point out: ‘Harry Belafonte is the best-looking man on the planet.’ ” What the focus groups his advisers conducted revealed was that Obama’s political career now depends, in some measure, upon a tamer version of this same feeling, on the complicated dynamics of how white women respond to a charismatic black man. “I remember when we realized something magical was happening,” says Obama’s pollster on the campaign, an earnest Iowan named Paul Harstad. “We were doing a focus group in suburban Chicago, and this woman, seventy years old, looks seventy-five, hears Obama’s life story, and she clasps her hand to her chest and says, ‘Be still, my heart.’ Be still, my heart — I’ve been doing this for a quarter century and I’ve never seen that.” The most remarkable thing, for Harstad, was that the woman hadn’t even seen the videos he had brought along of Obama speaking, had no idea what the young politician looked like. “All we’d done,” he says, “is tell them the Story.”

From that moment on, the Story became Obama’s calling card, his political rationale and his basic sale. Every American politician has this wrangle he has to pull off, reshaping his life story to fit into Abe Lincoln’s log cabin. Some pols (John Edwards, Bill Clinton) have an easier time of it than others (George Bush, Al Gore). Obama’s material is simply the best of all. What he has to offer, at the most fundamental level, is not ideology or even inspiration — it is the Story, the feeling that he embodies, in his own, uniquely American history, a longed-for break from the past. “With Obama, it’s all about his difference,” says Joe Trippi, the Democratic consultant who masterminded Howard Dean’s candidacy. “We see in him this hope that the country might be different, too.”


Three points here to take note of. The first is that the article fails to mention that Obama’s main opponents in the primary and general election ended up withdrawing, leaving him virtually unchallenged. The second point is that Obama’s alleged electoral attraction to women has essentially vanished as this campaign has progressed. Lastly, the article notes without a hint of irony that Obama’s legislative record in Illinois wasn’t enough to get him elected to the Senate, but that same record is now touted as sufficient for the White House.

The article introduces us to another notable name in the campaign, as well as a popular theme:

But Obama had something that most first-time senators lack: the clout of celebrity. You could almost see the wheels turning in the minds of Washington’s best and brightest: Go to work for Obama, they were thinking, and you might end up running the world. “You spend your life preparing for Bobby Kennedy to walk in the door,” says one D.C. pollster, “and then one day he walks in your door.”

One of the biggest names to work with Obama is Samantha Power, the scholar and journalist who was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide. “In 2004, I came out of election night just completely depressed,” Power says. “We thought Kerry would win and we’d all get a chance to change the world. But then it was like, ‘Nah, same old thing.’ ” Obama gave her a place to channel her energy. She advised him on the genocide in Darfur, an issue that most politicians at the time were studiously avoiding. “He’s a sponge,” Power says. “He pushes so hard on policy ideas that fifteen minutes after you’ve started talking, he’s sent you back to the drawing board. He doesn’t get weighted down by the limits of American power, but he sees you have to grasp those limits in order to transcend them.”


Poor Samantha, she was thrown under the bus for speaking her mind. But perhaps she can transcend her situation if Obama wins in November.

The remainder of the article is basically describes the beginning of the Obama cult:

With Obama, there are crowds — always the crowds. In December, in what marked the true beginning of his presidential campaign, he traveled to Manchester, New Hampshire, to test the political waters. The crowd begins with the retirees: Three hours before Obama is due to arrive, hobbling eighty-year-olds show up and badger the staff like teeny-boppers, trying to figure out which entrance the senator will use so they can catch a glimpse of him up close. The creaky old political operatives on hand debate whether this crowd was larger than the one they had seen when John F. Kennedy came to town. One woman compares Obama to Jesus.


Vague policies and lots of personality. Seems about right to me.

The story finishes with a trip to the Kibera district of Nairobi, Kenya, where Obama encounters adoring crowds:

The residents in Kibera know little about Obama besides his race, the fact that his father is from this country and what the Kenyan papers have told them: that he represents a younger and more empathetic vision of America. It’s enough. Here, at last, is what it would mean to have a black president of the United States, one with a feel for what it means to suffer the rough edge of American power. In Kibera, something raw and basic about global politics began to stir, to make itself heard. These people, among the poorest in the world, are hoping for something more. And in the shouting crowds and the ecstasy of the moment, it has begun to seem, for the first time, as if Obama wants it all, too.


Apparently the Obamaphenomena isn’t uniquely American.


Strangely enough, you cannot find this article at the RS website any longer. Or maybe you can, but I couldn’t.

BTW – Several people have criticized Ted Cruz for using a religious forum for his announcement. At least he wasn’t in a church:

2008-01-21_obama_faith_insert

Posted in Ted Cruz | Tagged | 40 Comments

Where I Came From

This was my grandma's house when I was growing up

This was my grandma’s house when I was growing up


For about half my childhood I lived in two homes. On weekdays I stayed at my grandmas and walked to and from school each day. I spent evenings and weekends at a house in the country along Bear Creek near Planada. Both houses are still standing but I don’t know what they look like inside. They both look the same from the outside, but the yard at my grandma’s has changed a lot and the house in Planada used to be on a Del Monte labor camp.

You can see my old bedroom window in the Planada picture below.

As you can see, we weren’t rich. But I still have lots of fond memories from these two places.

This is an open thread.


"Camp Three"

“Camp Three”


Posted in Uncategorized | 45 Comments

Compare And Contrast



Ayaan Hirsi Ali is Somali-born feminist (the good kind) and political activist. He resume is impressive and her biography is compelling and inspiring. From Wiki:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Dutch: [aːˈjaːn ˈɦiːrsi ˈaːli] ( listen); born 13 November 1969) — birthname Ayaan Hirsi Magan Isse Guleid Ali Wai’ays Muhammad Ali Umar Osman Mahamud;[a] — is a Somali-born American (formerly Dutch) activist, writer, and politician. She is known for her views critical of female genital mutilation and Islam and supportive of women’s rights and atheism. She collaborated on a short movie with Theo van Gogh, entitled Submission (2004). Critical of Islam, it provoked controversy, and death threats were made against each of the two. Van Gogh was assassinated later that year by a Dutch Muslim.

Hirsi Ali is the daughter of the Somali politician and opposition leader Hirsi Magan Isse. She and her family left Somalia in 1977 for Saudi Arabia, then Ethiopia, and later settled in Kenya. In 1992, Ali sought and obtained political asylum in the Netherlands. Following graduate work, she published articles on her political views and spoke in support of Muslim women, becoming an atheist. In 2003, Hirsi Ali was elected a member of the House of Representatives (the lower house of the Dutch parliament), representing the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD). A political crisis related to the validity of her Dutch citizenship led to her resignation from parliament, and indirectly to the fall of the second Balkenende cabinet in 2006.[1]
In 2005, Hirsi Ali was named by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world.[2] She has also received several awards, including a free speech award from the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten,[3] the Swedish Liberal Party’s Democracy Prize,[4] and the Moral Courage Award for commitment to conflict resolution, ethics, and world citizenship.[5] Hirsi Ali has published two autobiographies: in 2006[6] and 2010.

Hirsi Ali emigrated to the United States, where she was a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute.[7] She founded the women’s rights organisation, the AHA Foundation.[8] She became a naturalized US citizen in 2013 and that year was made a fellow at the Kennedy Government School at Harvard University, and a member of The Future of Diplomacy Project at the Belfer Center.[9][10] She is married to British historian and public commentator Niall Ferguson.

You might think that Hirsi Ali must be a feminist hero. If you thought that, you are wrong. Here is what she recently wrote for HuffPost:

The system of law I am talking about is sharia law, the body of legislation derived from the Qur’an, the Hadith, and the rest of Islamic jurisprudence. And the discriminated group I have in mind is women, though I could also reference Jews, Christians and gays.

No group is more harmed by sharia than Muslim women — a reflection in part of the patriarchal tribal culture out of which Islamic law emerged. Repeatedly, women are considered under the code to be worth at most “half a man.” Sharia subordinates women to men in a multitude of ways: the requirement of guardianship by men, the right of men to beat their wives, the right of men to have unfettered sexual access to their wives, the right of men to practice polygamy, and the restriction of women’s legal rights in divorce cases, in estate law, in cases of rape, in court testimony, and in consent to marriage. Sharia states that women are considered naked if any part of their body is showing except for their face and hands, while a man is considered naked only between his navel and his knees. Finally, although Muslim men may marry Christian or Jewish women, Muslim women may only marry Muslim men.

Segregation, in short, is central to sharia — a fact that no amount of contortion by self-styled Muslim feminists can get around.

True, not all Muslim-majority countries apply sharia. In Tunisia, after a heated internal debate, the Islamist Ennahda Movement — which came to power following the Arab Spring — opted last year not to make sharia the basis for the country’s new constitution. But that is precisely the kind of moderate policy explicitly targeted by whichever jihadist gang carried out the Tunis museum massacre. And the troubling thing is that, worldwide, sharia is gaining ground. In Brunei, for example, the Sultan announced the introduction of sharia law last April. The advance of organizations like Islamic State and Boko Haram mean the most brutal application of sharia on a rising number of women and girls.

There seems to me only one possible way to react to this trend toward sharia and that is to resist it. Perhaps that is more obvious to me than to most; having lived under sharia when I was a young girl in Saudi Arabia I know just what it means to be a second-class citizen. Yet many Western liberals seem to struggle with the obvious point that if they were against segregation and discrimination in the 1960s they should be against gender segregation and discrimination now.

My most recent book is an argument for a Muslim Reformation. It proposes a fundamental five-point modification of Islamic doctrine designed to remove the various incitements embedded in the Koran to engage in intolerance, oppression and violence. The book is addressed mainly to Muslims who are reluctant to follow me all the way to apostasy, but who are prepared to acknowledge, if only to themselves, that there are fundamental incompatibilities between their faith and modernity. But I am also addressing Western liberals — and not only those at Brandeis University who last year saw fit to rescind their institution’s offer to me of an honorary degree.

In their letter denouncing me, 87 Brandeis faculty members accused me of suggesting that:

violence toward girls and women is particular to Islam or the Two-Thirds World, thereby obscuring such violence in our midst among non-Muslims, including on our own campus [and]… the hard work on the ground by committed Muslim feminist and other progressive Muslim activists and scholars, who find support for gender and other equality within the Muslim tradition and are effective at achieving it.
Seriously? “Support for gender and other equality within the Muslim tradition”? As for Muslim feminists “achieving” greater equality, the evidence, as we have seen, is that women’s rights in the Muslim world are being rapidly eroded by the spread of Islamism.

Calling Western feminists: People like me — some of us apostates, most of us dissident Muslims — need your support, not your antagonism. We who have known what it is to live without freedom watch with incredulity as you who call yourselves liberals — who claim to believe so fervently in women’s and minority rights — make common cause with the forces in the world that manifestly pose the greatest threats to just those things.

I am now one of you: an American. I share with you the pleasures of the seminar rooms and the campus cafés. I know we Western intellectuals cannot lead a Muslim Reformation. But we do have an important role to play. We must no longer accept limitations on criticism of Islam. We must reject the notions that only Muslims can speak about Islam, and that any critical examination of Islam is inherently “racist.” Instead of contorting Western intellectual traditions so as not to offend our Muslim fellow citizens, we need to defend the Muslim dissidents who are risking their lives to promote the human rights we take for granted: equality for women, tolerance of all religions and orientations, our hard-won freedoms of speech and thought.

Multiculturalism should not mean that we tolerate another culture’s intolerance. If we do in fact support diversity, women’s rights, and gay rights, then we cannot in good conscience give Islam a free pass on that spurious ground.


Compare and contrast the videos about to the one below. Didja notice anything different?



Posted in ISIS/Islamic State/The Caliphate, Islam | Tagged , | 95 Comments

The New Birthers


This so cray:

View Guest Co-Host Declares Herself a ‘Ted Cruz Birther’

On Monday, the co-hosts of The View had a vigorous debate surrounding Ted Cruz’s presidential bid and guest host Michelle Collins took the discussion one step further by declaring to be a “Ted Cruz birther” and asked to “see the birth certificate.” The heated discussion began with Collins asking “He [Ted Cruz] was not born in America. He was born in Canada. So how can he run — how can he run for president? I actually don’t get it. I know he has to go to court.”

Unfortunately, no one on the panel, including conservative co-host Nicolle Wallace, bothered to explain that because Ted Cruz’s mother was born in the United States, he is in fact a natural born citizen and thus eligible to run for president.

Instead, the co-hosts went into a lengthy discussion about birtherism with Rosie Perez and Whoopi Goldberg both falsely accusing Ted Cruz of being a birther himself when in fact the senator has never questioned President Obama’s citizenship.

After Wallace argued that Cruz being born in Canada was “the least of his problems” Rosie Perez went one step further and began smearing the GOP senator:

For you [Nicolle Wallace] to say as a Republican that him not being born in this country is the least of his problems is insane. Insane. I love you darling, but with the birthers and all of that stuff, they’ve made it a huge issue.


Ted Cruz running for president is worth it just for the entertainment value. Prog heads are already exploding. Once again they are proving that their principles are for convenience only.


u mad bro tc


Posted in Ted Cruz | Tagged | 47 Comments