The Victorious Opposition

When Thrill and I began discussing the “is Obama a Muslim apostate?” I got a question asked that I do have an answer to. The question was “Is Obama a Muslim apostate because his father is a Muslim?” The short answer is no. He is not simply a Muslim because his father was. I have a pretty good analogy to liken it to, and it comes from Christianity. Becoming a Muslim is very similar to being confirmed.

Confirmation is a rite of initiation in Christian churches, normally carried out through the laying on of hands and prayer, and possibly also anointing, for the purpose of bestowing the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. Confirmation is seen as the affirmation and sealing of the covenant made in Holy Baptism. In some denominations, confirmation also bestows full membership in a local congregation upon the recipient. In others, such as the Roman Catholic Church, confirmation “renders the bond with the Church more perfect”,[1] but a baptized person is already a full member.[2]
Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox Churches, and many Anglicans view Confirmation as a sacrament. In the East it is conferred on infants immediately after baptism, but in the West it is usually administered later at the age of reason or in early adolescence.
In Protestant Churches, the rite tends to be seen rather as a mature statement of faith by an already baptised person. It is also required by most Protestant denominations for membership in the respective church, in particular for traditional Protestant faiths. In traditional Protestant faiths (Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, Evangelical etc.) it is recognized by a coming of age ceremony. Confirmation is not practised in Baptist, Anabaptist and other groups that teach believer’s baptism.
Several secular, mainly Humanist, organizations direct “civil confirmations” for older children, as a statement of their life stance that is an alternative to traditional religious ceremonies for children of that age.
Some secular regimes have as a matter of policy fostered the replacement of Christian rituals such as confirmation with non-religious ones. In the historically Protestant German Democratic Republic (East Germany), for example, “the Jugendweihe (youth dedication) gradually supplanted the Christian practice of Confirmation.”[3] A concept that first appeared in 1852, the Jugendweihe is described as “a solemn initiation marking the transition from youth to adulthood that was developed in opposition to Protestant and Catholic Churches’ Confirmation.”[4]
Another celebration known as “Confirmation” is used in Reform and Conservative Jewish synagogues as a rite of passage for young Jewish men and women around the age of 16

So, as in my congregation, if your parents are Muslim, and you are born of them, it doesn’t necessarily make you a Muslim. There are obligations yet to be fulfilled. You need to commit yourself to the covenants of Islam, out loud, and in a mosque that is sanctioned by Saud Arabia. Otherwise, you (like myself) might find yourself in a pickle entering Saudi Arabia for a Hajj vacation. You need to do a little more shit to get yourself in the “incrowd”.

Much like Christians aren’t running around with a price on Bill Maher’s head, the same holds true for Obama. He’s not a Muslim unless he completes all of the tenets of Islam, goes to a sanctioned mosque, and gets an Imam to sign off on his affirmation of faith. Not too different from Christian.

I have my reservations about Islam, and I blatantly state it’s not my faith. However, let’s get it right if we’re going to opine on it.

Every president takes a shot at this impossible dream:

President Barack Obama is aiming for the prize that has eluded many U.S. presidents before him: a deal to form an independent Palestinian state and end six decades of conflict in one of the world’s most volatile regions.

Obama will bring the Israeli and Palestinian leaders to Washington next month for a symbolic handshake and the start, yet again, of a new round of peace talks. The ambitious goal: a peace deal inside a year.

Can he do it?  Of course not.  He’s about as divisive a figure among Israelis as he is among, well, Americans.  I haven’t seen a poll that indicates how many Israelis think he’s a stealth Muslim (or Palestinians, for that matter) but it probably doesn’t compare favorably to the Time and Fox News polls of Americans.

There isn’t really an upside or a downside to him making the effort and that’s about the nicest thing I can write about this.  The real problem is that Israel has simply not been in a negotiating mood for the past couple of years and I don’t think they trust Obama enough to grant any real concessions. 

So I was reading through another post on these “peace activists” at The Volokh Conspiracy. In a response to a comment of “but, but, but… international waters!”, one of the commenters busted out the actual international laws of (naval) war as it applies to naval blockades. The document is the “San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea”, adopted in 1994, which you can read at the International Committee for the Red Cross website. I am quoting this as presented by JKB in the linked thread at The VC:

118. In exercising their legal rights in an international armed conflict at sea, belligerent warships and military aircraft have a right to visit and search merchant vessels outside neutral waters where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that they are subject to capture.

146. Neutral merchant vessels are subject to capture outside neutral waters if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67 or if it is determined as a result of visit and search or by other means, that they:

(f) are breaching or attempting to breach a blockade.

Capture of a neutral merchant vessel is exercised by taking such vessel as prize for adjudication.

98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked.

103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to:

(a) the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and

The emphasis in that quote is as it appeared originally. I would have also emphasized “Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked,” that being one of the key elements in dispute.

This incident was an operational and PR debacle for Israel, playing directly into the “peace activists” hands, but put a fork in the argument that Israel’s acts were illegal - that argument is done. The ICRC’s own “law of war” document makes it clear that Israel was well within her rights.

People can debate until the cows come home the propriety of Israel’s (and, oh, btw, Egypt’s) blockade of Gaza since Hamas took control.

There will be months if not years of debate about how the Israeli military/intelligence forces got caught with their pants down, given how much prep time they had on this “peaceful” flotilla.

And there quite likely were a great number of actual “peace activists” involved in this flotilla - including a large number of useful idiots whose peacenick credentials are unimpeachable.

But let’s not lose sight of the fact that the Israeli soldiers were attacked while boarding one of the ships, beaten, and thrown overboard. The entire “they came in shooting” line is utter nonsense.

Any more questions from the pro-Palestinian peanut gallery?

Yes, Israel completely fulfilled the “useful idiot” role for the folks who wanted to make an international press incident out of the “peaceful” transfer of materiel to a government that exists solely to create terror and is sworn to the elimination of the state of Israel. Heads are going to roll over this - and should. It was both an operational and PR debacle, and so condemnation is appropriate.

But all one has to do is to look at video of an MLK-led march to understand what “peace activists” look like and how they react to violence-in-uniform. These folks were far more Black Panther than MLK. Which is another form of political protest, and in some circumstances maybe even appropriate. But the Black Panthers never hid behind a “peace activist” label like these pissants are doing.

H/T: The Volokh Conspiracy

Dwex sent me this today:

Formal court martial charges have been brought against Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, the Army doctor who believes President Obama may not be a natural born citizen, for failing to follow orders, the military said today.

No more pussy footin’ around, the Col. will get his day in court, for what good it will do him.

We discussed his conundrum here and I really don’t have much to add. For someone with such a distinguished career, aside from a predominant birther organization dangling massive quantities of cash his direction to “take one for the team” and become the poster boy for military disaffection, I can’t figure out why such a grounded individual would up and go batshit in front of everyone.

Lakin was charged Thursday “with one specification of a violation of Article 87, Missing Movement and four specifications of a violation of Article 92 (three specifications of Failure to Obey a Lawful Order, and one Specification of Dereliction of Duty),” said Chuck Dasey, spokesman at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, where Lakin is assigned.

I think I get what he is going after, “For you to say that I disobeyed an order, you have to prove that it is a lawful order”, yada yada yada. But even a non trained rube like myself can see the treachery of such a position. His deployment orders probably had either his commanding officer’s signature on it, or some other higher ranking officer, an officer BTW that is clearly within his purview to issue orders of deployment, so the Colonel is going to be hard pressed to challenge these orders on the basis of the CIC not providing sufficient enough proof, as least to him, of his citizenship. And as a military man, he has to ask himself, “is this the hill I want to die on?”. Something else is afoot here.

Lakin and his attorney, Paul Jensen, have been making the rounds on right-wing radio shows in recent days. On the G. Gordon Liddy show last week, Jensen hinted that he would try to use discovery to compel Obama to produce a birth certificate.

Good luck with that, but the issue at hand is did he miss his deployment intentionally? He can’t get around the fact that if he did in fact disobey a lawful order (given to him by any member of the military) then he is in breach.

First point of order, Happy Hanukkah to our Jewish members. Hanukkah started on Friday:

Hanukkah (Hebrew: חֲנֻכָּה‎, Tiberian: Ḥănukāh, nowadays usually spelled חנוכה pronounced [ˈχanuka] in Modern Hebrew, also romanized as Chanukah), also known as the Festival of Lights, is an eight-day Jewish holiday commemorating the rededication of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem at the time of the Maccabean Revolt of the 2nd century BCE. Hanukkah is observed for eight nights, starting on the 25th day of Kislev according to the Hebrew calendar, which may occur as early as late November to as late as late December in the Gregorian calendar.

The festival is observed by the kindling of the lights of a special candelabrum, the nine-branched Menorah or Hanukiah, one additional light on each night of the holiday, progressing to eight on the final night. An extra light called a shamash (Hebrew: “guard” or “servant”) is also lit each night for the purpose of lighting the others, and is given a distinct location, usually above or below the rest. The “shamash” symbolically supplies light that may be used for some secular purpose.

Given my respect and admiration for the Jews (both as a race and a religion) I am woefully ignorant of most of their customs. I understand a bit about Passover, but little of this celebration. Maybe Rapha’el or dwex (if this stuff is still important to him) can share with us some personal reflections on the subject.

Having God on your side is a powerful motivator, and can inspire the average bear to feats of singular excellence when it comes to smiting some Philistines, a general term of any peoples on God’s shit list. History is replete with instances of just this sort of Jewish muscle flexing

Hanukkah begins tonight, so I thought this would be a good time to bust out this list I’ve been researching for quite some time.

The story of Hanukkah centers around the Maccabees and their badassery (more on that in the first point). So, in honor of the holiday, I put together this list of the 11 most badass Jews ever.

The qualification is simple: I’m not looking for Jews who became badasses by outsmarting people. We all do that. It’s old news. I’m looking for ones who really rock the shit—hand-to-hand combat, deadly assassins, gangsters, soldiers. Basically, if you messed with these Jews, you’d have to worry about more than them finding a way to ruin your credit rating.

Although I like the premise (a lot), I must say that I was a little disappointed with this guy’s list. Trying to cover all aspects of society (serial killer, porn star, munchkin gymnast) he left out some the truly notable.

When through out history, mankind has blamed you and your race for most of the world’s catastrophes (Rome burning, the onslaught of the Black Plague, any and all banking scandals or depressions causing Germany to start WW2, even 9/11)  it is not surprising that with an attitude of “here we go again”, the Jews have had to man up and not turn the other cheek (Masada and the Holocaust not withstanding).

YESTERDAY, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity, and you brought honor to your countries.

But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency?

A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of 6 million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state. What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations!

Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You’re wrong. History has shown us time and again that what starts with attacks on the Jews eventually ends up engulfing many others.

...

Though it is comprised of different offshoots, the adherents of this unforgiving creed seek to return humanity to medieval times. Wherever they can, they impose a backward, regimented society where women, minorities, gays or anyone not deemed to be a true believer is brutally subjugated.

The struggle against this fanaticism does not pit faith against faith nor civilization against civilization. It pits civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death.

...

That is why the greatest threat facing the world today is the marriage between religious fanaticism and the weapons of mass destruction.

The most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Are the member states of the United Nations up to that challenge? Will the international community confront a despotism that terrorizes its own people as they bravely stand up for freedom?

Will it take action against the dictators who stole an election in broad daylight and gunned down Iranian protesters who died in the streets choking in their own blood? Will the international community thwart the world’s most pernicious sponsors and practitioners of terrorism?

Above all, will the international community stop the terrorist regime of Iran from developing atomic weapons, thereby endangering the peace of the entire world?

The people of Iran are courageously standing up to this regime. People of goodwill around the world stand with them, as do the thousands who have been protesting outside this hall. Will the United Nations stand by their side?

Ladies and Gentlemen, the jury is still out on the United Nations.

It’s nice that there is at least one world leader at the UN who will call that organization out for being nothing more than a pitiful forum for thugs and kooks.  Unlike Ahmadinejad and Ghaddafi (and even Obama), Netanyahu was direct, to the point, and demonstrated a sober assessment of historical facts.

As zoomzoom observed yesterday, nuclear non-proliferation is rooted in the credibility that somebody will act.  The UN is only to happy to entertain Ahmadinejad, but not to stop him.  I don’t see any change in that unless our President pulls his head out of his skinny ass and starts to consider the possibility that maybe the United States and it’s allies aren’t the problem here.

In the meantime, I will say that I love this speech.  Perfect clarity and shows a firm understanding of what is happening.  I just wish that he could have gone on to say that the jury is also out on Obama.

New York Post

Former U.S. presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said Tuesday there should be no Palestinian state in the West Bank and endorsed Israeli settlements there, sharply disagreeing with Washington and much of the world.

A three-day tour of Israel, hosted by a far-right group of religious nationalists, is taking Huckabee to some of the most contentious hotspots in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict including a West Bank settlement outpost that even Israel’s hard-line government considers illegal and an east Jerusalem housing project that the Obama administration has demanded be halted.

...

“The question is should the Palestinians have a place to call their own? Yes, I have no problem with that. Should it be in the middle of the Jewish homeland? That’s what I think has to be honestly assessed as virtually unrealistic.”

He’s at odds not just with Obama, mind you, but even the Republican Party.  This is very much Huckabee being independent and it’s surprising to me.  I didn’t support his presidential run and I think that much of what he says and believes is nuts but on some level, I think he’s right on this issue.  Nobody else wants to say it and a two-state situation will probably become a reality anyway; but I am impressed that somebody had the guts to speak the truth: it isn’t going to work.

Of course, neither will his 2012 presidential candidacy. 

Still, I do wonder where the Palestinians should go?  Arkansas?  Is it that Israel that isn’t where the Palestinian state should be or simply that the lines they’re drawing now aren’t workable?
Fox News

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday that Israel could accept a peace agreement with a “demilitarized Palestinian state” as its neighbor.

In his first speech accepting the concept of a two-state solution for the Middle East conflict, Netanyahu set rigid conditions for moving forward. Among them: unequivocal Palestinian recognition of Israel as the Jewish national state with Jerusalem as its capital, and full demilitarization for a Palestinian state—no army, no rockets or missiles, no control of airspace.

I say it’s a shrewd move.  He’s effectively saying, “Alright, Obama, you want me to accept a Palestinian state?  I will if they don’t have any weapons.”  Of course it’s an impossible demand for the Palestinians to accept because no nation is going to completely forego a right to at least have self-defense forces of some kind.  In my opinion, the press should not be treating this as a major shift in Netanyahu’s policies but instead as a glaring comeback to the impossible demands Obama has placed on him by putting Arab refusal to accept Israel’s right to exist front and center.

After all, if an independent Palestine did have an army with the finest military equipment their Arab neighbor’s oil money could buy, who else would they be arming against? 

CNN

Asked if he had spoken to the President, Wright said: “Them Jews aren’t going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter, that he’ll talk to me in five years when he’s a lame duck, or in eight years when he’s out of office. ...

“They will not let him to talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is. ... I said from the beginning: He’s a politician; I’m a pastor. He’s got to do what politicians do.”

Wright also said Obama should have sent a U.S. delegation to the World Conference on Racism held recently in Geneva, Switzerland, but that the president did not do so for fear of offending Jews and Israel.

“Ethic cleansing is going on in Gaza. Ethnic cleansing of the Zionist is a sin and a crime against humanity, and they don’t want Barack talking like that because that’s anti-Israel,” Wright said.

Twenty years.  Obama attended this nutbag’s church for twenty years and was one of his best friends.  Now we look at how Obama is out to put all of the onus of Mideast peace on Israel and equating the treatment of the Palestinians with the Holocaust and it should become obvious why many of us said before the election that these questionable long-term personal associations matter.

I have to know: did Obama ever try to convince Wright that the Joos aren’t the focus of evil in the world or even in the Middle East?  Given the fact that Wright says “they don’t want Barack talking like that” I think it’s obvious that he never disagreed with Wright on any of it.  Obama can be as telegenic and articulate as he likes but that media-created image is masking an assload of racial and ethnic hostility and bitterness.  Honestly, would you associate with a clergyman or even attend his church if you knew his attitude was that disdainful of Jewish people?  Would you think I was someone you wanted to buddy up with if I said that I can’t get in to talk the mayor of Kansas City because the darkies that run the city bureaucracy won’t let me?  I’m just asking.

I foresee a really rough four (eight?) years for Israel.  They have no friend in this White House.

Daily Press

H/T: Ace of Spades

UPDATE: While we’re on the subject of Obama’s life experiences and how it influences his foreign policy, here is the new editorial by Ralph Peters on that very thing:

Much of our president’s youth was spent in the Third World; his closest relatives viewed events through a wacky leftist lens—and he sat for decades in a church whose pastor ranted against Jews, “racist” America and our foreign policy. It would be astonishing if Obama hadn’t internalized such views by sheer osmosis.

The evidence of our president’s preferences is on the video record: Compare his upbeat body language and smiles as he embraces Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez or the Saudi king with the scowls he offers European leaders.

Our president not only identifies with the Third World, but with a romanticized Third World whose failings are all the West’s fault. It’s the typical view of an undergraduate leftist—in 1979.

UPDATE 2: Just out of curiosity, will Wright be called upon to condemn the shooting at the Holocaust Museum since he has been one of those engaging in hateful rhetoric against Jews or is that only something pro-lifers have to do when an abortion doctor gets shot?  I ask only out of a desire to know what the ground rules are.

We have tackled some rather weighty issues of late, what does and what does not constitute “torture”, are we one step away from the socialist Euro-weenies we have been making fun of all these years, is “Animal House” type diplomacy the way to go, does Obama really love his country, and what’s up with those sagging man boobs of his, but I think it is high time we address the more salient issues of the day. So, to start off the trend to elevate the blog to more high brow topics, I present the killer of all topics, and one that will surely be debated for generations to come.

Anyone daring to post anything on this topic better bring their “A” game, have had a good night sleep and be sufficiently fueled up because some spontaneous combustion will surely result from these brains cells rubbing together.

We have all seen and heard of the more stupider comparisons,  Batman vs The Green Hornet, Spidey vs. Daredevil, even Alien vs. Predator, we’ll save those discussion for the lite weights.

First of all, in considering an actual fight between these two combatants, I would think that the ninja, due to his sword (for simplicity sake we will lump the Katana, Ninjato, and Gundo all together as one generic kick ass sword) abilities and his agility (don’t you just love all those somersaults and shoulder rolls he did in the video?) would have the edge with regards to actual combat. And I have to admit, I did not know what a “Black Egg” was, but I found it rather useless in close combat.

The most bad ass MFer I’ve seen in a while was Ujio in “The Last Samurai.

I could not find a shorter scene highlighting only his skills, but most here have seen the movie and can speak to his Ginsu talents.

Contrast his fighting ability to the best the Spartans have to offer.

Cool scene, but those Persians sure were a bunch of pussies. I think those Russians at the soccer fight could of handled these Persians, no wonder Xerxes had no respect for them.

The Hoplite spear (I have seen references to it being both 7 and 8 feet long) had far superior range to the ninja sword, but I would think a ninja could muster 3 full swings, severing a limb with each, by the time a Spartan could manipulate a killing potential lunge with that spear.

I don’t know, the software guy did admit that 65 times out of 100 the Spartan would come out on top, much like a Laker/Cav series (oops, now I’ve done it) so the ninja does get his share of victories. Me personally, I would put Ujio against Leonidas any day of the week. Keep the throwing stars (light weight, not to cumbersome to carry, and one out of 10 might do some damage), but lose the black eggs.

Another factor to consider, the strength of the Spartans lie in their line of defense where each shield protected the man to his left, like the phalanx, it relied on a community effort for effectiveness. The ninja needed no such support, he could fight just as well (probably better in that it gave him room to do his nifty acrobatics) alone as in a group.

So, what say you guys? And ladies, I know pugilism is right up your alley, but let’s not manipulate all the comments, OK?

This means that—even two weeks into Israel’s Operation Cast Lead against the Palestinian organization Hamas—no independent reporters are being allowed into Gaza. Seaman has no qualms about making it clear that Israel wants to keep the international media out of the Gaza Strip. The reason is that the foreign press is biased, unprofessional, and falls too easily for the other side’s propaganda. His definition of professional, it would seem, is only putting out Israel’s version of the war.

This is sure to be a contentious issue, because I’m sure that many people who would favor the Israelis doing it now would support the US doing it too.  Nevertheless, in this sort of combat, the effect of the media can have disastrous effects on military operations.  Consider the desecration of our soldiers in Mogadishu or the fighting in Fallujah, both events that were televised and led to premature withdrawals that worsened conditions and prolonged violence in the long run. 

Israel needs to root Hamas out.  As long as Hamas continues to hold to their Charter, which states that all of the land must be theirs, there can be no peace.  Yet the Palestinians—who see fit to popularly elect Hamas—are always treated as the victims in the eyes of the media and Israel is forced to back down when world opinion shifts against it.  Then it’s only a matter of time before they have to begin the cycle all over again. 

This guy gets it right:

When presented with this question, Al-Jazeera’s editor-in-chief, Ahmed Sheikh, sighs: “In Iraq, people first accused us of being for Saddam and then for his mortal enemy Muqtada al-Sadr. In Lebanon, it was that we support the Shiite Hezbollah; now it’s that we support the Sunni Hamas.”

As Sheikh sees it, it all comes down to politics: “First and foremost, it’s about stopping a war.” “(During the Vietnam War,) American journalists like Dan Rather were doing what we’re doing here now: They sought out pictures that were powerful enough to bring the bloodshed to an end.”

Unlike American journalists, Sheikh has the courage to admit that there is a almost always a political agenda on the part of the press and that they will do whatever it takes to bring it, whether it’s portraying our enemies as victims or cheerfully keeping track of our body count while ignoring the enemy’s dead.  Who can approximately tell how many American deaths have occurred in Iraq within 1,000 off the top of their head?  Now do the same thing with the insurgents.  See my point?  I am highly distrustful of the press because it’s obvious that they long ago abandoned objectivity in order to advance the political goals that they favor.  It’s good to see that the Israelis get it too.

Der Spiegel

UPDATE FOR AUTHORS: I’ve added a new category for Israel/Palestinian issues: “Of Isaac and Ishmael”