Back to the Drawing Board


In a blow to president Obama’s plan to pressure or embarrass Republicans into considering his nominee to fill the current Supreme Court vacancy, Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval on Thursday removed his name from consideration.

The Governor is a moderate Republican. He was reportedly being vetted for consideration for the Supreme Court seat open as a result of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, but has said that he was not yet contacted by the White House.

His withdrawal of his name from consideration saves the Republican-controlled Senate from any pressure from within the party to consider a Republican nominee. Prominent senators have vowed not to consider any nominee put forward by the current president.

Meanwhile, OFA  –“Organizing For America”, the latest incarnation of “Obama for America” –has sent at least three missives on the subject to its followers, the latest encouraging them to sign a petition telling the Senate to “do its job” and vote on Obama nominees. Considering how often the then-Democrat -controlled Senate failed to take up judicial nominees during the Bush administration, it is to laugh.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Charles Grassley are scheduled to meet with Obama on Tuesday to discuss the Court vacancy, but the senators say they intend to honor their decision to wait until a new president is in office to consider a nominee.

In a written statement, McConnell and Grassley said

We look forward to reiterating to [Obama] directly that the American people will be heard and the next Supreme Court justice will be determined once the elections are complete.


“The Unspeakable Atrocity”


The title is from the late Prof. Mary Daly’s 1978 work Gyn/Ecology: The Meta-ethics of Radical Feminism. In it she describes in stomach-churning detail the mutilations and suffering inflicted on girls and women who undergo what she called African genital mutilation, performed almost exclusively in Muslim-majority countries, to keep women “pure” and “marriageable.” In essence, to make sex not only non-pleasureable, but for many women a horrifying ordeal; pregnancy and childbearing risky and subject to complications and infections; shortening life expectancy; and preoccupying women with pain and medical concerns they would otherwise not have.

According to Unicef, at least 200 million women and girls in 30 countries have been cut — 70 million more victims than previously thought.

On Monday, two American OB / GYNs published their paper “Female genital alteration: a compromise solution,” in the Journal of Medical Ethics. The authors, American OB-GYNs Kavita Shah Arora and Allan J. Jacobs, contend that a “compromise” should be reached with those in America who want their daughters cut. What’s the compromise?  Mutilate them just a little. So they won’t be taken abroad to suffer worse mutilation.

Arora and Jacobs contend that anti-FGM campaigns are seen as “culturally insensitive” and  “racist”. They therefore “drive the practice underground.” The authors suggest that “we must adopt a more nuanced position,” and allow a proceedure

 . . . that generally do[es] not carry long-term medical risks, is culturally sensitive, does not discriminate on the basis of gender, and does not violate human rights. More morbid procedures should not be performed. . . . Accepting de minimis non-therapeutic  FGA procedures enhances the effort of compassionate practitioners searching for a compromise position that respects cultural differences but protects the health of their patients.

Their compromise solution  allows a “nick” to the clitoral hood. And calling it “alteration” instead of “mutilation.”

But responses to the paper are at odds with those who believe cultural sensitivity is as important as the life and health of girls and women. Some argue that “not all cultural traditions deserve respect.

“There is no doubt that in whatever form, FGA has its origin and purpose in controlling women,” commented Ruth Macklin, a bioethicist at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine.

Brian Earp, a visiting scholar at the Hastings Center Bioethics Research Institute, said that changing laws to allow “minor” forms of female genital alteration would be “a fiasco” that raises questions of who could monitor and regulate such procedures.

The idea that American medicine should be in the business of performing non-therapeutic proceedures solely to accomodate the misogynistic preferences of a foreign belief system ought to be anathema to the medical profession. It certainly violates the first principles of the Hippocratic oath.

If the concern is that the practice will be “driven underground,” the solution must be law enforcement, prosecution of offenders, and loss of parental rights of those who torture their daughters. Sex trafficking of children has also been “driven underground.” But no one is suggesting a “compromise” of, say, establishing labor laws governing the sexual exploition of 11-year olds.

‘When in Rome, do as the Romans do,’ as the old saying goes. Those from elsewhere should respect our customs and laws. Immigrants to a culture adopt the language, customs and practices of that culture. Otherwise they are not immigrants, but colonists

Resisting the insistence of those from a foreign culture on maintaining their own barbaric traditions is not “insensitive”, let alone “racist”. FGM is practiced by peoples of several races today, though only one religion. The common denominator is Islam –though it is not, it is said, required by the Quran. It is the responsibility of the immigrant community to observe the laws of their adopted country, not the country’s responsibilty to change its laws to accomodate one immigrant community, particularly at the cost of the needless suffering of the most vulnerable.

Lame *uck President Tries Again to Bring Terrorists to US


President Barack Hussein Obama is again hectoring the legislative branch to let him import Islamic terrorists to the United States.

The madrassa-educated Democrat revealed his latest plan to tranfer a majority of the Islamic terrorists housed in the US facility at Guantanamo Bay to other countries–where they will likely be released. The remainder, who are too dangerous to be transferred abroad, would be brought to the US mainland, in violation of federal law.

In a brief sermon at the White House, the president said:

The plan we’re putting forward today isn’t just about closing the facility at Guantanamo. It’s not just about dealing with the current group of detainees . . . .This is about closing a chapter in our history. It reflects the lessons we’ve learned since 9/11.

Keeping this facility open is contrary to our values.  It undermines our standing in the world. It is viewed as a stain on our broader record of upholding the highest standards of rule of law.

Hamas-CAIR Wins Election For Trump

Ah, the Donald. He just can’t resist jerking their chain.

Republican front-runner Donald Trump regaled a crowd in South Carolina with an apocryphal story about General John Pershing during the Philippine-American War.

He took 50 bullets and he dipped them in pig’s blood, and he had his men load his rifles and he lined up the 50 people, and they shot 49 of those people. And the 50th person, he said, “You go back to your people and you tell them what happened.” And for 25 years there wasn’t a problem.

The ever-vigilant Islamic Defenders donned their most smug expressions and leapt into action.

“Donald Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric has crossed the line from spreading hatred to inciting violence,” Nihad Awad, the national executive director for the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), spluttered in a statement. “By directly stating that the only way to stop terrorism is to murder Muslims in graphic and religiously-offensive ways, he places the millions of innocent, law-abiding citizens in the American Muslim community at risk from rogue vigilantes.”

Of course, Donald Trump did not “directly state” anything of the kind, as the terrorist shill knows. But lying in the service of Islam is what Nihad Awad does: That’s His Jihad.

Unlike many an imam, on any given Friday, at mosques both in America and all over the world, Trump was not inciting anyone to kill anyone. Not even Jews. Or gays. Or women who have been raped.

Does Nihad object to the avalanche of murder-incitement –and murder –committed by Muslims? to the relentless antisemitic savagery? to the honor killings? the beheadings? the enslavement? the constant Muslim drumbeat of kill . . . kill . . . kill?

He’s never said.

Here he is peering over George W. Bush’s shoulder while Bush maunders on about Islam being the “Religion Of Peace”™ before the smoke has even cleared in lower Manhattan.


Donald Trump may well prove unbeatable, and if so, it will be thanks in part to the likes of Nihad Awad, who can’t help but remind Americans of all we have lost to Islam, in New York, in DC, in Shanksville PA, in Ft. Hood, in Boston, in Chattanooga, in San Bernardino . . . the list goes on.

And Americans are determined that it will stop.


“Stop Them!”

image swings.jpg

In a clear demonstration that no pleasure is too mild or trivial to be denied to women in Islamic lands, it was reported that Saudi religious police entered a park in the Kingdom recently to stop a group of women from using the swings. Yes,  sitting on swings,  perhaps swinging back and forth,  catching a breeze  -albeit  through  their  head-to-toe coverings,   relaxing  with  friends . . .

Saudi Arabia’s feared religious police entered a public park in the Gulf Kingdom and told women to stop using swings, an act that drew applause and criticism by viewers of a picture showing the men warning some women at the swings.

The picture went viral on social networks in Saudi Arabia before it was published by newspapers showing two men from the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice warning women against using the swings.

Of course the morality police were only interested in the women’s welfare, as the Saudi daily Al Sada reported: “Some viewers supported the move by the Commission members on the grounds women using the swing could encourage men to harass or molest them.”



Cologne Attacks Suspects Overwhelmingly Migrants


So far there have been 73 suspects identified in the investigation of the New Year’s Eve attacks in Cologne. According to Cologne prosecutor Ulrich Bremer,  most are from North Africa.

“The overwhelming majority of persons fall into the general category of refugees,” Bremer told The Associated Press, saying recent reports describing only three of the suspects as refugees were “total nonsense.”

The suspects include 30 Moroccans, 27 Algerians, 4 Iraqis, 3 Germans, 3 Syrians, 3 Tunisians, 1 Libyan, 1 Iranian and 1 Montenegran.

A total of 1,075 criminal complaints have been filed stemming from the NYE assaults, including 467 of  sexual crimes ranging from insults to rape.

Glad We’ve Cleared That Up


Good news, everyone! Our Betters at the European Commission have declared that the New Year’s Eve attacks by Muslim migrants have nothing to do with the migrant crisis. Whew! That’s a relief.

It was reported that in a minutes document from a meeting of the European Commission, Frans Timmermans, first vice president of the EC and deputy to President Jean-Claude Juncker, said that the NYE assaults “were a matter of public order and were not related to the refugee crisis.” In the minutes report the EC calls for “the unconditional rejection of false associations between certain criminal acts, such as the attacks on women in Cologne on New Year’s Eve, and the mass influx of refugees”.

Which makes it a little difficult to explain the over three-fold rise in the number of sexual  assault complaints from the recent Carnival celebrations at Cologne.

A total of 66 complaints for sexual insults or aggression were lodged between last Thursday [2/4/16] when the carnival got underway, and Wednesday morning. The previous year there were 18 such reports, police said.

However part of the rise could be due to “a change in the attitude of victims and witnesses,” the police added.

And there is also the fact that a heightened police presence compared to last year resulted in a decrease in other, non-sexual crimes.

Apartheid at the Mosque


While Barack Obama spoke recently at the Islamic Society of Baltimore, a mosque with close ties to several terrorists and terror organizations, another group held a quiet protest outside.

A small group of Muslim women and supporters stood outside the mosque to protest the separate and unequal treatment of women inside the mosque, and advocate for equal rights.

Among the protestors was Ify Okoye. A writer and former member of the ISB, she had to discontinue praying at the mosque after unsuccessfully seeking change to the gender apartheid system still in place. Explaining the reasons for the protest, Okoye and journalist Asra Nomani wrote in a recent New York Times article that women and girls are segregated from the rest of the attendees, and “unable to see the imam unless they peek over the balcony’s edge.”

As President and Michelle Obama argued decades ago in the context of the U.S. civil rights movement, separate is indeed unequal. To Muslim women’s rights activists fighting for equal access to mosques as part of a broader campaign for reform — from equal education for women and girls to freedom from so-called “honor killings” — the president’s visit to a mosque that practices such blatant inequity represents a step backwards. While it may be meant to convey a message of religious inclusiveness to American Muslims,  the visit demonstrates tacit acceptance of a form of discrimination that amounts to gender apartheid. 

President Obama gave his address from the musallah which women and girls are not permitted to enter. The backdrop for his speech was the 99 windows of the main prayer room, each bearing a different supposed name for Allah in ornate Arabic calligraphy, and all out of sight of the women and girls in their low-ceilinged “female prayer room.”

Perhaps the president did not notice that his audience was entirely male, or thought that such a sex-exclusive audience was perfectly normal. Much as the patrons of a whites-only lunch counter in the Jim Crow South failed to remark anything out-of-place in the absence of people who resemble Barack Obama.