Navy SEALs Charged For Capturing A Murderous Terrorist?

Since when was the idiotic complaint of a terrorist more important than supporting the men and women who put themselves in harm's way so that we sleep peacefully at night?

From Fox News:

Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq — the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources told FoxNews.com. ... Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named "Objective Amber," told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it. Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers.

Awwww. The poor little Islamic jihadi who beheads non-Mohammedans and kills women and children got his feelings hurt because someone punched him!

Whoever is running this investigation and pushing these chages needs to be thoroughly investigated and when wrong-doing is discovered (i.e. prosecutorial misconduct) they should be hand-cuffed and frog-marched off to prison!

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist
Rowan Scarborough
FoxNews.com
November 25, 2009

Obama Makes Ridiculous Claim That Islam Has Shaped The World 'For The Better'

Just what rock has Barack Obama been hiding under for the past 50 years? Where did he learn about Islam such that he would be so blind to the reality of a very hateful and intolerant religion?

According to Associated Press, Obama said the following to the Turks:

"America's relationship with the Muslim world cannot and will not be based on opposition to al Qaida," he said. "We seek broad engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect."

"Mutual respect?" Since when has the Islamic world ever shown respect for America?

Since when have the loud speakers at Mecca ever said one, single respectful thing about the United States? The Muslim world has no respect for us at all and Obama is not going to change that by trying to "make nice" with people who have no intention of making nice in return.

They have shown nothing but disrespect and disdain for us. They celebrated when 19 of their brethren killed 3,000 innocent people on September 11, 2001.

More:

"We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over so many centuries to shape the world for the better, including my own country," Obama said.

"For the better?" Who in their right mind would ever say such a thing?

Is it "for the better" that women are treated like property and have massive restrictions placed on them? Is it "for the better" that the practitioners of Islam are completely intolerant towards other religions? Is it "for the better" that Muslim children are taught to hate non-Muslims from the day they are born?

Is it "for the better" that few, if any, Islamics have made any attempt at speaking out against those who support the following suras:

"O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people." (Sura 5, verse 51). "And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah DESTROY them; how they are turned away!" (Sura 9, verse 30). "And the Jews will not be pleased with you, nor the Christians until you follow their religion. Say: Surely Allah's guidance, that is the (true) guidance. And if you follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, you shall have no guardian from Allah, nor any helper." (Sura 2, verse 120). "And KILL them (the unbelievers) wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers." (Sura 2, verse 191). "Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming." (Sura 3, verse 28). "And when you journey in the earth, there is no blame on you if you shorten the prayer, if you fear that those who disbelieve will cause you distress, surely the unbelievers are your open ENEMY." (Sura 4, verse 101). "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil)." (Sura 9, verse 123). "Surely We have prepared for the unbelievers chains and shackles and a burning fire." (Sura 76, verse 4). "O you who believe! if you obey a party from among those who have been given the Book (The Jews and Christians), they will turn you back as unbelievers after you have believed." (Sura 3, verse 100).

What does the Koran say about women? Will Obama go on record as saying that these things that Islamics teach their children about how women are to be regarded under Islamic law are "for the better?"

Here are some more excerpts from the Koran:

"Men are superior to women because Allah has made so. Therefore good women are obedient, and (as to) those (women) on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and BEAT them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great." (Sura 4, verse 34). "And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witnesses against them, four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them." (Sura 4, verse 15). "O you who believe! when you deal with each other in contracting a debt for a fixed time then call in to witness from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses, so that if one of the two errs, the second of the two may remind the other." (Sura 2, verse 282). "Your wives are a tilth (sexual toy) for you, so go into your tilth when you like, and do good beforehand for yourselves, and be careful (of your duty) to Allah, and know that you will meet Him, and give good news to the believers." (Sura 2, verse 223). "O you who believe! do not go near prayer until you have washed yourselves; and if you have touched women, and you cannot find water, betake yourselves to pure earth, then wipe your faces and your hands; surely Allah is Pardoning, Forgiving." (Sura 4, verse 43). "They ask you for a decision of the law. Say: Allah gives you a decision concerning the person who has neither parents nor offspring; if a man dies (and) he has no son and he has a sister, she shall have half of what he leaves, and he shall be her heir she has no son; but if there be two (sisters), they shall have two-thirds of what he leaves; and if there are brethren, men and women, then the male shall have the like of the portion of two females; Allah makes clear to you, lest you err; and Allah knows all things." (Sura 4, verse 176).

But, according to Obama, all this abusive misteatment of women is "for the better," right?

I know that some of you moral relativists out there are going to say that similar verses appear in Judeo-Christian religious texts. That is correct, but few, if any Jews or Christians are actively trying to apply those writings to the real word the way the majority of Muslims seem to be doing.

The big difference between Islam and Judeo-Christianity is that Jews and Christians have been enlightened over the years by actively seeking knowledge outside of the church. Muslims seem to be stuck in the 7th Century.

As a case in point, Iran recently passed a law making it a capital crime to be anything other than Muslim in Iran.

Was there any outrage at all from the Muslim community over this? No. I don't remember hearing one little peep out of any of them.

You can access the complete news story on-line here:

Obama Tells Turkey: U.S. ‘Not At War With Islam’
Associated Press via MSNBC
April 7, 2009

Obama And The Coming Collapse Of National Security

Dissident Dingo over at Resistance Day blog has penned a terrific essay about Barack Obama's weakness on national security and what it will mean to us over the next four years.

Here are some excerpts:

Barack Obama will be tested on the national security front. The tests will not come only from the Islamic terrorists either. Russia, North Korea, Iran and the Chinese all smell weakness. They see an inexperienced, un-tested and immature President who seems to believe that the power of his personality will be enough to keep our enemies under control. He believes that the entire world is no different than the American media who love him. He is wrong, of course, but will he realize this when the test comes? ... Obama will be tested and he will handle it badly. Biden knows this and his comments were a plea for the media to stay in the tank and support him…no matter what. Remember, Obama is “too big to fail”. Obama is "historic". We cannot let the first affirmative action President be a mediocre one can we? As conservatives, we take the defense of our country seriously. National security is serious business and failure, in this day and age, means a lot of dead Americans. That is why we don’t vote for the likes of Obama. We do not vote for leftists who view national security (and all other Constitutional functions of government) as a waste of time and resources that should be used for liberal, unconstitutional functions of government. ... Wasn't it the misguided former Democrat Senator John Edwards who called the War on Terror a “bumper sticker”? No, John. “Hope” is a bumper sticker. The War on Terror was President Bush’s response to an ideology that has the declared objective of wiping us out. And they’re still out there. They’re weaker and they enjoy far less support from countries that they could once count on when the Clinton Administration was napping. But, they’re still committed.

This essay is very powerful and telling. I hope that all members of the Republican National Committee read it and that the GOP takes it heart in 2010.

You can access the complete column on-line here:


National Security And The Coming Barackalypse
Dissdent Dingo
Resistance Day Blog
January 23, 2009

Canadian Human Rights Commission: One Of The Most Hypocritical Organizations In North America

Mark Steyn is a pistol. He has no problem pointing out the idiots and fools in any crowd, regardless of what meaningless insults those idiots and fools throw back at him.

The latest batch of foolish idiots to be highlighted by Mr. Steyn are the members of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. You remember them, don't you? They are the kangaroo courts who prosecute thoughtcrimes in Canada on behalf of Big Brother.

But, as Napoleon Pig pointed out, some perpetrators of thoughtcrime are more equal than others. Read what Mark has to say in his latest blog entry:

Marc Lebuis (of the excellent Quebec website Point de Bascule) has had his complaint against a Montreal imam, Abou Hammaad Sulaiman Dameus al-Hayiti, rejected by the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission. M Lebuis filed the case to test the consistency of the CHRC: Do they apply their speech codes equally to all Canadians? Or do they just screw over the soft targets who've had the misfortune to catch the eye of serial plaintiff Richard Warman? Well, M Lebuis has his answer. In the eyes of the CHRC's international laughingstock Jennifer Lynch, QC and the rest of the Lynch Mob, not all hatemongers are equal. As the headline in Le Devoir puts it: Commission canadienne des droits de la personne - S’attaquer aux gais, aux occidentales et aux juifs n’est pas nécessairement haineux That's to say, "CHRC: Attacking gays, western women and Jews isn't necessarily hateful." Hey, that's great to know, isn't it? At least if you're an imam. If you're an Alberta pastor opposed to gay marriage, you might want to tread more carefully. Over at Point de Bascule, M Lebuis lists some of the choicer statements from Imam al-Hayiti's book: * "Homosexuality is a 'perversion'" * "Homosexuals 'spread disorder on earth'" * "Homosexuals and lesbians should be 'exterminated in this life'" * "Homosexuals caught performing sodomy are beheaded..." * "Most Infidels 'live like animals'" * "they are evil people, they love perversity," and "they are our enemies..." * "Men are superior to women and better than them..." * "This is the reason why ethnic groups are not equal..." * "It is because of this religion of lies [Christianity], which goes against human nature, that the West is now full of perversity, corruption and adultery..." * "Jews 'spread corruption and chaos on earth.'" * "Most Jews 'seek only material goods and money, apart from that, they have nothing...'"

Apparently, these Canadian kangaroo courts are perfectly happy to read and hear about Islamic Imams bashing gays and women and attacking other religions, but if a Christian were to mention anything negative about gays, women or any other religion, then the CHRC is primed up for litigation and legal action as well as smearing the names of those they prosecute, or rather persecute.

Hypocrisy, thy name is leftism.

You can access the original blog entry on-line here:

CHRC: Infidels Are Not A Protected Category
Mark Steyn
SteynOnLine.com
December 17, 2008

Time Editor Wants 'Macaca' Moment, Planned Parenthood Protects Child Rapists And Feminists Silent On Islamic Suppression Of Women

The leftist elites of Old Media, aside from being entrenched in a philosophy that has always been on the wrong side of history, are seemingly incapable of learning or of having integrity. The latest case is one Ana Marie Cox who arrogantly suggested that something Mitt Romney said in jest should be treated as a "macaca moment" by Old Media.

From NewsBusters:

Time online editor Ana Marie Cox apparently believes a dated quip by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney should be considered a "macaca moment." During a Florida event on Monday, Romney, joking with a group of young people, quoted a rather lame song by the Baha Men. After asking who had a camera, he blurted, "Who let the dogs out? Who? Who?" Now, most people would simply smile or appreciate Romney's friendly, if somewhat dorky, sense of humor. Cox, however, at Time's "Swampland" blog, wondered, "Shouldn't it be a 'macaca moment'? I suspect he's not being pilloried for it because the moment [sic] less offensive than it is cringe-inducing..."

How pompous can a newsreader like Cox get? If she ever makes a claim that she is somehow objective and not trying to push an agenda for a leftist political party, the above shows how big of a liar she is.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Time Editor On Romney Quip: Shouldn't It Be A 'Macaca Moment'?
Scott Whitlock
NewsBusters.org
January 23, 2008

---

Although Planned Parenthood likes to paint itself as a supporter and proponent of women's rights and all that, they clearly have another mission too: to cover-up sex crimes in which 13-year-old girls are sexually assaulted by adult men.

From OneNewsNow:

Former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline says there is a new important battleground in dealing with the abortion industry -- the enforcement of current laws and the enforcement of new laws once Roe v. Wade falls. Kline, now the district attorney for Johnson County, Kansas, has filed a 107-count criminal indictment against federally funded Planned Parenthood. Among other things, he charges the nation's largest abortion-provider with performing late-term abortions, which are illegal in the Sunflower State. While speaking at the Blogs for Life Conference at the Family Research Council, Kline noted that Planned Parenthood admits in its own studies that it is servicing 13-year-old children -- who have, on average, 22-year-old male sexual partners -- who are predominantly in coercive sexual relationships. "[Planned Parenthood's] idea of treatment, of course, is to allow [that] relationship to continue," explains Kline, "by either helping cover up the crime through an abortion, or providing birth control that will help conceal something later from revealing the crime."

Pedophiles all over the U.S. are cheering to have their sexual deviancies covered up by PP. But I doubt that parents of the victims of these cover-ups would be on the same sideline.

Perhaps PP should come out and say what they really stand for.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Federally Supported Abortion Clinics Labeled 'Safe Havens For Child Rapists'
Jim Brown
OneNewsNow.com
January 23, 2008

---

And while we are on the subject of women's rights, FrontPageMag has an interesting piece about feminists and the treatment of women in Islamic countries. Here's how it starts:

The David Horowitz Freedom Center has succeeded in putting the feminists and Islamists on the defensive. As David Horowitz and Robert Spencer note in the article below, the DHFC's exposure of the feminist movement's lack of attention to women's rights in the Muslim world has caused many of the movement's most prominent activists to sign a letter protesting that they originated concern for Muslim women. The letter, drafted by feminist writer Katha Pollitt, has been signed by such notables as: Susan Faludi, the author of Backlash: The Undeclared War Against Women, which argues conservatives are trying to suppress American womyn, and The Terror Dream: Fear and Fantasy in Post-9/11 America, which claims terrorism provided a handy excuse for the American Right to begin binding women's feet again; Julianne Malveaux, who expressed her feelings about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on PBS' To the Contrary, "I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease" Jennifer Baumgardner, a Nation writer whose idea of fighting female oppression is staging productions of The Vagina Monologues; Dana Goldstein, an employee of the Soros-funded Center for American Progress and a writing fellow at the Soros-funded The American Prospect; and More than 700 more leftists. The letter spread quickly, beginning on the website of the far-Left's flagship publication, The Nation. (The Nation's piece was also picked up by Yahoo News). Soon, it had been posted on Mother Jones, the Islamic Forum, the University of Maine, and many other sites -- including that of a woman named Heart who is running for president. Not all are pleased; at least one insists U.S. immigration laws and Israeli treatment of Palestinians are a more direct affront to women's rights than clitorectomies. (She asks, "Does Ms. Pollitt think that 'Muslim countries' are particularly hostile to women’s rights for some reason?") Nonetheless, the very fact that the Left, so long silent about the crimes countenanced by its Islamic partners in the antiwar movement, now feel they must mount a rousing defense is vindication of our efforts. -- The Editors.

That's just the reaction from the left. How long have we conservatives been trying to bring light upon how women are being treated in Muslim countries? And only now do the feminists respond by criticizing the effort to expose such treatment?

David Horowitz and Robert Spencer have a fantastic response to this open letter. It is difficult to single out any details as more important than the others as there are so many good points to ponder.

Read on:

The signers of this Letter claim that, “contrary to the accusations of pundits,” they support Muslim feminists in “their struggle against female genital mutilation, ‘honor’ murder, forced marriage, child marriage, compulsory Islamic dress codes, the criminalization of sex outside marriage, brutal punishments like lashing and stoning, family laws that favor men and that place adult women under the legal power of fathers, brothers, and husbands, and laws that discount legal testimony made by women.” Well, we welcome these avowals of support for the rights of Muslim women. However, forgive us for doubting their sincerity. As one of us pointed out in a speech given at the University of Wisconsin during Islamo-Fascism Week: “One of our concerns … is the failure of the Women’s Studies Movement to educate students about these atrocities. There are probably 600 Women’s Studies programs on American campuses, which focus on the unequal treatment of women in society. We have had a very hard time locating a single class which focuses on the oppression of women under Islamic law.” What was true last October is still true today. As recently as December 10, a Muslim teenager was strangled by her father for refusing to wear a hijab without a protest from the American feminist movement. And that is only one of many crimes committed in the name of Islam against Muslim women over which the feminist movement continues to be silent. On New Year’s Day, Amina Said, 18, and her sister Sarah, 17, were shot dead in Irving, Texas. Police are searching for their father, Yaser Abdel Said, on a warrant for capital murder. The girls’ great aunt, Gail Gartrell, told reporters, “This was an honor killing.” Apparently Yaser Said murdered his daughters because they had non-Muslim boyfriends. The signers of the Open Letter say that they are against honor killing. Here is an honor killing in the United States. Where are these feminists on this issue? Why are they not supporting the hunt for Amina’s and Sarah’s killers and organizing a campaign in the Muslim community to stop such practices? On Sunday, January 20, the New York Times published an article, “A Cutting Tradition,” which falsely described female genital mutilation practiced under Islamic law as “circumcision” and portrayed it in a generally positive light, and even warned against “blindly judging those who practice it.” The article made no mention of the physical effects of this barbaric practice, which affects 140 million Muslim girls who have their genitals sliced off yearly, and in some 15 million cases their vaginal tract sewn up. ... Where is the feminist outrage over the New York Times article? Where are the feminist demonstrations against this practice? Where are the campus teach-ins? Where are the candlelight parades? What Muslim organizations have been confronted for their complicity in this assault on female Muslim children? This is a horrific crime against the female gender -- global in extent -- and yet one would be hard-pressed to identify a single public event, protest or march organized by feminists to oppose it. The Open Letter mentions the feminist “V-Day” organized to protest violence against women. We challenge the signers of this letter to identify the speeches given during “V-Day” that protested female genital mutilation in the Islamic world. We challenge them to identify the Vagina Monologue of Islamic misogyny. We are encouraged by the fact that these American feminists feel the need to respond to our challenge over their silence as a movement on violence against Muslim women and to assert their opposition to these barbaric practices. We challenge them now to put actions behind their words. Join us in sponsoring a campus tour on the Oppression of Women in Islam with speakers such as Nonie Darwish, Wafa Sultan and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Form academic committees to provide curricula on these subjects in Women’s Studies courses. Devote a major segment of your V-Day demonstrations to the plight of Muslim women. Join us during Islamo-Fascism Week II this spring in appealing to campus Muslim organizations to condemn these practices. Then we’ll know you’re serious.

Wow. If only the newsreaders of Old Media had the courage to say such words.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

A Response To Feminists On The Violent Oppression Of Women In Islam
David Horowitz and Robert Spencer
FrontPageMag.com
January 24, 2008

More Economic Bad News, Congress Asks About Firing Of Terrorism Expert And The Politics Of Race And Sex

The ripples are already being felt around the world. But is anyone watching and really paying attention? Check out the following from Yahoo News:

Asian markets plunged Wednesday on growing speculation the U.S. economy -- a vital export market -- is sliding into a recession that could lead to a global slowdown. Investors dumped stocks after an overnight sell-off on Wall Street and on news that Citigroup Inc. had lost nearly $10 billion in the fourth quarter as it wrote down mountains of bad mortgage assets -- the latest fallout from the credit crisis. Weak U.S. retail sales figures added to the gloom. ... In Hong Kong, the benchmark Hang Seng index sank 5.4 percent -- its biggest percentage drop since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- to 24,450.85. Tokyo's Nikkei 225 index fell 3.4 percent to 13,504.51 points, its lowest in more than two years. Markets in Australia, China, India, South Korea, New Zealand and the Philippines also dropped sharply on uncertainty about the U.S. economic outlook and the full extent of the subprime mortgage crisis.

The signs are all there. What more do you need? Call you financial advisor and ask about how you can weather the coming storm. It will not be a small one.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Asian Stock Markets Plunge
Dikky Sinn
Associated Press via Yahoo News
January 16, 2008

---

Those who practice the idiotic philosophy of political correctness are going to get hundreds, if not thousands, of people hurt or killed. Jeopardizing the safety of American citizens seems to be of no concern to some, especially if that is the price we have to pay for not offending some particular group. From Cybercast News Service:

Members of Congress are seeking more information regarding the firing of a top terrorism expert at the Pentagon following reports that he was dismissed for being too critical of Islamic law. Earlier this month, the Pentagon Joint Staff told Stephen Coughlin, a specialist on Islamic law at the Pentagon, that his contract would not be renewed in March. The firing apparently resulted from pressure by pro-Muslim officials working in the Department of Defense, according to numerous news reports. Meanwhile, members of Congress have not had much success in getting answers from the Pentagon either, said Rep. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.), co-chair of the bi-partisan House Anti-Terrorism Caucus.

Why is this necessary? Becasue of this:

Coughlin - who supporters say had one of the most important jobs in analyzing how Jihadists think -- crossed Hasham Islam, an aide to Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, according The Washington Times. The paper reported, without attribution, that the aide told Coughlin to "soften his view" on radical Islam. When Coughlin refused, Hasham Islam called him a Christian zealot "with a pen," according to the report. The incomplete reports and near silence from the Pentagon creates the need to get at the truth, Myrick said.

But apparently, all Coughlin did was state the obvious about a religion that is inherently violent:

Coughlin's 333-page thesis, " To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad," was accepted last year by the National Defense Intelligence College. The report describes an Islamic culture that teaches violence from an early age. It says, for instance, "So how does one explain the prevailing assumption that Islam does not stand for such violence undertaken in its name with the fact that its laws and education materials validate the very acts undertaken by 'extremists' in Iraq?" And continues, "The first 'radicalizing' lessons Saudi youth receive that motivates them to travel to Iraq and fight coalition forces does not come from 'extremist' groups like al Qaeda, but rather is taught as part of Saudi Arabia's standard secondary school curriculum." The sentiments of Coughlin's research apparently were too much for some in the Pentagon, said Andrew Bostom, an author and lecturer on Islam, who has known Coughlin for more than three years.

So, according to some misguided fools, it is better to ignore the problem altogether rather than at least admit that the problem exists?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Congressmen Seek Answers About Terror Expert's Firing
Fred Lucas
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
January 16, 2008

---

And finally, we have a very insightful column by Kathleen Parker from TownHall. For decades, the Dems have built their party around race-baiting and sex-baiting in the hopes to a) capture the black and women's vote and b) play on the collective white/masculine guilt of America.

From her column:

Despite their protests to the contrary, both Obama and Clinton have been playing to their respective demographics. Obama hasn't overtly made his campaign about race, but he didn't have to. In Clintonian tradition, he has let surrogates make the case for him. Oprah Winfrey laid it out plainly enough when she told a throng in Columbia, S.C.: "We don't have to just dream the dream anymore. We get to vote that dream into reality. I believe that now is the time for somebody like Barack Obama." "Somebody like Barack" and "the dream" don't require much elaboration. The dream was the Rev. Martin Luther King's, of a future when blacks and whites lived in harmony. And though Obama is unique in his broad appeal, Winfrey was clearly urging voters to put an African-American in the White House. For her part, Clinton has insisted that women shouldn't vote for her just because of gender. "I am not asking you to vote for me because I am a woman," she told a crowd in New Hampshire. "I am asking you to vote for me because I believe I am the most qualified person to hit the ground running in 2009." Except when she is urging women to vote for her because she's a woman. Speaking at her all-female alma mater, Wellesley College, Clinton called upon women to rally against "the all-boys club of presidential politics. We're ready to shatter that highest glass ceiling."

But in order to be a victim, you have to have come from a victim's background, which neither Clinton nor Obama can claim. As such, they have to re-invent themselves as victims and play to their own fabricated victimhood. But that means that each one must now pit their own "victimhood" against the other's. Not a good combo, especially considering how blatantly the Dems pander to such "victims." It will split their party.

Of course, an election should be about issues, but the Dems have yet to offer any real soultions to any of the most important issues (economy, immigration, terrorism, etc.).

In the end, the Democratic Party may be hostage to its own noble intentions. By co-opting equality as their party's identity and making victimhood their rallying cry, the battle for race and gender necessarily has become a fight between race and gender. If a Clinton victory is viewed as a victory for all women, then her defeat can only be viewed as a defeat for women. The same goes for Obama and African-Americans. It shouldn't be about race and gender, but it is. And the Democratic Party made it this way.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

The Perils of Pandering
Kathleen Parker
TownHall.com
January 16, 2008