'London Mayor Recommends Ramadan Fast for All'

From the Israel National News:


The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, has recommended that non-Muslims take the opportunity of the month of Ramadan to fast, along with their Muslim neighbors, in order to promote "understanding between cultures."

Johnson told members of a London mosque that with Muslims so much a part of London life, it would be befitting for non-Muslims to get to know their fellow Londoners' customs and religion better.

"Whether it's in theater, comedy, sports, music or politics, Muslims are challenging the traditional stereotypes and showing that they are, and want to be, a part of the mainstream community," Johnson said. ''That's why I urge people, particularly during Ramadan, to find out more about Islam, increase your understanding and learning, even fast for a day with your Muslim neighbor and break your fast at the local mosque. I would be very surprised if you didn't find that you share more in common than you thought," he said.

'Muslims are at the heart of every aspect of society," he added. "Their contribution is something that all Londoners benefit from. Muslim police officers, doctors, scientists and teachers are an essential part of the fabric of London." There are currently 1.6 million Muslims in Britain, most of whom fast during Ramadan, Muslim community officials told reporters.

Not all Londoners embraced the idea. A local English Democrat leader, Steve Uncles, blasted Johnson's comments, saying that "the indigenous culture of this country is based on Christianity and Paganism. Of course, as an open and tolerant society, if people want to practice other religions, then good luck to them. But the state should not be funding them because otherwise we will lose our culture."

Although perhaps the most original, Johnson's is far from the only effort by Western politicians to honor Ramadan and Muslims. Last week, U.S. President Barack Obama hosted a Ramadan break the fast meal at the White House. "Islam, as we know, is part of America," Obama said during the dinner. "Together we have a responsibility to foster engagement grounded in mutual interest and mutual respect."

A report Saturday said that Egyptian police had arrested 155 people in the southern city of Aswan for not fasting during Ramadan. According to local reports, police have targeted people seen eating or drinking anything during daylight hours. According to one local official, the police campaign is evidence of an increased Muslim fervor among police, while another official said that the local government was trying to appease Islamists, who have increased in popularity in recent months.

There was no word on whether London Mayor Johnson was planning to suggest that Muslims and Christians fast on Yom Kippur in order to better understand their Jewish neighbors.

Fox News Gets Bad Case of Cronkitis

“I have a feeling that it [Osama bin Laden’s new videotape]could tilt the election a bit. In fact, I’m a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, that he probably set up bin Laden to this thing.”-- Former CBS Evening News anchor Walter Cronkite on CNN’s Larry King Live, October 29, 2004.

Is anyone else flabbergasted at how many times Fox News has called Walter Cronkite “The Most Trusted Man in America”? I’m glad to see Debbie Schlussel hasn’t lost any time putting Cronkite back in perspective.

I hope Fox News will begin to see some pushback from their saner commentators. As a Fox watcher, I was already thoroughly sick of the wall-to-wall Michael Jackson coverage, but at least Jackson didn't betray American GIs. I anticipate a long week of surfing off of Fox every time the old footage comes on of Cronkite crying during the moon shot. (BTW, get a load of the look on Wally Schirra's face as he endures Cronkite's ego during some of the old moon coverage.)

Fox News exists largely thanks to its faithful viewers’ appreciation for a news alternative to a liberal media establishment of which Cronkite was the founding father. The leftist media’s biggest historical triumph is still having forced America to lose in Vietnam, and Cronkite was the journalistic icon of that defeat. Every time an MSNBC or New York Times reporter said we were losing in Iraq, he had to pay Cronkite a royalty.

Cronkite got the “most trusted man” handle in 1973, when he ranked ahead of the president and vice president in a national poll.
As if beating out Nixon and Agnew was a tough assignment in 1973, the year of Watergate, Agnew resigning, and the American decision to bug out of Vietnam for good, a tragic decision we’re still paying for.

At the time, Americans were OK with that decision because we’d been fed a steady diet of Cronkite’s version of what was at stake. In other words, 1973 was the lowest point of one of the lowest decades in American history. Trusting someone like Cronkite was only a part of the pathology.

Fox picking up and repeating that "most trusted" handle without context--and without challenge-makes as much sense as calling Obama “The One” because the slave media does so without apology.

As can be seen from Cronkite's stupid statement about Karl Rove quoted above, he lacked a balanced perspective, or even common sense. He also shared the fatal flaw of liberal journalism, which is the belief that the whole world agrees with his opinions, except for a few hayseed dummies (like the dopes who watch Fox News).

Is it just a desire to boost ratings that has Fox News trying to out-CBS the mainstream media's lionization of Cronkite?

'Today Everyone Is an Iranian'

Today Everyone is an Iranian

By Amil Imani

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." John F. Kennedy

Today, all Iranian expatriates are united in solidarity with the Iranian people in Iran. Today, we are all standing tall to let the world hear our continuous aspiration for a free and democratic Iran. Today, we pledge ourselves, under the divine inspiration, to stand beside the Iranians in Iran and echo their voices around the globe. Today, we make history, yet again.

It is critical that freedom-loving people, governments and media, rally behind the Iranian people and end the tyrannical mullahcracy that is a scourge on Iran as well as the world. The Iranian people themselves are fully capable and are determined to remove the cancer of Islamism from their country. The United States and Israel and other democracies have a huge stake in the success of the Iranian people to rid themselves of the Islamic oppression and tyranny.

The situation in Iran is dire indeed. Anyone who believes that sane rational people on both sides are engaged in brinkmanship to secure the best advantage, but would eventually work out a compromise, is deluding himself. In some cases, time works as a healer and even as a solution of thorny problems. Yet, this problem will not go away, and time would only make the cataclysmic clash more likely and deadly. The best chance for resolving the impasse is regime change in Iran.

For the past thirty years, the intrepid Iranians have been paying with their blood for liberty, independence and human dignity while the world looked the other way and did business with the Islamist rulers in Iran. Thirty years ago, a fanatic Shi'a Muslim by the name of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, with the assistance of western governments (with Jimmy Carter on top of the list), succeeded in overthrowing the Shah of Iran during Iran's 1979 revolution.

Khomeini promised Iranians heaven, but he created hell on earth, turning Iran into a bastion of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. Ever since, tens of thousands of political activists have been killed or imprisoned. Tens of thousands of opposition groups, women, ethnic and religious minorities, have been subjected to inhumane treatment and tens of thousands of political prisoners are spending their precious lives, in the medieval barbaric Islamic Republic dungeons.

Since 1979, this illegitimate government of the Islamic Republic has been waging a brutal war against the entire population of Iran who has been fighting for individual and religious freedom. In spite of tens of thousands of political executions, other brutal practices and years of a reign of terror, the Islamists have not succeeded in uprooting the nationwide movement for democracy in Iran.

We honor Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. for proclaiming from a Birmingham jail, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." To demand justice for others, he risked his life, left his native Georgia, and ended up in jail in the-then-bigoted south, Birmingham, Alabama. We "Iranians" must do no less. We must demand justice for our compatriots who are suffering under the yoke of Islamofascism in Iran.

We also do well to recall the example of an Irish-American President-John F. Kennedy-looking at the Communists' Wall of Shame in Berlin, proclaiming, "Ich bin ein Berliner"-"I am a Berliner." By so claiming, he helped rally free people of the world that brought down the wall and created a momentum that eventually swept the totalitarian Communist wall-builders into the dustbin of history.

Another great American President, Ronald Reagan, took a stand on freedom with the Polish people.

"The Polish nation, speaking through Solidarity, has provided one of the brightest, bravest moments of modern history. The people of Poland are giving us an imperishable example of courage and devotion to the values of freedom in the face of relentless opposition. Left to themselves, the Polish people would enjoy a new birth of freedom. But there are those who oppose the idea of freedom, who are intolerant of national independence, and hostile to the European values of democracy and the rule of law."

History records that Reagan's decision to take a strong stand for Polish freedom -- and bringing down the Communist system itself -- was the right one." Reagan led and inspired the Poles to continue the struggle which resulted in half of Europe being freed from iron-fisted domination, by then, the Soviet Union.

Even the European Union called on Islamic authorities to investigate allegations of vote-rigging during Iran's presidential election on Friday, expressing concern at Tehran's crackdown on protesters. Germany's Angela Merkel took a much tougher stand than President Obama did, calling the oppression "totally unacceptable," while all Obama could say was that it's "deeply troubling" (video here).

President Obama's halting comments only made clear his fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the Islamic regime. It appears President Obama is going to betray the Iranian people as Jimmy Carter did 3 decades earlier. Senator John McCain, President Obama's rival in last year's US election, described the president's response as "tepid," and blasted him for abandoning the "fundamental principles" of the United States. Iranian people don't expect the Americans to come to Iran and fight for them. Every decent and freedom-loving nation knows that the Iranian people have the right and the duty to change their form of government. What Americans can do for the Iranian people is to lend them their support; not to fight on their behalf, but to rally to their side and to cheer their struggle.

We Iranians in spirit-free people of the world--greatly cherish liberty, where the mind is imbued with enlightenment, and every individual, by the virtue of being born human, is afforded freedom. It is within the open expanse of liberty that each and every person can be at his or her best. And when the individual person is at his best, humanity is at its best.

Today, we are reaching outside of ourselves. Today, we are raising our own standard. Today, we are standing tall and declaring our perpetual commitment to the liberation of Iran and her citizens. Today, we are marching for the support of the brave and courageous people of Iran. Today, our demonstration is inspired by demonstrations of the Iranian people inside Iran against the dictatorship and barbarity of the Islamic Republic. We shall all demonstrate until every Iranian is free. Today, everyone is an Iranian.

Carter's Little Livid Pills

Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter’s personal effort to make Hamas a peace partner has set off alarm bells in the White House. "[We] won't have more to say about this,” a government official said after being asked about reports that Carter will propose to U.S. President Barack Obama that the United States take Hamas off the list of illegal terrorist organizations.

He made the comment shortly after he narrowly escaped an assassination attempt by terrorists who had planted a huge bomb near the path where he was traveling.

The White House is livid with Carter, according to an experienced Middle East expert who was quoted on the website of the widely respected Foreign Policy magazine. “They are very pissed,” he said. "Just like with President Clinton, Carter is becoming a huge problem and a growing concern for Obama.” (“Carter-Hamas Friendship May Stalemate Obama”).

First Amendment 2.0

Feminist columnist Bonnie Erbe has written a column under the helpful headline, “Tiller Murder Is Terrorism, and All Pro-Life Extremists Are to Blame,” in which she sets forth what she believes ought to be the legal limits of speech for those non-extremists who “object” to abortion:

I am careful to note I am referring here to EXTREMIST pro-life advocates, people who refer to abortion as "baby-killing" and other inflammatory rhetoric. I am explicitly not referring to mainstreamers who object to abortion due to religious beliefs, but who refrain from using inflammatory speech.

So, you can be a mainstream opponent of abortion, and not an extremist, provided your opposition is “due to religious belief” and if you “refrain from using inflammatory speech.” Specifically, don’t refer to abortion as “baby-killing.”

Erbe is quite clear that she defines an extremist pro-life advocate as one who refers “to abortion as 'baby-killing' and other inflammatory rhetoric.” She says that Randall Terry’s statement, “Abortion is still murder. And we still must call abortion by its proper name; murder,” should be banned:

This type of speech ought to be against the law and anyone who issues it ought to be prosecuted as an accessory to murder, as well as for partaking in domestic terrorism.

But don't get Erbe wrong. As long as you're a mainstream objector to abortion, for religious reasons, we can tolerate that. Provided you never, ever step over the line and say that abortion is baby-killing.

Conversations about abortion would sound like this:

Feminist 1: I'm so glad abortion is still legal, I could just give the president a bl*****!

Mainstream Objector: I don't really approve of abortion.

Feminist 2: What?

MO: My religion doesn't allow us to do that.

Feminist 1: Why not?

MO: It's just part of the whole thing. We also can't drink coffee or fly over the Great Divide within 3 days of a New Moon.

Feminist 2: That is so cool. My sister does Feng Shui.

Feminist 1: I'm not religious, but I'm very spiritual.

Erbe can tolerate religious objectors because the prevalent conviction among the elites for whom she writes is that all religion is anti-science, and that by definition a "religious" belief is one based upon an arbitrary, primitive fable. For instance, the Cherokee believe the Earth is borne on a turtle's back, animists believe that spirits of the departed inhabit the objects around them, and some less-enlightened sects of Christians think babies grow in the wombs of pregnant women. Diversity commands benevolence towards "faith traditions" because they're vestiges of otherwise pretty cool ethnic heritages, (as long as they're not European). But no one confuses them with reality. No one abstains from shellfish or smokes ganja because of science.

But once you start talking about what happens during an abortion -- even if it's got nothing to do with religion, but everything to do with science, or ethics, or civil rights, or commons sense, you better not be saying anything extreme. You better not say there's any baby involved, and you better not say anything about killing.

And this lady writes for something called the “Thomas Jefferson Street blog”?

Russ Gibb at Random

It’s great to see Russ Gibb back again.

Anti-Torture Picture Lacks Definition

Cliff May has a post at NRO Online that addresses the dishonest element that runs through all of the recent whip-up about "torture." There's also some details about how Islamists respond to harsh interrogation:

Re: Not Pro-Torture, Just Pro-Facts [Cliff May]

Andrew Sullivan has a post up on his Daily Dish taking a shot at me as well. He begins by saying generously: “Cliff May has done great work over the years advancing democracy and defending human rights.” He goes on to link to one of my Corner posts and to say that my “defense of torture when and only when America does it deeply undermines his credibility and makes a mockery of his previous work.”

In fact, in just about everything I’ve written and said, I’ve taken pains to emphasize that I oppose torture. However, I do think (1) it’s important to define torture so we know what we are talking about, and (2) all forms of “stress and duress” utilized to elicit cooperation from a terrorist in possession of life-saving information are not torture.

Every opponent I’ve debated on has taken this tactic — labeling me as “pro-torture,” refusing to grapple with definitions, and refusing to consider whether there may be methods of interrogation that are unpleasant but fall short of torture.

This is especially important because we now know that Islamists believe their religion forbids them to cooperate with infidels — until they have reached the limit of their ability to endure the hardships the infidel is inflicting on them.* In other words: Imagine an al-Qaeda member who would like to give his interrogators information, who does not want continue fighting, who would prefer not to see more innocent people slaughtered. He would need his interrogators to press him hard so he can feel that he has met his religious obligations — only then could he cooperate.

But just try to get anyone in the “anti-torture” camp to seriously debate any of this.

* “Brothers who are captured and interrogated are permitted by Allah to provide information when they believe they have reached the limit of their ability to withhold it in the face of psychological and physical hardships.” — Abu Zubaydah, quoted in released CIA memos

Only Simon Cowell Can Save Us Now

If you’re searching for a single metaphor that can capture the presidency of Barack Obama so far, think of the uplifting experience so many of us had when we first watched the Susan Boyle video, and then take all those factors, the homely looks, the scorn, the absysmal expectations, the smug certainty of a ridiculous outcome, all followed by the shock of that gifted voice--then imagine all those factors exactly reversed.

Obama proved to me once and for all today that he is the anti-Boyle.

Speaking of Susan Boyle, get a load of her singing “Cry Me a River” if you haven’t already. Maybe it will make you feel better.

Get today's bad taste out of your mouth.

Bless Us, Comrades, for They Have Sinned

Clinton Scores Points by Admitting Past U.S. Errors

“It has become a recurring theme of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s early travels as the chief diplomat of the United States: she says that American policy on a given issue has failed, and her foreign listeners fall all over themselves in
gratitude.

“On Friday, Mrs. Clinton said here that the uncompromising policy of the Bush administration toward Cuba had not worked.”

The NYT refers to this, without intending any sarcasm, as Hillary’s “contrition tour,” part of the larger Obama administration project of “paving a new road. It is recognition of the fact that previous policies have failed. Fifty years of a policy that has not generated the originally sought purposes can be called a failure.”

There’s nothing easier than showing contrition for someone else’s sins, perceived or actual. Obama showed how this works over the weekend when he expressed gratitude that Marxist Daniel Ortega’s diatribe against America didn’t include Obama personally, as he was only three months old during the Bay of Pigs.

Of course, Obama wasn’t traveling to Trinidad-Tobago as a private citizen, but as President of the United States--successor, hard as it still is to believe, of all former American presidents for the past half-century, including Kennedy, who believed a tough stance against Castro was in order.

There’s certainly room for debate as to whether or not the fifty-year embargo against Cuba accomplished its original purpose, as Hillary claims it did not. But is the point really what will or won't work wth Cuba? Isn't all this really about buying the world's affections with promises that gruff old Uncle Sam is gone now and replaced with President O'Barney's I-love-you, you-love-me foreign policy?

Asked whether the United States would build bridges to hostile Latin American leaders, like Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, Mrs. Clinton said, “Let’s put ideology aside; that is so yesterday.”

CAIR-FBI Breakup Leading to Some Hard Feelings

From the looks of it, the FBI’s breakup with CAIR is leading to some sour grapes.

Last month, 10 U.S. Muslim organizations in California, including CAIR and the Muslim Students Association, “threatened . . . to cease working with the FBI, citing ‘McCarthy-era tactics’ by the agency, including efforts to covertly infiltrate California mosques.”

The issue was the arrest and indictment of Afghan native, Ahmadullah Niazi, who was arrested during a raid in February, and supposedly offered a chance by an FBI agent to become an informant. Niazi refused, and now says his arrest was retaliation for his refusal to cooperate.

According to the CNN report, “FBI planting spies in U.S. mosques, Muslim groups say”:

Niazi, 34, was indicted last month on charges of perjury, procuring naturalization unlawfully, using a passport procured by fraud and making false statements. A search warrant for Niazi's Tustin, California, home said Niazi became a naturalized citizen in 2004 and made false statements about his past aliases and international travel.

He also made false statements about contact with his brother-in-law Amin ul-Haq, the indictment said. Ul-Haq is said to be Osama bin Laden's security coordinator and has been labeled a "specially designated global terrorist" by the U.S. government, the indictment said.

An FBI agent said in open court that Niazi also had discussed terrorist plots with an undercover informant, according to media reports. Niazi has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him.

CAIR's problems with the FBI began before Niazi's arrest. Last year, the FBI discontinued its "formal contact" with CAIR.

By the way, these are the ten signatories:

• American Muslim Alliance
• American Muslims for Palestine
• Council on American-Islamic Relations
• Islamic Educational Center of Orange County
• Islamic Circle of North America
• Muslim Alliance in North America
• MAS Freedom
• Muslim Student Association-National
• Muslim Ummah of North America
• United Muslims of America

Then more recently, some Michigan Muslim groups have been singing from the same hymnbook. According to an AP story from last week, (“Mich. Muslim group says FBI asking people to spy”):

A Michigan Muslim organization said . . . it has asked U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate complaints that the FBI is asking followers of the faith to spy on Islamic leaders and worshippers.

The Council of Islamic Organizations of Michigan sent a letter last week to Holder after mosques and other groups reported members of the community have been approached to monitor people coming to mosques and donations they make.

. . . .Former FBI agents and federal prosecutors have said spying on mosques is one of the government's best weapons to thwart terrorists, but agents need to have credible and specific information before sending in a plant.

And a local spokesman for the FBI has denied that the agency is involved in any “fishing expeditions.” In this case, I'm inclined to believe the FBI.

For comments the AP turned to Dawud Walid, executive director of Michigan CAIR. Walid thinks there's no basis for suspicion by the FBI. And he assures all of us that "Community members would be the first people to report to federal law enforcement if such things were being said."

Then CAIR in Minnesota has been giving the FBI flak for talking to Somali students in their investigation of the missing Somali men--suspected of being recruited and sent off to do jihad in the Middle East. (“Somalis, FBI in other U.S. cities on alert for terrorist recruiting”).

Two of the missing Somalis were students at the University of Minnesota, so, not surprising, agents have been talking to local high school and university students who may have some knowledge about the missing men. No one involved suggests that these interviews are anything but voluntary.

But, in response, “[t]he Council on American-Islamic Relations is calling on colleges to provide more legal help for students and also says students have been approached by the FBI while walking to class and in the library. Students have also received calls from investigators.” (“FBI continues questioning U students”).

As is apparent from this, none of these stories describe anything unlawful by the FBI. What the stories reflect are attempts by CAIR and their compatriots to scare the FBI into backing off on investigations from fear of negative publicity.

Iran Celebrates 30-Year Anniversary by Taking Another American Hostage

President Obama is "deeply disappointed" that Iran has imprisoned an American journalist on phony charges of spying after a secret kangaroo trial.

So he's disappointed, but is he ever going to learn anything?

From the TimesOnline:

April 19, 2009
Talks setback as Iran jails US ‘spy’

Sara Hashash and Sarah Baxter, Washington
AN Iranian court sentenced an American journalist to eight years in prison yesterday, accusing her of spying for the US. President Obama was said to be “deeply disappointed” by the ruling, which is seen as a blow to Washington’s efforts to engage Tehran in talks.

Roxana Saberi, 31, who holds joint American-Iranian citizenship, a freelance who has worked for the BBC and National Public Radio, was arrested in January and went on trial behind closed doors last week.

A former beauty queen who has degrees from Cambridge and Northwestern universities, Saberi is the first American journalist to be found guilty of espionage in Iran. Her lawyer, Abdolsamad Khorramshahi, said he would “definitely appeal”.

Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, said: “We will continue to vigorously raise our concerns to the Iranian government.”

Saberi’s conviction comes as Washington presses ahead with overtures to Iran, which US analysts believe is close to developing nuclear weapons. Clinton is to send Dennis Ross, her special adviser on Iran, to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states to discuss holding one-to-one talks with Tehran.

Last week Clinton met European diplomats including Javier Solana, the European Union foreign policy chief, to discuss inviting Iran to participate in talks with the United Nations security council. “We’re willing to have a direct dialogue with Iran,” said a state department spokesman.

Richard Holbrooke, the US special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, said he had chatted briefly with Iran’s foreign minister at a conference in Tokyo last week.

Observers at the annual Army Day parade in Tehran yesterday noted that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave a relatively low-key speech and there was little sign of the antiwestern banners and slogans usually seen at the event.

Thomas More Law Center, Michael Savage, and 'Disgruntled Veteran' File Suit in Detroit Against Napolitano, Homeland Security

April 17, 2009

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced that yesterday evening it filed a federal lawsuit against Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. The lawsuit claims that her Department’s “Rightwing Extremism Policy,” as reflected in the recently publicized Intelligence Assessment, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” violates the civil liberties of combat veterans as well as American citizens by targeting them for disfavored treatment on account of their political beliefs. Click here to read the complaint filed by the Thomas More
Law Center.

Napolitano tried to blunt the public furor over the Report by a half-hearted apology to veterans, but she left out of her apology all of the other Americans her Department has targeted because of their political beliefs. In fact, officials in DHS now admit that their internal office of civil liberties objected to the language in the extremism report, but the Department issued it anyway. (“Napolitano is Lying to Americans About Her Department’s Rightwing Extremism Report; TMLC Files Suit”).

Extremist Alert

Bad media week for right-wing extremists.

If you took a look through Thursday’s Detroit News, you would have gotten a stiff booster shot of what Janet Napolitano and company tried to immunize us with when they released their now well-known report on “rightwing extremism.”

We already know, (because the media explained it to us), that some "desperate veterans" turn to terrorism and violence in insane reaction to the ideals of the Obama administration. Now we find out that the rest of the desperate veterans turn to suicide. (Suicide, murder, whatever, as long as it's a violent image). (“Desperate veterans turn to suicide”):

Several branches of the military are reporting significant spikes in the number of suicides committed by both active-duty troops and veterans returning from duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. Experts are calling the number of military-related suicides sweeping the country an "epidemic."

The article offers no empirical evidence that these veterans took their own lives because they'd served in combat. The rate of depression in the general population is already significant. It only follows that persons suffering depression, or prone to it, end up in the military as much as in civilian life. Do they think combat is going to cure depression, when modern science hasn't? Yes, some people kill themselves after living through the horrors of combat. Some people kill themselves after living through the horrors of high school, or the horror of divorce, or the horrors of life in the 21st century.

The emotional hook of the article is the myth that mental health professionals can forecast when a patient is going to commit suicide, so it's their fault for not stopping it. The article focuses on families of suicidal vets who are suing the VA for not "committing" their sons to VA psych wards against their wills. One physician called a suicide victims's mother afterwards to apologize for his role in releasing him. (I find it hard to believe this happened, frankly.) "He said he would not make the same decision again. She screamed at him: 'Why didn't you lock my son up? He might be alive if you had.'"

Committing a patient with mental-health issues involuntarily is one of the most difficult legal obstacles known to American health professionals (thanks to liberals who loved Jack Nicholson in Cuckoo's Nest).

I have no doubt that the News had the following lead on ice if any VA doctor ever dared to "commit" a suicidal vet: “After risking their lives in combat for everyone else’s freedom, America’s returning vets are finding themselves deprived of liberty by VA doctors, who are slamming them away into psych wards, with fewer rights than Gitmo detainees, forgotten in the 'black holes' of government pysch wards."

Understand, the object of stories like these is not to highlight an epidemic of suicide among veterans, but to reiterate the Left’s premises that all war is intrinsically evil, and that military service is to be avoided at all costs as unhealthy, especially to soldiers who serve valiantly.

The article's writer, Marney Rich Keenan, is so irresponsible she repeats, unexamined, slanderous trial-lawyer accusations of the VA “manipulating suicide statistics to downplay the problem and systematically misdiagnosing returning combat soldiers who suffer mental illness because their resources are tapped.”

Then there’s the article by Charlie LeDuff. (“Masculine meltdown: When men brush aside old ideals, they become nearly irrelevant”).

LeDuff has a Pullitzer and used to work for the New York Times. Aside from that he strikes me as a having a load of talent, a quirky point of view, but a writing style that follows a meandering path that—for me—never manages to make any actual point. Yesterday he was writing about average, working U.S. males, who are getting hit hard buy the failing economy, which, as he sees it, makes them “potentially violent.”

“The cheerleaders of globalization (remember them?) said the American man is profligate, lazy, a relic in the new economic order. And that may be true. But sweeping a living generation into the ashbin of history is a dangerous proposition. To ignore these men is to be unaware of what lies on the horizon. Violence is one possibility. We shall see.”

Meaning what, exactly, Charlie? Whaddya mean, "we shall see"? Isn’t violence one possibility for just about any group you want to mention, the homeless, the gay, illegal immigrants, draft-dodgers, burnouts? Or for that matter, nurses, cops, clergy, pizza delivery drivers, community organizers? Just about anybody walking is capable of violence. Or capable of heroic virtue. Or steady, stick-with-it competence. The point is, what business have you got drawing a line between the word “violence” and the U.S. males you’re maligning, when you never actually illustrate them being resorting to violence?

Trying to get a fix on LeDuff’s model U.S. male isn’t easy, but we know who he doesn’t like:

“Men crave dignity and fulfillment. And when they cannot attain those, they become unhappy, quarrelsome, small-minded, cowards, dopers, racists, talk show know-it-alls and bloggers.”

I don’t know who he has in mind for unhappy bloggers, but I do know no “talk show know-it-all” is more hated by one side than Rush Limbaugh, whom I admire, and Sean Hannity, whom I admire much less. Then there are Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager, Dennis Miller, and Bill Bennett. But one thing you can’t call any of them is unhappy. On the other hand, ever listen to Randi Rhodes? Keith Olbermann? ("Quarrelsome, small-minded, cowards.")

And then, somehow, Thursday's News had nothing to report about Wednesday's national anti-tax tea parties, except in one swiping story, also written by Charlie LeDuff, about a Michigan Militia gathering on Wednesday:

"Am I angry?" asked the unemployed commander, with a semi-automatic rifle strapped across his pectorals. "Yeah, it sets you off a little bit."

Come to a Michigan Militia picnic and you realize the commander is not alone. The farm where they rallied was chockfull of people like him, people boiling on the back burner, struggling to make ends meet, carrying around a knapsack of resentment for a government that they claim has taken almost everything from them and given nothing in return. (“Anger boils among Michigan militia members”).

Get the "boiling" image? Gun nuts on holiday, right? ready to go wild in a spray of bullets? According to LeDuff, "The militia is not alone in placing their faith in the gun and bullet."

Except LeDuff never quotes any militia members appealing to the gun and the bullet as the place they put their faith. LeDuff himself says they love the Bill of Rights. Omigod! Talk about a recipe for "potentially violent"!

He never describes one threat of violence, one example of these poor, "boiling" rightwing extremists actually "boiling over."

And then Thursday's News somehow managed to fail to report on the Department of Homeland Security report on rightwing extremists. Which speaks volumes, in my view.

From Tehran with Love

Iranian expert Michael Ledeen has a current article, ("Caving to Iran"), about how the British government has been giving in to Iranian blackmail lately. In it Ledeen paints a picture of a high-level doomsday summit of global bad guys in Tehran that could have come out of an old James Bond movie:

After the humiliation of Hamas by Israel earlier this year, the Iranian leaders summoned more than a dozen terrorist groups to Tehran for meetings with Supreme Leader Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad. The meetings went on for several weeks, from mid-February to mid-March. According to usually reliable sources, the terrorists were informed that Iran had committed a billion dollars for the “liberation of Palestine,” and that actions would be coordinated by an umbrella organization to be called “Hezbollah of Palestine.” Participants included Egyptian and Lebanese Muslim Brotherhood leaders and top officials from Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Reportedly, representatives of the Turkish government were also present. The Iranian regime was represented by officers from the Revolutionary Guards and the Quds Forces, and by Khamenei himself, a clear demonstration of the urgency with which the Iranians viewed the matter.

Check out the complete article.

Credit Shortage in D.C.

The question of how much credit President Obama deserves in the dramatic rescue of Captain Phillips has been batted around in the media for the past couple of days. Most of the comments I’ve heard have given Obama credit, though admittedly it’s in the negative form of credit for not preventing the Navy from rescuing Captain Phillips. (I don’t believe anyone has said he deserves credit for being the driving force behind the rescue).

I think the reason for the stinginess to Obama is that, right up until the moment when news of the successful rescue was broadcast on Easter Sunday, no American aware of the situation—and that includes Obama’s suporters—was entirely sure that Obama himself wouldn’t be the cause of a worse outcome, such as allowing the pirates to spirit Phillips successfully away into Somalia, or paying ransom to pirates to get him back.

Of the expert commentary I was hearing before the crisis was resolved, from retired military guys and merchant marines, none of them had the slightest doubt that the U.S. Navy would be able to rescue the Captain if allowed to do so; instead, what had them worried was that a decision might be made in the White House to appease the pirates, or otherwise tie the hands of the Navy—basically, they were terrified that Obama would order the Navy to stand by, or stand down and do nothing.

As it is now turning out, these anxieties were unfounded. Whether or not they were completely unfounded, we don’t know yet, because we’re not yet privy to the inner workings of Obama’s inner circle. (O, God, I can only imagine).

But why did America have so much doubt about whether or not Obama would do the right thing?

Because, no matter how successfully Obama seems to have stepped up to seeming “presidential” as a stylist or as an excellent speaker, what he hasn’t done is convince a lot of his countrymen that he’s going to do the right thing when it comes to protecting the country from our enemies. He’s only been in office eighty-some days, and just behold Caroline Glick’s terrifying summary of Obama’s single-minded mission to lower the flag.

I have no doubt that if Bush had still been in office, he was would have forcefully denounced this attack on American interests without diluting our national options with a lot of empty talk about “partnership” and “cooperation.” (This turned out as an American operation from first-to-last: partnership with other countries played no role in the rescue of Capt. Phillips.) Afterwards, Bush would have called to congratulate the commander and Capt. Phillips for their heroism, specifically commending captain and crew them for their exemplary “American” response to the pirate attack. There may even have been some good-natured bravado with the guys who went from being victims to victors in taking there ship back from these punks.

On some level even Bush’s enemies, and that vast swath of Americans who’ve allowed themselves to be persuaded that they always hated him, too, never would have had any doubt that Bush would come out swinging in the same circumstances. Most likely, as soon as the ship was taken, the New York Times and Phil Donohue would have been publicly begging for Congressional intervention to stop the Commander in Chief from reacting in a cowboy-like, "arrogant" fashion. But what never would have occurred to anyone would be that Commander-in-Chief Bush would ever call the Navy up and tell them to back off.

President Obama had millions of us convinced he just might be capable of that.

That element of doubt about this current president's judgment will not be cured just because the media tries this to call this a successful foreign crisis test.

No-risk Nevada Gamble Pays Jackpot

At least when you play the slots it costs you a quarter. A Nevada school district just shelled out $400,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by a Muslim student who claimed other students threatened to kill her because she wore a headscarf. Here's free money:

The Washoe County School District in the Reno area will give Egyptian former student Jana Elhifny $350,000 and her non-Muslim friend and supporter Stephanie Hart $50,000 as part of the civil settlement.

Elhifny and her family came to Reno from Egypt in 2003, and the girl enrolled as a freshman at North Valleys High School.

She didn't finish the year after she told teachers and administrators that someone had threatened to kill her in the stairwell because of her Muslim hijab or head scarf, the district's independent attorney in the case, Robert Cox, told FOXNews.com.

Shortly afterwards, Cox said, Elhifny filed the lawsuit and returned to Egypt, Stephanie Hart, who had nothing to do with any of this and has since dropped out of high school to have a baby. (“Muslim Girl Gets $400G From Nevada School District in Head Scarf Bully Case”).

$350,000 isn’t a bad dowry in Egypt. (The other $50K went to Elhifny’s BFF, who had nothing to do with any of this, except for being friends with the Muslim girl, and allegedly being ostracized. (Hey kids, the joke's on us for getting bullied, being ostracized, and befriending weirdos for free!) Hart was so upset she dropped out, moved to California, and had a baby).

This one doesn’t pass the smell test. Sure there are bullies in high school. And I’ll bet anybody who ever got hassled by one--or ganged up on by multiple bullies--can give you very particular details about the SOBs--even decades later. (If you don't remember any bullies, you were one of them). Yet according to the school district’s attorney, the Muslim victim “was unable to give any description of her tormenter — including his or her gender, size and tone of voice.”

Really? Not even the gender? (Or, as we used to say in English, "not even the sex"?) Must make her flashbacks kind of bland.

This stinks for about fifty reasons. Maybe if she’d dropped out and gone into therapy or transferred schools. But move back to Egypt and marry her fiancé? That almost makes it sound as if coming to America was a quick way to accumulate the downpayment on an Egyptian bungalow that doesn’t have a tunnel to Gaza under it . (DU has been unable to confirm that Elhifny was unable to identify her fiancé by gender, size and tone of voice.)

And filing a lawsuit and moving back to Egypt? Okay, so she’s disappointed in America because a short-tall-medium boy-girl high-low-voice threatened to kill her for wearing hijab. But going back to Egypt also protects her from ever being cross-examined, or otherwise haled into court to answer for any of her allegations, even if they turn out to be phony.

Nothing to do but sit and wait for the check to come. And enjoy your marital bliss Egyptian-style.

Just like the Somali meat processing case, the defendants caved in only “to end lengthy and ‘expensive litigation.’” Elhifny's alleged death threat was in 2003, six years ago, when she was a freshman.

This is a case of bullying for the textbooks. The only question is: which party here is the bully?

Henry Payne

I'm just beginning to realize that editorial cartoonist Henry Payne at the Detroit News is about the best thing going from either of the Detroit dailies, although I still enjoy reading The Lockhorns.

Or should we now be calling the News and Free Press sub-dailies?

Payne's got a good one about Barney Frank today. Check him out here:

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

With apologies to—Torquemada?

First poor Alberto Gonzalez had to be suffocated repeatedly with the intolerable smugness of Leahy and Schumer. Now he faces the comfy chair.

Apparently some Spanish jurists have decided that criminalizing politics, which has been such a blast for American Democrats like John Conyers, Chuck Schumer, and Pat Leahy, can be useful for bringing the USA into conformity with Europe’s debased worldview.

LONDON — A Spanish court has taken the first steps toward opening a criminal investigation into allegations that six former high-level Bush administration officials violated international law by providing the legal framework to justify the torture of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, an official close to the case said.

The case, against former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and others, was sent to the prosecutor’s office for review by Baltasar Garzón, the crusading investigative judge who ordered the arrest of the former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. The official said that it was “highly probable” that the case would go forward and that it could lead to arrest warrants.

Douglas Feith, one of the targeted advisors, writes that the whole thing was cooked up by, "A lawyer in Spain -- who did his legal studies while serving over seven years in prison for kidnapping and terrorism -- [who] engineered a complaint accusing the U.S. government of systematically torturing war-on-terrorism detainees."

By daring to give their studied legal opinions to the President on the legality of detainee interrogations under the Geneva Conventions--opinions the Spanish liberals didn't like--the American officials are now being summoned to answer for crimes before a Spanish court. The whole thing is utter bullshit.

And the President of the United States needs to say so.

Andrew McCarthy comments this way:

Had our diplomats had any inkling, when the conventions were adopted in 1949,that they were surrendering national-security decisions to politically unaccountable federal judges, let alone to foreign tribunals whose strings are pulled by perfervid anti-Americans, the conventions would never have been signed.

But they were. Now, in the hands of the Left’s bottomless ranks of barristers, they have evolved into a cudgel, more effective than any armed force, for beating down our defenses. That cudgel is wielded under the auspices of an abstraction portentously called “the rule of law,” which in fact is simply the whim of a post-sovereign professoriate in the service of savages.

'It's Not Racist to Oppose Obama'

It's the exceptions that prove the rule, and I've always held the rule that the opinions of celebrities should be avoided at all costs--unless they need ridiculing. Now and then there's an example of guts that just needs to be held up. (And since gutsy opinions in Hollywood and liberals are mutually exclusive, it's only natural the exemplary opinions tend to be opinions I sympathize with).

From the FoxNews blog site:

Angie Harmon: It's not Racist to Oppose Obama

Posted by: Dwayne Horner at 5:00 PM

Increasingly, as Barack Obama's policies continue to be a failure and sends the stock market plunging downward while moving America more and more towards socialism, there is a underlying motive on some to say any criticism is akin to racism. Actress Angie Harmon rightfully disagrees with this growing sentiment.

From FOX News:

"Here's my problem with this, I'm just going to come out and say it. If I have anything to say against Obama it's not because I'm a racist, it's because I don't like what he's doing as President and anybody should be able to feel that way, but what I find now is that if you say anything against him you're called a racist," said Harmon.

"But it has nothing to do with it, I don’t care what color he is. I’m just not crazy about what he's doing and I heard all about this, and he’s gonna do that and change and change, so okay … I'm still dressing for a recession over here buddy and we've got unemployment at an all-time high and that was his number one thing and that's the thing I really don't appreciate. If I'm going to disagree with my President, that doesn't make me a racist. If I was to disagree with W, that doesn't make me racist. It has nothing to do with it, it is ridiculous."

Harmon is also tired of the double-standard that exists in the media today, speaking out on the recent trip by Barack Obama to the west coast that cost the tax payer over $54,000 a mile to make an appearance on the Jay Leno show:

"I do think McCain would have done a better job, only because I think he has more experience. I also think if W or John McCain or Reagan would have gone and done a talk show, the backlash would have been so huge and in his face, and ‘What is our president doing? How unclassy!’ But Obama does it and no one says anything," Harmon said.

Harmon is also a fan of former VP candidate and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

"I admire any kind of woman like her. My whole motto is to know what I stand for and know what I don't stand for and have the courage to live my life accordingly and she does exactly that. The fact that this woman has made the decisions she's made and literally lived her life according to that and takes heat for it is absolutely disgusting to me," she added. "People cannot look at this woman. I really think they're afraid of her and her morals, ethics and values and the fact that she hangs on them. Is she the most experienced person in the world? But she was running to be the Vice President, so we then put the most inexperienced person as the President. That didn't make any sense to me."

It's interesting to note that a Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, a female politician and someone who was mentioned as a potential VP herself, has allowed a criticism of Palin on her campaign website as Matt Lewis mentioned today.

Harmon joines fellow conservatives in Hollywood like Gary Sinese and John Voight in their support of Republicans and opposition to Barack Obama.
#

'Welcome, Polytheists!'

Anyone else having doubting Imam Sayid Hassan al-Qazwini's sincerity when he met with the new head of Detroit's Catholic archdiocese, Archbishop Allen Vigneron at the Islamic Center the other day? Imam Qazwini sounded genuinely excited about the visit--he also sounded as if the Archbishop was the first Christian to ever visit Dearborn:

"We welcome you to Dearborn, the Muslim capital of the West,as I call it," Qazwini said. "God says in the Quran, 'You will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who say they are Christian.' Jesus and Mohammad are none other than but two channels to God. Let us open our houses of worship to each other." ("Archbishop meets with Muslim leaders at Dearborn mosque").

I'll leave it to better experts on the Koran than me to explain the passage Qazwini has in mind, but I will at least quote it in its context.

Thou wilt surely find the most hostile of men to the believers are the Jews and the idolaters; and thou wilt surely find the nearest of them in love to the believers are those who say 'We are Christians'; that, because some of them are priests and monks, and they wax not proud, and when they hear what has been sent down to the Messenger, thou seest their eyes overflow with tears because of the truth they recognize. They say, 'Our Lord, we believe, so do Thou write us down among the witnesses. Why should we not believe in God and the truth that has come to us, and be eager that our Lord should admit us with the righteous people?' And God rewards them for what they say with gardens underneath which rivers flow, therein dwelling forever; that is the recompense of the good-doers. [5:82-85] >

Sounds nice enough. But the next verse says this: "But those that disbelieve and deny Our revelation shall become the inmates of Hell." Which sounds more like the Islam we have grown to know and love.

And that's how we roll in the Muslim capital of the West.