It's a bit shocking, really, that the Washington Post rushed to print an alleged endorsement of John McCain by Al Qaeda. Missing was any verification by authorities that it was authored by anyone in command of any of its tawdry, misanthropic, holier-than-thou, spiritually moronic band of woman-beating, bombing and beheading throwbacks. One wonders what the motive of the Washington Post could have been to act (again) as the mouthpiece for terrorists without any fact-checking, a term that has apparently been erased from its editors' lexicon. It apparently doesn't occur to them that it's possibly not to provide free advertisement for them. Apparently, all one has to do to effect instantaneous worldwide publication of one's opinion – and influence a Presidential election in the United States – is claim to be Al Qaeda and endorse a candidate. Not only that, but then the Leftist press in America will pick it up and circulate it as truth.
Meanwhile, the purpose of these Al Qaeda poseurs in attempting to tamper with U.S. presidential elections – given that they do not get a vote – represents several things:
The Memo. Just another little missive from your blood-lusting Islamofascist superiors that they are the ones to be in charge, lest you forget, so they expect you to follow their instructions. The veiled threat of violence will be legitimately assumed.
Egoistic Arrogance. Of course we must be interested in their opinion.
The use of the most transparent form of reverse psychology. What Al Qaeda wants – since it wants our destruction – must be what we don't want. So if they say they want Obama, we will, like lemmings, rush to Obama, because if they want McCain it's our sacred duty as loyal Americans to support the other candidate. Or, so they hope.
Now, let's flesh that out a little bit, since whether Americans get it or not, the media obviously doesn't.
Did the headlines say, "Al Qaeda makes attempt to smear McCain with ‘endorsement.'" Nope, but they should have.
Did the headlines say, "Al Qaeda throws support behind Obama with phony McCain endorsement?" Nope, but they should have.
Did the headlines say, "Al Qaeda plays same game as last election with manipulative ‘endorsement.'" Nope, but they should have.
What every single or implied headline said was: "Al Qaeda Endorses McCain."
Of course Al Qaeda doesn't endorse McCain. Al Qaeda –like Hizbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood , and Hamas – endorses Obama. And that is not because he is a Muslim, for he is not. He has belonged for 20 years to a virulently anti-white Black Liberation Theology church in Chicago. He converted from Islam to Christianity before puberty, so imams have no authority to issue fatawa against him charging apostasy. Obama was registered as a Muslim at an Indonesian school. He does have Islamic training. But he is no longer a Muslim. Obama is Leftist, not radical Islamist. No, it's none of that.
What thrills Islamofascists – a term coined by Matthias Ruthven and perhaps used as early as the 1970s by Olivier Roy – is that they are looking for a Presidential candidate whose thinking and policy they can infiltrate. And that have found one in Obama. After all, the express wish of the Council on American-Islamic Relations – CAIR, an unindicted co-conspirator in terrorist financing and the group that used to called itself "Hamas in the United States" – is to see shari'a law implemented in America. ICNA and ISNA, both also unindicted co-conspirators in terrorist financing, have also gravitated to Obama, and in the case of ISNA it's a real problem. These are the guys that made hay over the Headscarf Photo Flap – widely used to paint Muslims as victims in Obama's campaign. Rep. Keith Ellison went after Obama with a vengeance, and he got everything he wanted and then some. Here's how it went.
Two Muslim women in headscarves positioned themselves behind Obama at a photo shoot. One of them was a member of the deeply suspect MSA, about which volumes have been written in the last two years recounting their indoctrination to radical Islam of Muslim students by this campus organization. MSA is also tainted by accusations of women within their own ranks that they were forced into Islamic dress cover as a kind of religious testimony to the faith. Of course, Muslim men never put up with the inconvenience of wear hot robes in the Dog Days of Summer to "testify for their faith." No, it's the women who have to do that. One woman recounts being called by the head of an MSA wing, a man who then put his wife on the phone with the girl so the wife could scream at her for not complying with stated dress norms. This echoes, of course, the virulent Saudi Princess Haifa, wife of former Ambassador Bandar bin Sultan (who had the habit of strolling into Cabinet meetings uninvited, so powerful was he), who frequently called embassy wives together for her verbally violent punishment soiress where the women were scathed for the slightest infractions of dress or "morals." Yeah, right. The tactic here is to have a woman discipline another woman at the behest of a male, who will then have to bear no responsibility for being the male chauvinist pig he is. Any questions?
Anyhow, these two Muslim women positioned themselves for an Obama photo shoot that I can promise you would have been distributed all over the Middle East as a fund-raising poster for ISNA. Meanwhile, back in the United States, CAIR and other Muslim propaganda groups screamed "Discrimination!" (which it was not) and then "Racism!" Now that last one is interesting given that Islam is not a race: It is a lift from the Civil Rights Movement, where it was legitimate, but the propagandists are aware that Americans are very sensitive to accusations of racism and too afraid of appearing racist to fight the false accusation when they are smeared with it. There should be a class action lawsuit brought against CAIR, ISNA, ICNA and every other group that uses this false epithet to silence everybody who doesn't agree with them.
At any rate, it is with the Headscarf Flap that I really began to feel for Obama. He is not an anti-Muslim person. Far from it. And it is likely his staff would have had the same reaction to anybody brandishing a sign that read "Zionists for Obama" in Trajan font or somebody waving a massive crucifix with "Stop Abortion" carved on it. No sane Presidential candidate is going to allow his or her campaign to be appropriated for religious advertising.
In this case it was a simple case of Islamic Billboarding, the presence of a headscarf to visually claim space to make a silent representation of a connection with or control of a political or social unit or physical space. OK, I confess to having invented the term. But that's what it is in some cases.
This supposed connection of Islam with Obama did not and does not exist — at least not until now. But now it does exist.
How powerful is IslamicBillboarding? Well, it's pretty powerful. It can make it appear that Obama is Muslim, which most in the Muslim world already believe he is (and that will be a problem for him if he is elected), and it also makes it appear that MSA and ISNA and CAIR appear to be very powerful in American politics in general and in Obama's campaign in particular.
And the upshot of all this is that Obama got creamed, in three specific ways.
First he was rapped for "racism" and the women in headscarves were quickly fashioned into victims by CAIR.
Second, he got Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim on Congress, all over him publicly. But after a few weeks, Ellison and others had strong-armed Obama into total submission.
Third, part of that "submission" (there's that word again) is that Obama has a new "Muslim advisor" who has radical connections thoroughly discussed in several articles in the last two weeks, the best of which articles was Daniel Pipes' article "Would Obama Pass a Security Clearance?" Answer: No.
So, faced with bad press and intimidation by the bad guys most likely to behead you if they don't like you, what does Obama do? He fronts a headscarf in the form of Ingrid Mattson, president of ISNA — the same-same unindicted co-conspirator in terrorist financing named above – for a precious little "Interfaith Moment" at the Democratic National Convention.
Watch this closely, for it is shocking indeed. In a country in which MOST Muslim women do NOT wear cover, Ingrid Mattson is one of the few high-ranking Muslim women who does. So what Muslim woman does Obama choose for his token? One of the many U.S. Muslim women who is moderate? No.
Ingrid Mattson is a Saudi Wahhabi apologist and a radical. What would happen to Ingrid if she appeared on Saudi TV without a face veil? She'd be stoned to death. What would happen if she showed up at the Grand Mosque dressed as she was on American national TV? She would have been whipped to death on the streets by the religious police. Ingrid Mattson, like Al-Arabiya's Nadia Bilbassy-Charters – who interviewed Laura Bush at the White House dressed in a skirt halfway up her thigh and appeared at the National Press Club in a skin-tight, white satin sheath with a hemline higher than that! – is one of the Spin Sisters, one of the women fronted by radical Islamist men to make them appear to be gender egalitarian when they are not. Women like Ingrid Mattson could care less what happens to the rest of the oppressed Muslim women of this world so long as they get theirs. Look at Mattson's position? Fame. Power. A little more fame. Now she's been seen on national TV in her headscarf, while defending the repressive Saudis. She has never made a a statement against FGM (which is mandatory in Shafi'i Sunni Islam), never lent support to Shirin Ebadi's incredibly brave attempt to wrest women's freedom from the Iranian mullahs, never decried the murder of Turkish feminist Konca Kouris, never hailed Farzana Hassan's attempt to prevent shari'a law from being imposed in Canada, and never touted the scholarship of the devout Muslim women seeking a new, gender-egalitarian (it was ruined by centuries of overtly manipulative translation) hermeutics of the Qur'an.
The headscarf means many things. Mostly it means ignorance of the fact that it was NEVER mandated by Muhammad and did not appear in Islamic culture until three centuries after the advent of Islam. Therefore many women who wear it do it because they think it is mandated and want to do the right thing. But in the West it is often holier-than-thou competition for men's attention both with other Muslim women and with Western women they call "sluts" whether they have evidence for it or not. As a woman, I can't tell you how infuriated I am at this accusation and how sick I am of hearing it.
What headscarfing is, often, is political Islamic Billboarding at the behest of men. Worldwide, the headscarf is, overwhelming, male oppression of the female that prevents men from having to experience any anxiety that one of "their" women will be found a tempting little plumb by some other man. Men do not have to earn women's love, they merely have to make an arrangement with her father for it (despite the Qur'an's guarantee of freedom in marriage for women as well as men). In the strict Wahhabi orientation Ingrid Mattson refers to as a "reformation," it is an act of slander against the female form as a sexual organ from toes to crown, with the exception of hands and eyes, a form that is utterly controlled and violently criminalized. How bad is it? In Saudi Arabia, the abaya covers everything but hands and eyes. Well, make that one eye. Last week the Wahhabi imams in Saudi Arabia said that one eye must be covered, because two eyes is just too much of an evil trap for a man's sexual purity. This is an apparent attempt to control those lurid glances at the market, where women are already under the control of a male chaperone!
But I digress. The point is that while Muslim women in Iran endure torture in Evin Prison to escape this oppression, it bothers Ingrid Mattson not at all to support oppression of Muslim women by sporting one herself in the name of faith.
Anyhow, back to the Democratic National Convention. Here comes Ingrid Mattson in her headscarf – a payback from the alleged affront to the Muslim community for Obama's refusal to have his campaign used for Islamic Billboarding. Ellison was pleased. The American Muslim community flocked to Obama's side. Mattson made a speech that should have sent off screaming warning bells, but Americans behaved as if they were stricken with connexin-26 gene deafness.
But this warrants another, closer look. Who else appeared? A Christian priest and a Jewish rabbi. Where were the Hindus, whose numbers in the USA are larger than those of the Muslims, who claim they are over 6 million when likely the most accurate number is 1.3 million? Where are the Buddhists? Where are the Jains? Where are the Native American medicine men? Where are the Baha'i and Amadiyyah, whom the Sunnis punish and persecute worldwide with charges of apostasy? Where are the Orthodox? Where are the Taoists and the Confucians? Where are the Sufis, so vilified by the Wahhabis and the Taleban — the Sufis whose European and American forms may represent the best hope for Muslims in America? Where are the New Agers, who in this country vastly outnumber the Muslims and are the fast-growing spiritual orientation in American (no, you were mislead, it is not the Muslims)?
You will not find any of those faiths appearing with the radical-learning, Wahhabi-oriented, headscarf-flaunting Muslima Ingrid Mattson! Why? Because only the People of the Book – Jews and Christians – are even marginally acceptable to these 7th-century-styled Muslims, and all the rest are considered to be practitioners of illegitimate, if not Satanic, religions and faiths. Obama would not have made the mistake of including them when a Muslim speaks. He wouldn't have dared. Especially since the entire purpose of this tawdry exercise was to front a headscarf in capitulation to intentionally-invented Muslim grievance.
Is Obama a Muslim? No.
Is Obama pandering to a radical Muslim minority? Yes.
Is he accepting advisors who have radical links? Yes.
Is he a coward? Yes. And that is the problem with Obama: He is woefully inexperienced, as this incident also shows, but he is, worse, a coward.
Obama, despite his terrible associations, has only one real problem: He doesn't know when he needs to stand up and refuse to cow to such pressures, and he doesn't have the spine to do it when he does realize it.
So, does Al Qaeda really want McCain to win? Of course not. They want Obama to win, because if he does, the whole problem of establishing shari'a law for Muslims in the United States (read: women, since shari'a is most concerned with keeping control of women) gets a lot easier. And that's just the first step. It's Muslims first, then everybody else. And they'll do it with non-Muslims by using the tactic that the free speech, free choice, and free women of this culture are an insult to their faith. They will also use the "family law" codes that allow the also sexist (but not to anything like the same degree) Jewish Beths Din family law to institute legal shari'a courts (as in Britain) among Muslims here. Problematically, the vast majority of Muslims in America, moderates all, have caved to Saudi pressure for radical imams – Tabeban-trained in Pakistan or Wahhabi-trained in Saudi Arabia – to run American mosques. Now they run 80% of them, and the American Muslim community has not had the spine to correct the problem and doesn't have it now.
But make no mistake: Al Qaeda endorsed Obama because they already know, by everything he has done and all he has not done, that he is the best bet for entering American power centers by the back door. And Americans should be highly suspect of a media that helped them run this little piece of reverse psychology on the American public.
And Americans should also realize that the evidence of Obama's capitulation to what Stephen Schwartz calles "The Wahhabi Lobby" in the United States is incontrovertible and crystal clear: When a candidate for the Presidency of United States fronts a headscarf worn by a radical in a pandering and obsequious attempt to prevent bad press, he is too spineless and self-serving to be President of the United States.