The United Caliphates of America?

If the United States had fought the Second World War as we have the “war on terror” we would now speak German east of the Mississippi River and Japanese west of it. Thank God Americans weren’t concerned about offending the sensibilities of Hitler and Hirohito in 1942. The World War II generation put this country first and settled for nothing less than defeating our enemies. Times have changed.

Either the United States has succumbed to unbridled political correctness, or we’ve lost heart to the point we’ll sacrifice our culture and our very survival to the mythical concept of peace with Islamic radicals. Perhaps it’s a little of both. Political correctness influences our attitudes to an unreasonable degree. But a greater problem is our insatiable desire to placate our enemies, even at the expense of values we allegedly hold dear.

When Rev. Terry Jones ignited his copy of the Koran our government and media rose to condemn his intolerance. Ah the duplicity! What happened to free speech? I thought burning an offending item was a protected First Amendment right. Perhaps free speech extends only to desecrating items of significance to the United States and Western Civilization.

Insightful and wise protesters can burn the flag of the United States with impunity. In fact, torch our flag and you’ll become a folk hero to the same people who condemn Terry Jones. Offending religion is just as acceptable, so long as the religion is prevalent in Western culture. For instance, submerging a crucifix in urine is hailed as cutting edge artistic expression and the “artist” is an eccentric genius. Try sinking a statue of Muhammad in urine and see what happens.

Why do we abandon our heritage, sacrifice our culture, and belittle our values? What is honorable in elevating depraved ideologies above our own?

I’m no fan of book burnings regardless the literature serving as the fuel. But where is the condemnation for the Muslims who are using Jones’ campfire as their latest excuse to commit horrendous violence for the glory of Allah? And why are so many ostensibly intelligent Americans tripping over each other for the chance to apologize to an enemy? We’re too interested in avoiding the appearance of intolerance toward Islam to recognize the threat radicalization poses to America’s future, or even our own assaults on our liberties.

When Fourth Division troops advanced from Utah Beach’s D-Day landing zones the 101st Airborne paratroopers greeted them with this advice: don’t trust the Nazis. America wasn’t afraid to identify and aggressively target our enemies during World War II. Isn’t it time we revived our ancestors’ attitudes before we awake in the United Caliphates of America?

Two lessons from Rev. Terry Jones

To say the United States faces problems is an understatement. The economy is stagnant. Congressional authors of $1.5 trillion budget deficits haggle over a few billion bucks as if that sum is significant. Lethargy is rewarded and productivity is demeaned. Number among those problems our inability to properly assign responsibility and to recognize enemies.


The case of the eccentric Reverend Terry Jones supports this theory. Jones and his diminutive flock put the Koran on trial, found it wanting and burned it at the stake. Call the mock trial a witch hunt if you like, but the actual burning was nothing more than symbolism. No one was injured and no property, except Jones' copy of the Koran, was damaged. Yet Jones' protest sent Afghanistan into a frenzy and America's intelligentsia scrambling for the nearest microphone, eager to blame Terry Jones for Afghanistan's violent reaction.


This may come as a shock, but the flame-throwing Terry Jones is absolutely correct in denying responsibility for Afghanistan's bloodshed. Yes, Jones burned the Koran with full knowledge his act was controversial and outrageous. However, does such desecration justify rioting, arson, and killing on the part of offended Muslims?


Bill O’Reilly and General David Petraeus think so, and they've joined voices with like minds to publicly denounce the otherwise obscure Terry Jones. Jones' one-book bonfire was hateful and intolerant, the critics charge, and endangered U.S. troops serving in Islamic lands. Their arguments ring hollow. Jihad has a long history of outrage against anything Western. Had Jones' mock trail exonerated the Koran, Islamic radicals would've invented another outrage to justify their hostility. Torching a Koran excuses Islamic riots no more than closing a Japanese restaurant validates the bombing of Pearl Harbor.


Where Terry Jones is correct and his opponents are wrong is in assigning blame for the Afghan violence and in recognizing the deficient morals Islamic fundamentalism espouses. Jones rightly blames the Afghans themselves. They alone rioted, pillaged, and killed their countrymen. Yet America’s brightest minds refuse to blame Afghans for the carnage wrought in Islam’s name. Gen. Petraeus, in fact, believes the Afghan brutality may be justified. Why? Because an insignificant someone half a world away burned a book? Pardon me if the roiling “Muslim street” seems a mite oversensitive.


Are Muslims then bound to silence when their favored texts and shrines are marginalized or desecrated? Of course not. But when their outrage induces indiscriminate killings it says plenty about their ideology and the danger it poses to civilization worldwide. Were Islam the sole religion to suffer an insult Muslim anger might be understandable. But that scenario is as far removed from reality as the east is from the west.


Christians are offended when alleged artists submerge crucifixes in jars of urine and smear elephant dung on paintings of the Virgin Mary. Christians don’t, however, retaliate with arson and murder. Both Christians and Jews would be offended if an obscure imam burned the Bible or the Pentateuch. But would either Christians or Jews embark on a homicidal rampage? Hardly, for such a response contradicts the tenets of both doctrines. Yet within Islam violence follows offense as surely as dogs trail the butcher’s wagon. What’s more, violent overreaction is expected from Muslims. Otherwise, Western “leaders” wouldn’t be falling all over each other to placate Muslims with apologies for our intolerance.


Ample evidence exists to convince even the harshest skeptic that vicious responses to perceived injustices are harmonious to Islamic tradition. American cartoonist Molly Norris surrendered her career, and her very identity, after her work offended Islam. A fatwa forced Norris to become what George Orwell termed a “non-person.” Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses prompted the “religion of peace” to place a bounty on his head. Now there’s a bounty on Terry Jones’ head to the tune of $2.4 million.


Name a time when Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, or Sikhs resorted to violence as readily as do Muslims. Under Islamic Law both non-Muslims and Muslim apostates can face stoning or decapitation for their heresy. And Terry Jones is labeled a militant? Tell me, has Rev. Jones commandeered an airliner in the name of Christ? Has he lopped the head from an unrepentant sinner? Has he convinced young men to don dynamite-laden vests and detonate at bus stops for the glory of God? Friends, violence was an Islamic hallmark long before Jones struck his first match.


Burning books is a vacant gesture that, of itself, accomplishes nothing. Even so, the pyromaniacal Terry Jones has granted America a genuine favor. His irreverent act reminds us of both the virulent intolerance common to Islamic fundamentalism and of our own tendency to lay blame on everyone except those responsible. Rather than condemnation, America should extend gratitude to Terry Jones for highlighting two more flaws we desperately need to correct.

The Middle East reaches a fork in the road

A fork in the road tells travelers that their current path has ended. The travelers are then compelled to decide among the four choices a fork presents. The first options are obvious; choose one of the new paths. The third option is to be satisfied with their current position and remain at the fork. The fourth option is to return the way they came.

Egyptians have followed Hosni Mubarak’s path for more than a generation. But autocratic rule has little respect for the individual and can carry a people only so far. Egypt has reached the end of Mubarak’s path. They arrived at the proverbial fork in the road and must choose from the four options.

Eliminate the third and fourth alternatives. Egyptians have no interest in revisiting the past or maintaining the status quo. The street protests and Mubarak’s subsequent resignation prove their desire to go in a new direction, with both the right and left fork presenting a series of unsettling unknowns.

How much time will pass before the wisdom in Egypt’s selection is manifest? Will their new path equal greater freedom, or produce a more caustic brand of totalitarianism than experienced under their former ruler, as did Iran’s revolution in 1979? How will Egypt’s new direction affect its relationship with the West, particularly the United States? As of now there are no adequate answers, only opinions.

Captain Ramius (Sean Connery, the Hunt for Red October) stated it so well, “A little revolution now and then is a healthy thing, don’t you think?”

American history began in revolt against a tyrannical sovereign, only our revolution was bloodier than Egypt’s has thus far been. Thus Americans admire the underdog, the courageous few who will thumb their nose at the despot. However, as much as we would love to see liberty flourish in the Arab lands, allegiance with the protesters is premature. That fact hasn’t kept President Obama from singing their praises.

Obama said that “Egypt will never be the same.” He is correct, change is coming and Egypt will be different. Yet neither he nor anyone else knows how the transformation will unfold or what future waits down either fork the Egyptians follow. Free elections, democracy in action, don’t guarantee freedom.

For instance, one of the Iraq War’s key objectives was to depose a dictator and establish a democratically elected government. Such a government would, theoretically, produce a free Middle Eastern state with close ties to the West. That mission is complete. Saddam Hussein is gone and Iraqis have chosen their path. But the result hasn’t been the Jeffersonian Republic we had expected or hoped for, at least thus far.

Post-Saddam Iraq is a Shiite Muslim theocracy, governed by the same religious doctrine that guides Iran’s Ayatollahs. Liberty, particularly religious liberty, isn’t common under such rule. Iraqi Christians have suffered repeated assaults on not only their religious liberty but their very lives. And the Shiite attitude toward women is in no way conducive to freedom.

Egypt’s new path could lead in a similar direction. What’s more, Egypt isn’t the only predominantly Muslim nation facing a choice. Many such nations stand at a comparable fork in the road. In each case--Algeria, Tunisia, Bahrain, Iran, etc.--protesters are targeting authoritarian regimes. Their uprisings have brought the United States to its own fork in the road.

Americans admire the revolutionary spirit and desire for self-determination. But revolts are worthwhile only when they result in free nations with peaceful intentions. It’s too early to determine that freedom and peace are coming to Egypt or to the Middle East overall. In fact, there’s little reason to believe either fork will foster greater liberty, prosperity, or peace with Western Civilization within the Islamic world.

Middle East protesters have no apparent desire to retrace their steps or remain at the fork. They will choose one of the paths ahead. But it’s quite possible that both paths will lead them to another, perhaps harsher, form of authoritarian oppression. Let’s not be hasty in pronouncing 2011 the year Arabs and Muslims chose the road to liberty.

Death by a thousand firecrackers?

People in Dearborn, MI can breathe a little easier; a mad bomber is off the streets. Roger Stockholm is safely locked in the jug, charged with issuing terrorist threats and possessing explosives.

Stockholm, a 63-year-old Californian, was arrested outside the Islamic Center of America. In his car was a veritable arsenal. Well, it was an arsenal if a cache of Class-C fireworks constitutes an ammo dump. Apparently, Stockholm intended to bring down the Islamic Center with a battery of Black Cat firecrackers. Even so, Dearborn Police Chief Ronald Haddad said after Stockholm’s arrest, “I think the society he wanted to impact is safe.”

Really Chief Haddad? Safe from what: putting out an eye or losing a finger? It’s difficult to imagine Stockholm inflicting mass casualties or widespread damage with explosives that can be bought at a convenience store. And just what was his plan of attack: illuminate the target with sparklers and utilize bottle rockets for suppressing fire while deploying M-80s to blow the mosque apart brick-by-brick? Sure, fireworks can be dangerous. But this case seems a mite overblown.

In my youth my friends and I played with similar weapons of mass destruction. No model airplane, Hot Wheels car, or plastic soldier proved a match for our FDTs (Firecracker Demolition Teams). Yet the only times we inflicted casualties was when we’d stuff firecrackers in anthills. We never damaged so much as a dog house, much less a mosque. Furthermore, today’s M-80s aren’t comparable to those of yesteryear, which would instantaneously transform a wooden birdhouse into toothpicks. Destroy a mosque? If Muslims want to play the terror victim they’ll have to do better than this.

When it comes to plotting terror attacks Roger Stockholm is a rank amateur compared to Islamic militants. Stockholm chose roman candles. Muslims pack a skiff with high explosives and sail it into the hull of a U.S. Navy warship. Stockholm had a carload of firecrackers. Muslims detonate remote control car bombs in the midst of open-air markets and have elevated the dynamite vest into a demolition art form.

Admitted, Stockholm does appear something of a crank. But in this case he’s guilty of no more than poor judgment and possessing illegal fireworks, which makes him as much a terror threat as a 13-year-old kid on summer vacation. So what purpose is served--other than the obvious comic relief--by terrorism charges against Stockholm?

Perhaps this is the latest attempt to prove that terrorism isn’t exclusively Muslim. Of course, no one has claimed it was. Not all Muslims support terrorism. It’s unlikely a majority of them do. Yet it’s undeniable that a significant number of Muslims find their epiphany in converting the world to Islam one suicide bomb at a time.

If Islam’s best counter to the Muslim terrorist stereotype is a 62-year-old kook with a carload of fireworks they have precious little evidence to offer. I suggest they go back to the drawing board.

This column first appeared at American Thinker.

Let the U.S. puts its best breast forward

There’s an old adage common to rural America: He comes around with his hat in his hand. It means that one person has granted deference to another. When the subservient person meets the one who’s considered superior the hat is removed in recognition of that status. That adage can apply to relationships between entities and nations, too.

America certainly takes the “hat in hand” approach to dealing with the Islamic theocracy in Iran. But we must alter the classic phrase to properly recognize the moment. Instead, America comes around Iran with our breasts in baggy t-shirts and our legs concealed.

Well, how would you explain it? When the U.S. met Iran at the World Basketball Championships the American cheerleaders were required to tone down their normally skimpy outfits. Organizers said it was a “nod to Muslim law.” I say it was a nod to politically correct cowardice. Frankly, I’m more than tired of catering to “Muslim law” and Iran’s delicate sensibilities.

Make no mistake, if Catholics, Baptists, or Methodists expressed offense at the cheerleaders’ (un)dress code they would be met with howls of protest and accused of harboring repressive attitudes toward both women and sexuality. Prudes and religious zealots they would be called. Each charge, every last one, would come from the same ideological nut tree that bends to every hot breeze emanating from the truly repressive, sexist, Islamic states.

I’ll admit that American cheerleaders often dress in a way that makes a Frederick’s of Hollywood catalog look like a high school yearbook. Yes, we could stand to tone down some of those outfits just a wee bit, at least to the point where they’re suitable for the local strip club. But this isn’t the time, not if done to appease Iran and Islamic law.

Iran’s ruling cabal of asinine ayatollahs, maniacal mullahs, insolent imams and crazed clerics have despised everything to do with the United States since the days of the Shah. Iran considers stoning a normal form of capital punishment and treats women like livestock. They are a state sponsor of Islamic radicals ranging from rocket wielding jihadists to suicide bombers, and Hezbollah is a de facto wing of the Iranian army. Why should America cater to Iran as if their culture has achieved some higher plane of moral superiority?

In this case I say less is more. If cheerleaders appear at future U.S.-Iran sporting events they should do so in their entire decadent Western glory. Instead of covering up, let’s redefine the word “skimpy.” Our "hotties" should be encouraged to flaunt their forms in a fashion that will leave Nevada madams blushing like schoolgirls. Outfit the cheerleaders with micro-thongs, give each a shiny silver pole and crank up the neon.

Dance ladies! Spin, twirl and dance some more. Dance your pretty little hearts out. And what if the offended Iranian rulers storm out of the arena? Well, don’t let the door hit you in the bisht on the way out!

What might 9/11 sound like in the future?

Few stones are left unturned in the debate over the Ground Zero mosque. I’ve tipped a few of those stones myself. But there remains one stone that, to my knowledge, has been left undisturbed. I discovered this stone today (tripped over it actually), on the anniversary of al-Qaeda’s greatest strike to date against their “great Satan.”

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s building near Ground Zero will house more than a mosque; that much is true. But let there be no question, it will house a mosque. And where there is a mosque there is the adhan, the Muslim call to prayer. The adhan will sound from Rauf’s mosque five times each day, meaning that the Muslim call to Islamic prayer will reverberate around the World Trade Center site on a daily basis, and be heard quite clear. But that isn’t the worst part.

Each 9/11, on each anniversary of the attack on our homeland, while the names of the dead are recalled and the nation remembers, the Muslim call to prayer will be heard at Ground Zero. It will mingle with the solemn roll call of victims and the haunting memories of the burned and dying. The climactic event will come on September 11, 2015. That’s when 9/11’s anniversary next falls on a Friday, Islam’s holy day.

I’ve never felt the cold steel of a sword pierce my heart. But I can’t imagine it being much worse than hearing a Muslim incantation recited via loudspeaker at Ground Zero, on their holy day, on our 9/11.

Don’t think our shame will be private. Don’t think it will be lost on the Islamic world. They will see our solemn memorial yield to the tune of the adhan and they will be pleased. The much-feared “Muslim street” will rally in Syria, Afghanistan, Iran and anywhere fanatical Muslims gather, rallying to laugh at Western Civilization’s “paper tiger” and jeer at our tolerance.

Are we so tolerant, America? Will we stand meekly, prideful in our open-mindedness, while radicalized Muslims trample our neighbor’s graves? Can we sit idly while Muslims blare their call to prayer on the very block where their brethren presented our countrymen as human sacrifices to the god toward whom they pray? Are we so weak and spineless?

I hope not, for all that is holy I hope not. For if we are prepared to tolerate such an insult we are doomed as a culture, relegated to the ashbin of bygone civilizations. Who could argue that we won’t deserve it?

Wow, didn’t see that one coming!

Palestinian kills 4 Israelis on eve of peace talks - Yahoo! News

Palestinian gunmen open fire on an unarmed, civilian vehicle in the West Bank (Allah be praised). Four Israelis are killed (Allah be praised). Talk about déjà vu. The latest violence comes just as the United States launched a new round of peace talks between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Now that’s déjà vu all over again (sorry Yogi).

Violence on the eve of Middle East peace talks is about as difficult to see coming as a freight train on the Kansas prairie. It carries all the surprise of a stone sinking in still water or ice melting on a hot sidewalk. However, the Palestinian attack will shock someone. If it’s you, come forward and be recognized. It’s not everyday we have the opportunity to meet someone so amazed by normality.

A Hamas spokesman, quite predictably, praised the gunmen for their “heroic operation in Hebron,” for which Hamas has claimed credit. And Hamas didn’t celebrate their great victory over the dogs of Zion alone. Three thousand fellow Palestinian zealots rallied in Gaza to praise this courageous triumph (Allah be praised).

Heroism. Courage. I doubt that Hamas militants can as much as spell either word, much less define them.

Apologists will label this attack an isolated incident perpetrated by a radical fringe element. Yet Hamas and their allies are far from the fringe in Palestine. In fact, they’re as common to Gaza and the West Bank as are Southern Baptists to North Carolina. Would-be peace brokers, like Mahmoud Abbas, are the exception.

As for Abbas, he is fast becoming the “Uncle Tom” of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Factions within the PLO consider him weak and have threatened to depose him if he makes concessions to Israel. But how any rational Westerner has considered the PLO a peaceful group defies explanation.

In the years following the last “successful” Middle East peace agreement--the Declaration of Principles signed in Oslo in 1993--there have been at least 112 attacks carried out by various factions within the PLO. If Israel and the United States have a friend in the PLO, well, we’re up to our eyeballs in enemies.

The only people who can possibly claim shock at the deaths of four unarmed Israeli civilians at the hands of Palestinian cutthroats on the eve of peace talks are those who’ve had their heads buried in the Daily Kos.

Jews and Arabs have been at each others throats throughout their histories. A lasting peace between them is even less probable than between other colliding cultures and peoples. And when one side celebrates cowardly murderers as courageous heroes the chance for peace becomes as undesirable as it is unlikely.

Placing the mosque on the other foot

The Ground Zero Mosque has generated a commentarial swirl commensurate to the controversy over its location. Central to that debate is the religious element. Mosque opponents, regardless of their motivations, are accused of bigotry based on religious preference, primarily Christianity. But those charges are inapplicable.

Governments can legitimately recognize cultural norms through the honoring of religious expressions. However, unless a person worships government they won’t need government to defend their god. Furthermore, when a religion seeks government’s endorsement to legitimize their religious loyalties their worship has been compromised. This is true of any religion, especially Christianity, which is more a faith than a religion.

The fact is that constructing a mosque in New York isn’t what generated the protests and opposition. There are 100 mosques in New York City right now and thousands more across the United States. None sparked the outrage that the planned Cordoba Mosque and Islamic Cultural Center has created. It’s not the building; it’s the location, plain and simple.

The propriety of a mosque near the World Trade Center site has been sufficiently addressed and rebuffed. Ample polling data exists to prove that mosque opponents are mainstream Americans, not the bigoted “Islamophobes” the left portrays. Claiming otherwise is sheer political spin.

However, an interesting element that’s received scant attention is the left’s sudden willingness to defend religious liberty, a freedom for which they have great disdain under most circumstances. What if the controversy surrounded a different house of worship, at a different site? Would the left and their media allies be so supportive of religious freedom then? Doubtful.

Enter Matthew Shepard, the homosexual man who was robbed, beaten and tied to a fence outside Laramie, Wyoming in October, 1998. He died a few days later, becoming a symbol of homophobia and a rallying cry for gay activists. The fact that money and drugs, not homosexuality, motivated Shepard’s murderers didn’t matter. He remained a focal point for gay activists . . . and a target for Fred Phelps.

Phelps leads the Westboro Church in Topeka, Kansas. He and his group are infamous for protesting funerals and carrying “God hates fags” signs. Now suppose Phelps and his congregation decided to construct a church--under the guise of building a bridge to the gay community--across the road from where Matthew Shepard’s body was found?

The same leftists who decry intolerance among Ground Zero Mosque opponents would condemn Phelps’ plans. In fact, I’ll wager that leftists would spare no expense in halting construction. Why? For the same reasons Americans oppose the Ground Zero Mosque.

The left would claim that a Phelps church near where Shepard died would exploit his memory and offend homosexuals. A Phelps congregation at that spot, the left would argue, would be insensitive and inappropriate. So why can’t mosque defenders see the reasons mosque opponents hold the opinions they hold?

Granted, Phelps is an authentic nutcase. But Feisal Abdul Rauf--who will lead the controversial mosque--has skeletons in his closet, too. He blames the United States, at least in part, for Islamic terrorism and for Muslim hostility toward the West. He refuses to recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization. Plus, there is a much closer tie between violence and mainstream Islam than between Fred Phelps and mainstream Christianity.

And the debate doesn’t end with Phelps. If any Christian church that considers homosexuality immoral were to build near where Shepard was found there’s little doubt the left would protest, claiming the church’s opposition to homosexuality renders their presence inappropriate. But Christians didn’t plan, participate in, or celebrate Shepard’s death. Muslims around the world celebrated the collapse of the World Trade Center. The difference is distinct.

The left’s use of religious freedom to defend the Ground Zero Mosque is decidedly empty. In fact, it is reprehensible. They have no interest in defending Muslims’ religious liberties. Leftists are merely using Muslims and religious freedom to further their agenda, which is pro-anything that is anti-Western Civilization.

Iran: Marching boldly into the 10th Century

Iran is modernizing, having recently joined the nuclear age. And if you’re concerned that their atomic agenda could prove less than peaceful, take solace. Russia is on the scene, monitoring the program to ensure the Iranians play by the rules.

Of course, Russia’s presence may not quell the angst within the prudent Westerner’s soul. Cold warriors will remember Russia as the black heart of the defunct Evil Empire. The Soviet Union won no prizes for transparency and square dealing when it came to nuclear arms. So trust the “Russkies” if you like. But believing Russia will prevent Iran from going nuclear is akin to trusting Bill Clinton to safeguard both your girlfriend and your finest cigars.

Nuclear technology isn’t the only area where Iran is advancing. The ruling ayatollahs, mullahs and imams are instituting social reforms, too. Thanks to their foresight and open-mindedness, Iran will soon be only a millennium behind the civilized world, give or take a century.

Take the case of Sakineh Ashtiani. Like the woman the Pharisees brought before Jesus, Sakineh is charged with adultery. Also similar to the biblical story, her accusers presented no co-conspirator. Even so, Sakineh has been flogged, imprisoned, denied access to family and counsel, convicted and sentenced to death by stoning; all in a manner that makes the biblical Pharisees seem like America’s Founding Fathers.

Ironically, this is where Iran’s Islamic courts prove their nation’s cultural development and social advancement. In response to international pressure Iran has rescinded Sakineh’s stoning sentence. You heard right, no state sanctioned stoning for Sakineh. They’ll hang her instead.

I’ve nothing against a good hanging, mind you. The gallows served our own country well in dealing with murderers, rapists and other assorted ne’er-do-wells. But adulterers? We’d have to hang half of Congress. Okay, so that’s another point in favor of the noose. But in Iran, exchanging the stone for the rope is decided progress.

If Iran continues down this road they may achieve Genghis Kahn’s level of genteel sensitivity, Medieval Europe’s social harmony and King George the Third’s regard for the rights of man. Who knows? With a little coaxing Iran’s ayatollahs might even become as enlightened as the 20th Century’s greatest humanitarians, men like Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, and “Uncle Joe” Stalin.

Who could’ve foreseen, just a few years ago, Iran becoming so contemporary that they would forego stoning for hanging. At this rate, Tehran is destined to become a tourist haven. Can’t you envision the sign in the travel agent’s window? Visit Iran: Gateway to the Dark Ages.

Chris Varano, report to the sports department, please!

When it comes to pontificating on the contemporary political scene Chris Varano might make a pretty fair sports broadcaster. Sports broadcasting is, after all, the Dallas native and Texas Christian University sophomore’s major. As such, his next editorial for TCU’s online newspaper should touch on Brett Favre’s myriad retirements, leaving politics alone, lest he become another (God forbid) Keith Olbermann.

Varano believes opposition to the “ground zero mosque” is Islamophobia in the first-degree. And he quotes Al Franken--Minnesota’s dubiously elected, self-proclaimed expert on everything--to validate his claim. That Mr. Varano, is strike one. Citing Sen. Franken on serious matters is akin to heeding Terrell Owens’ advice on improving team chemistry.

Varano states, unequivocally, that the proposed--and already financially troubled--Islamic center in lower Manhattan is peaceful. “It is not going to (be) a training ground for terrorists or a symbol of victory on 9/11,” writes Varano.

So, Chris, is that a Namath-like guarantee? Can we sue you if you’re wrong? Remember, the flight school where Mohamed Atta and his box cutter chorus trained wasn’t known as a hotbed of Islamic extremism either. As for being a symbol of victory, how can America consider it otherwise? A mosque at the WTC is as much a sign of victory as the U.S. flag atop Mt. Suribachi. I doubt you’ll find the famed Iwo Jima photograph hanging in many Japanese living rooms.

Strike two!

The fact is that Chris, like most Regressive leftists, is a walking contradiction. He’s critical of “the American people” for “holding entire groups responsible for the actions . . . of a few.” Yet the phrase “the American people” is itself all-inclusive. The author has engaged in the stereotyping he claims to despise, blanketing all opposition to the “ground zero mosque” with the Islamophobia quilt.

Chris, think for a moment. Your head won’t explode, I promise. Can Americans be the Islamophobes you claim when there 100 mosques in New York City, and approximately 2000 nationwide, operating freely? Plus, if memory serves (it does, thank you) Islamic radicals orchestrated 9/11. They bombed the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers, a Beirut barracks, a German nightclub and a jetliner in Lockerbie, Scotland. And that’s just for starters.

If the mosque in question is to be Islam’s olive branch to America, as its proponents claim, shouldn’t a less controversial sight be chosen? Conversely, a mosque near ground zero is perfect for poking America’s eye.

That’s strike three, sports broadcaster. You’re out! Yet I hope I’ve clarified why so many Americans oppose the “ground zero mosque.” It’s not that we’re murderous cannibals, desiring to kill, cook and eat every Muslim in the contiguous forty-eight states. We just never again want to wear the “paper tiger” badge.

Now, grant us a boon and concentrate on your sports broadcasting degree. Then, when you return to “Big D”, you can rail on Tony Romo’s latest interception and why the Texas Rangers won’t win in October. America can use good sports broadcasters. We need more Keith Olbermanns like we need relief pitchers with double-digit ERAs.

Obama’s supporters and alliances tell us who he is

No one should be surprised with President Obama’s rush toward bigger, more powerful government. Politicians win support from people with like minds and the President is no exception. His supporters and associates tell us much about his political ideology.

Joe Sims is impressed with the Obama presidency. Mr. Sims wrote of Obama’s swearing in as the “people’s inaugural”, the dawn of a new American era. Sam Webb shared that exuberance. In January, 2009 Mr. Webb praised Obama’s victory as the end of “30 years of right-wing extremist rule.” He wasn’t so bold as to declare the election a national referendum for socialism. But he did claim it signaled America’s willingness to experiment with socialist ideas. Thus Webb wrote of the Obama administration, “Yes, this is a socialist moment.”

Both Sam Webb and Joe Sims write for the People’s Weekly World, a Communist Party (CPUSA) publication. Webb himself serves as the national chair of the CPUSA, which publicly declared Obama’s election a triumph for their agenda.

The President has drawn international communist allies as well. Fidel Castro compared Obamacare to his own communist nation’s medical system. Unfortunately, that’s not all. The old guard communist dictator admires Obama’s position on global warming and his charismatic personality. China has also joined the act. The Chinese commemorated Obama’s visit with “Oba Mao” t-shirts depicting the President wearing a Red Guard uniform. Artist Liu Bolin honored the occasion with a statue similar to one previously created for Chairman Mao himself.

Obama’s inner circle is filled with questionable liaisons and appointees. The administration’s communications director, Anita Dunn, counts Mao Tse-tung among her greatest political influences. Ron Bloom is Obama’s car and manufacturing czar. Yet he has contempt for free markets, pals around with the SEIU and has worked with the leaders of the Democratic Socialists of America. Van Jones resigned an environmental post appointment because of his declared commitment to communism. And Obama’s idea of a fair-minded judge, Goodwin Liu, considers free enterprise, property rights and limited government to be radical ideas.

None of these associations flatter Obama. But the worst alliance may be his “safe school’s czar” Kevin Jennings. Jennings supports indoctrinating teenagers with a radical sexual agenda, having gone so far as to conceal and condone child molestation. Jennings also defended the late Harry Hay, who dedicated his life to mainstreaming intimate relations between men and boys. And yes, Hay also had a little communism in his closet.

Is Barack Obama America’s first Bolshevik-in-Chief? He has certainly drawn support from staunch communists, apparent sympathizers and assorted oddballs. His policies thus far have done nothing to betray their faith and support.