What Obama Believes?

I was looking through some magazines that had piled up and found this essay by Fareed Zakaria in Time. From "When Terror Loses Its Grip":

...There are, of course, many differences between Hitler and bin Laden. But one great similarity holds. Hitler's death marked the end of the Nazi challenge from Germany. And bin Laden's death will mark the end of the global threat of al-Qaeda.

[...]

[Al Qaeda's] founding rationale has been shattered by the Arab Spring of this year. Al-Qaeda believed that the only way to topple the dictatorships of the Arab world was through violence, that participation in secular political processes was heretical and that people wanted and would cheer an Islamic regime. Over the past few months, millions in the Arab world have toppled regimes relatively peacefully, and what they have sought was not a caliphate, not a theocracy, but a modern democracy.

[...]

Along the way, the efforts at nation building have tarnished the image of the American military. The world's greatest fighting force was shown to be unable to deliver stability to Iraq and Afghanistan, had to deal with scandals like the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib in Iraq and saw its soldiers losing their once high morale. May 1 changed all that. The image of a smart, wise and supremely competent U.S. has flashed across the globe. The lesson should be clear. An America that uses its military power less promiscuously, more intelligently and in a targeted and focused manner might once again gain the world's respect and fear, if not affection. And an America that can provide a compelling picture of a modern, open society will be a far more attractive model for Arabs than Osama bin Laden's vision of a backward medieval caliphate.

Apparently, Fareed Zakaria, to some extent, advises Obama with regard to foreign policy:


Newsbusters has more information, including a backpedaling statement from Zakaria.

But here's my point: If you read the article in Time Magazine, you will note similarities between what Zakaria has written and Obama's foreign policy.

Also note Zakaria's reaction to Obama's speech of May 19:

It was his role as educator in chief that came out today. He provided a kind of world view, almost a historical interpretation of the causes and consequences of the Arab Spring. He began in the beginning with Tunisia and moved forward. And he tried to present a way in which he saw America's interests and values as squarely aligned with this Arab revolution.

He touched on the places that we don't like - the regimes we don't like that are having trouble dealing with people, Tehran and Damascus. He also talked about Bahrain and Yemen. But you are right, of course, he didn't talk about the 800-pound gorilla that is Saudi Arabia.

But he also then went on to talk about ways to consolidate these revolutions; he talked about the Arab-Israeli peace process. He was tougher on Syria than he's been. He was more explicit in his - in his support for two states, Israel and Palestine on 1967 borders, plus mutually agreeable land swaps, so very comprehensive.

So, I thought he was quite even-handed while calling for a Palestinian state on '67 borders, plus or minor land swaps. He also recognized Israel's legitimate security needs, so I'd be surprised if there is too much criticism out of Tel Aviv tonight....

Please take time to watch the video of Zakaria's statement:


Ace of Spades on Zakaria and Obama:

Zakaria has the worst conflict of interest possible -- ego. If an egotistical, ambitious "reporter" thinks his opinions are being considered by the president (and no, I don't believe this was just the White House telling Zakaria stuff; I think they flattered him by asking advice), then he's flattered, and he thinks he's on the team, and therefore he is invested in His Team's success (or perception of such).

[...]

Gee, no wonder Zakaria thinks that every move of Obama's is brilliant. Obama's got him thinking he's implementing the Zakaria Agenda for Success. Of course Zakaria approves of Zakaria.

Should we care what Zakaria says? Yes, insofar as Zakaria is often read by those leaning left. After all, in many circles, Zakaria is a respected journalist and does exert at least some influence on the American electorate.

And if Zakaria is advising Obama to any extent whatsoever, we should care very much what Zakaria believes.

Data Mining

Using the web comes at a cost additional to access fees:


Please read this article, as well as the embedded links, in the current edition of Time Magazine for more information.

Another interesting aspect to virtual life: Colleges' admissions departments scrutinize Facebook pages. I'm guessing that colleges' admissions departments check out other social networks, too, including blogs and Twitter.

Yet another hassle in the virtual world: the hacking of accounts. Recently, one of my homeschool students had his Facebook account hacked. As a result, he was locked out of his own account and had to watch helplessly as inappropriate material was posted in his name on his friends' Facebook walls,

I've also known friends how had their email accounts hacked with the result that everyone in the hacked account's address book received waves and waves of spam, which appeared to come from a trusted friend.

Remember the warning from Hill Street Blues as you surf the web, an arena with diminishing privacy and diminishing security:

Time Magazine Declares Non-Muslims to be "Kuffar"

Definition of Kafir

From Citizen Warrior:

A kafir is a person who is not a Muslim.
Islam makes a sharp distinction between Muslims on the one side and everyone else on the other. Their laws distinguish this too. In Shari'a law, a Muslim can testify in court against a kafir, but a kafir may not testify against a Muslim. In Shari'a law, it is illegal for a Muslim to kill a fellow Muslim, but it is not illegal for a Muslim to kill a kafir. A kafir is an unbeliever, an infidel.

Political Islam has a good definition also: Defining Kafir, complete with quotes from the Qur'an describing how Muslims ought to deal with kafirs. It's not pretty.

Answers.com defines it this way:

Kafir is an Arabic word literally meaning "ingrate." In the Islamic doctrinal sense the term refers to a person who does not recognize Allah or the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad and hides, denies, or covers the truth. In cultural terms, it is a derogatory term used to describe an unbeliever or an apostate from Islam. It is usually translated into English as "infidel" or "unbeliever."
The word kāfir is the active participle of the root K-F-R "to cover". As a pre-Islamic term it described farmers burying seeds in the ground, covering them with soil while planting. Thus, the word kāfir implies the meaning "a person who hides or covers". In Islamic parlance, a kāfir is a word used to describe a person who rejects Islamic faith, i.e. "hides or covers [viz., the truth]".

From Atlas:

Radical "TIME": Mainstreaming Islamic Supremacist Discourse,
"Kuffar-Appeasing Uncle Tom"

 
In this week's issue of _{^{out of}} "Time" magazine, Bruce Crumley has penned an intellectually dishonest propaganda piece on Islam in Europe, entitled, "Europe Conservatives' New Scapegoat: Multiculturalism." There is no group better practiced at delusion and denial of reality than the left. Yes, I know, so what else is new?
Well, this. Non-muslims are called kuffar by the author. This is a dirty, filthy pejorative word for non-muslims in Islam. It is as ugly as any other word you can think of for a class or group of people, a word that stings the senses.
 
Crumley describes French writer and anthropologist and "moderate Muslim" Dounia Bouzar this way: (hat tip nook)

 "Yet despite her efforts to find common ground between Muslims and wider French society — and her feminist defense of women within Islam — Bouzar is no Kuffar-appeasing Uncle Tom."

Let's All Sing Kumbaya

At schools of theology, no less.

From this article in Time Magazine:

Training Pastors, Rabbis, and Imams Together

When Jerry Campbell became president of California's renowned Claremont School of Theology four years ago, low enrollment and in-the-red books threatened to close the 125-year-old institution. But since Claremont is the only United Methodist seminary west of Denver, Campbell resolved to find a way to stay open.

Drawing from classic American entrepreneurial wisdom — when faced with extinction, innovate — and a commitment to engage today's multi-faith culture, this fall Claremont will commence a first on U.S. soil: a "theological university" to train future pastors, imams, and rabbis under one roof. The experiment to end isolated clerical training brings together Claremont, the Islamic Center of Southern California (ICSC) and the Academy for Jewish Religion California. The hope of officials at all three organizations is that when leaders study their own religious traditions together alongside friends of other faiths, they will develop the respect and wisdom necessary to transform America's fractured religious outlook.

[...]

Only recently has the American Muslim population had the finances and the student pipeline to try to launch its own higher education institution; today's imams have trained either overseas or in community-based but unaccredited mosque programs. In addition to Claremont's efforts, Connecticut's Hartford Seminary is seeking accreditation for a new imam-training program, and Zaytuna College, a new, unaccredited Islamic liberal arts school in Berkeley, Calif., hopes to eventually include clerical classes.

[...]

The Association of Theological Schools (ATS) begins formal discussions this fall to explore how pluralism might change pastoral education. "I think that we are on the cusp of a lot of change, but we are at the front end of it, so it's not clear which of these are going to be the survivors, what new models might in fact emerge," says Daniel Aleshire, executive director of ATS. "In 20 years, the whole theological training landscape could be quite different." Already two other theological schools — Boston's Andover Newton and Chicago's Meadville Lombard — have followed Claremont's lead and in June announced plans to form similar interfaith consortiums....

Can you imagine any such syncretism going on in religious-training institutions in Islamic countries, particularly in Saudi, the land of Allah?

Recent Graphics In Time Magazine

What does this graphic say to you?

This graphic appeared in the current print-edition of Time Magazine, attached to the article "Sacred Spaces" by Nancy Gibbs.

Read about Nancy Gibbs HERE, HERE (NewsBusters and HERE (Wikipedia).

The current cover of Time Magazine:


Abridged cover article HERE.

Read Phyllis Chesler's commentary on the recent edition of Time Magazine HERE (Thanks to Michael Travis).

"There Is A Very Seething Anger Out There. . ." Ya Think?! Buncha Fucking Geniuses Here. . .

Chris "I'm a dick and Obama makes me tingle" Matthews and a panel of true luminaries go as far as they can to smear Palin and Beck and Fox News and conservatives in general as potentially stirring someone to commit a McVeigh-like act. I mean, how dare Sarah open her speeches with "Do you love your freedom?"

The Horror!

Joe Swine: "The difference now is the presence of a televison network, and I'm going to call it Fox (funny thing, Joe, that's what they call themselves), the presence of Fox which allows it's commentators, like Sean Hannity, like Glen Beck, to rouse the Tea Party. . ."

Oh where to start with Olberdouche and King Tingles himself?

Whorah O'Donnell: "There is a very seething anger out there and Sarah Palin is stroking that anger."

(dear Miss O'Donnell -- the term would be stoking that anger. If you really want to talk about stroking. . .)

Yep, we got the sonsabitches scared.

It's going to be a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. . .

Breitbart:

Joe Klein and Hillary Clinton taste each other

Image via Wikipedia

Time's Klein: Beck, Palin Potentially Committing Sedition against U.S. Government; Heilemann Adds Limbaugh

Liberals are all too often eager to charge conservative personalities of using hyperbole to gain a political advantage, especially when it contradicts their world view - whether it's suggesting the Obama administration is taking the country down the path of socialism, fascism or any other -ism.

However, it could be argued there's a different set of standards for those same people when they want to make strong charges. On NBC's April 18 "The Chris Matthews Show," Time columnist Joe Klein all but accused former GOP vice-presidential nominee and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, along with Fox News host Glenn Beck of sedition.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2010/04/18/time-s-klein-beck-palin-potentially-committing-sedition-against-u-s-gover#ixzz0lXZtfqp8

Perhaps we should consider the idea that Joe Klein is a danger to the republic, I mean if free speech is sedition, then attempts to promulgate squelching of it must be some kind of crime?
DUH.
What kind of galactically hypocritical morons says this stuff?
MORONS.
Anyone propose this when Bush was getting it from the left? When plays about his assassination were lauded and regarded with humor?

And so with great thanks to Always on Watch and Beamish we are reminded from 2003:

"I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration."

Hillary Clinton

Related articles by Zemanta

• Kathleen Parker and Joe Klein: Tea Party fringe groups are a national security threat; FOX and the Becks are acting seditiously (crooksandliars.com)
• Dakota Voice Week in Review, Ending Apr. 17, 2010 (dakotavoice.com)

Pride Goeth Before A Fall

I haven't yet opened my copy of Time Magazine, dated November 24, 2008. You can read that edition online HERE.

Below is the cover:



I wonder what cover design Time will use for the Christmas edition?