Ah yes, my people, my nation, my burden, my glory, my J Street. The Jews of J Street have named themselves after an imaginary street in Washington, DC, a suitable name for the kind of imaginary but dangerous human engineering projects they have in mind both for America and for the Middle East. The J Street Jews would rather die at Ahmadinejad’s hands–as long as a Democrat is voted into the White House–than live under a Republican administration.

Hence, their alleged strong-arm tactics against The Conference of Presidents whom they allegedly forced to dis-invite Governor Palin as a speaker. Among their threats: Interminable lawsuits challenging the Conference’s not-for-profit status if they end up with a speaker from only one party. Of course, that would not have been the case if Hillary had not pulled out or if Obama had chosen to send along another Democrat.

Please note that I have written “allegedly” twice because the J Streeters and Obama’s people in general are…trial lawyers. It has been reported that their chief fundraiser is Victor Kovner, the well-known First Amendment lawyer. Free speech for Stalinists, leftists, and Democrats–indignant cries of Foul when any other point of view is voiced. Unless of course, that point of view is Islamist or Fascist or even Nazi in orientation. That’s when the ACLU and the First Amendment fundamentalists really roll up their sleeves.

The J Streeters are heady with this shameful victory. They hope to replace AIPAC as Obama’s Jewish-Lobby-of-Choice. From their point of view, Obama, not McCain, is the only man who will be able to save both America and Israel and therefore, McCain and Palin must be stopped at any cost–even if it means the chilling of public, free speech. Where have I heard this before, this dangerous little ditty about the “End Justifying the Means,” unless of course the “end” involves defending the West from Jihad and the “means” involves denying Islamists both speech, special privileges, and unfettered access to bomb us all to Hell.

Clearly, the Democrats, including the liberal Jewish Democrats, are unable and unwilling to work with Republicans, who are, after all, also Americans. They would rather stand with a genocidal and nuclear Ahmadinjad than with Republicans. Even when there are no risks involved. No “sit ins,” no “act ups,” no “act outs,” no hoped-for shedding of blood. C’mon, the event is not the storming of Evin Prison in Tehran–it is a peaceful rally outside the UN. Well, maybe that’s why the Jewish left/liberals are not interested.

Some have urged people not attend a rally which has already engaged in a McCarthy-like chilling of free and “partisan” speech. I am dodging this particular bullet. We live in a democracy. You can make up your own mind.

However, I do urge you to attend a rally which has been called for Thursday, September 25th, at 5:30 pm, outside the Grand Hyatt Hotel. A number of high-profile anti-Zionist Christian groups (The American Friends Service Committee, Mennonite Central Committee, Quaker UN Office, Religions for Peace, and the World Council of Churches-UN Liaison Office) have invited Ahmadinejad to speak. According to Women United/Code Red, (www.925rally.org), in addition to themselves, the Jewish Action Alliance, Amcha, Stand With Us, Center for Security Policy, the Catholic League, the Traditional Values Coalition, the Alliance of Iranian Women and over 20 other organizations of all faiths and political affiliations will hold an interfaith rally to “counter this betrayal, to protest Ahmadinejad’s presence,” etc. Women United have invited Governor Sarah Palin to speak. They have also invited many other people.

Go. Stand in solidarity against this monster whose state has sponsored more terrorism than any other and whose mind missiles are aimed at the heart of Tel Aviv and New York. Well, maybe you won’t have to, maybe the U.S. government will, at the last moment, decide not to allow him to enter.

And by the way, the World Council of Churches (above) includes, but is not limited to the following churches: the African Methodist Episcopal Church; The African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church; American Baptist Churches in the USA; Christian Methodist Episcopal Church; The Coptic Orthodox Church in North America; The Episcopal Church;
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America–and many more denominations which represent the Armenians, Hungarians, Koreans, Syrians, Moravians, Russian Orthodox, Poles, Serbian Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox, and the United Methodist Church.

The Christians, who are being persecuted by fanatic Muslim leaders and mobs are seeking an interfaith dialogue with Ahmadinejad. It passeth all understanding…

NEWSFLASH: A reader has posted a comment. Really, I am not amused. She insists that the J-Streeters cannot possibly be the new McCarthyites. The hell they can’t.

She claims, sweetly, that of course Palin could not speak because no Democrat would be speaking. Ah, but she forgets that Senator Hillary Clinton, who has been campaigning for Obama, had been invited to this rally and she BACKED OUT when she learned that Governor Palin had also been invited. Obama did not decide to come himself nor did Biden agree to come. Obama did not decide to send any other high-ranking Democrat.

Anyway, this reader (whom I believe is an Obama volunteer operative whose “mission” it is to spread Obama’s point of view on perceived conservative blogsites), owes me several “positive” comments–and this time, from the heart, not just pro forma. C’mon, I know you can do it.

Yesterday, I wrote a blog about the true-life story of the stoning of Soraya M, in Iran, which was first a book and is now a film. I tied it to Amadinejad’s upcoming lecture at the UN–but then, rapidly changing events disappeared Soraya’s important story. I am removing the Soraya material for now but will post it as my Monday blog. I am also updating the dis-invitation story which seems never-ending.

What a foolish and shameful dis-invitation it was. I am talking about the decision made by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations to dis-invite Governor Palin to speak at the rally opposing Amadinejad as he speaks at the UN.

My first NEWSFLASH: The Jewish Telegraphic Agency has just confirmed that Governor Sarah Palin–a strong supporter of Israel–has been disinvited from the rally against President Ahmadinejad. I suggest that my readers call the Conference of Presidents to protest this short-sighted and outrageous decision. Their number is 212-318-6111.

A FURTHER NEWSFLASH: The plot thickens but there is a bottom line; there always is. Obama is the one who decided not to send anyone of rank to stand with the Jews who are opposing Amadinejad’s genocidal and nuclear policies. The Jews in charge did not successfully lean on Obama to come himself, (which would have made sense) but instead, no doubt under some unimaginably heavy pressure, dis-invited Palin. What? Allow Palin to take on the Iranian Monster on prime-time TV and win even more votes? New York Jewish votes? Women’s votes? Anything but that.

To cover themselves, the Conference of Presidents now claim to have dis-invited all politicians; too “partisan,” too distracting from the matter at hand.

I’ll say.

But, where is it written that only one rally opposing Amadinejad’s policies can take place in this fine city of ours? Why not two rallies? There are thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of New York City Jews, women, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Vegetarians who would be thrilled to see Palin verbally take down Amadinejad live. Let her hold her own rally. If you call it, people will come.

Perhaps it’s not too late for Biden to change his plan to address the National Guard in Maryland on Monday and, for the first time, stand up to Iran. He hasn’t you see. Yes, yes, I know he was very good on the Violence Against Women Act. Perhaps someone can suggest that he read my upcoming blog on Monday which is about the extraordinary violence perpetrated against women in Iran, which includes being stoned to death.

Perhaps even Obama can change his mind and stand with the Jews and with America and even with all his American political competitors against Iran’s demented and dangerous policies. Let McCain consider addressing a rally too. If Obama can stand with McCain at Ground Zero, surely, surely, a great Uniter can stand with McCain and Biden and Palin opposite the UN.

AN EVEN FURTHER NEWSFLASH: I have just been told that the largest rally ever held in Alaska was just held–by Women Against Palin. This is fast becoming a sickness.

But, I have also been told that Women United, right here in NYC, has invited Governor Palin to speak at a rally on Thursday September 25th at 5:30pm at the Grand Hyatt Hotel on 42nd Street. Apparently, unbelievably, a group of Christian clerics and theologians are honoring the Dinner Jacket.

As someone else wrote: “A hard rain is gonna fall.”

I would like to thank all the discussants on LiberalHawks for their generosity and wisdom on this issue.

Wall Street totters and people who only yesterday were multi-millionaires are literally paupers today. Hurricanes devastate the Caribbean and Texas and people are dead, homeless, without power of any kind. Trains collide in California and people are dead, wounded. While greed and hubristic risk-taking might have played a role in the collapse of Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and Bear Sterns, the lesson for most of us is this: Some devastation cannot be predicted nor can we protect ourselves from it.

But there is another kind of devastation that is now also upon us. I see it, others see it, but many Americans refuse to acknowledge it and therefore refuse to stop it in its tracks. Yes, I am talking about Islamic gender and religious apartheid and its penetration of the West, including America. (I am not talking about Muslims as civilian individuals but about the practices and theories that characterize contemporary and historical Islam).

Here is the kind of man-made and preventable devastation that is surely coming our way.

A Moroccan Islamic theologian, Mohamed Ben Sheikh Abderrahman Al Maghraoui, has just issued a fatwa “legalizing” the union between a nine year-old child and an adult man. Al Maghraoui views nine year old girls as more sexually suitable than twenty year olds. Cooler Moroccan heads are outraged and promise to protect their children from such abuse.

Muslim immigrant gangs are now fighting in the streets of Copenhagen against non-violent anti-Islamist groups, and against left-wing, neo-Nazi, and ethnic Danish Hells Angels. The Muslims are fighting a guerilla-style war. They dress as civilians, they appear and disappear via cell phone jihad (they call 50-100 Muslims in Arabic, Urdu, to surround the police when the police attempt to arrest any Muslim rioter.) And, although Denmark absorbed death and boycott threats galore after they published the Danish cartoons–nevertheless, a Danish publisher has promised to publish an erotic escape novel about the Prophet by Sherry Jones.

As yet, there is no such fighting in the streets of America. And yet, Random House, an American publisher cancels the publication of the Sherry Jones’ novel which is, strictly speaking, about the Prophet Mohammed’s marriage to the six year old Aisha, a marriage which he consummated when she was nine.

In Saudi Arabia, a cleric, Sheikh Muhammad Munajid, calls for the death of Mickey Mouse (!) who, he claims, is “one of Satan’s soldiers,” corrupts children, and makes everything it touches impure. The Sheikh, a former diplomat at the Saudi embassy in Washington D.C., is horrified that Mickey is seen as “loveable.”

Iranian President Amadinejad repeatedly calls for the death of Israel–but is about to be welcomed as a hero in New York City by the United Nations General Assembly.

New York City should get rid of the United Nations.

America, NATO, India, Israel and Middle Eastern Arab states should make it impossible for Iran to become a nuclear power.

And we, the people, who are currently obsessed with the American Presidential–no, scratch that–who are mesmerized by the Republican Vice-Presidential candidate and by the Wall Street-like meltdown of the liberal mainstream media: I suggest that all American patriots add the Danish flag to their lapels.

Quietly, deftly, persistently, cunningly, Sharia law has become the law of the land in Britain in matters of divorce, finances, and domestic violence. Yes–domestic violence. Of course, both parties have to request this alternate dispute resolution model of justice but I bet the British-Muslim women who “choose” to inherit radically less than their brothers and who “choose” not to press criminal charges against their husband-batterers are not making a free choice. In order to remain within their faith and family communities they must submit to Sharia law or risk ostracism, isolation, or the possibility of being honor murdered.

Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi took advantage of a clause in the British Arbitration Act of 1996 and, as the head of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal has set up Sharia courts in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh. The Sheikhs are also comparing themselves to British Jews who “choose” to go to a Jewish court (a Bet Din). However, a Bet Din does not deal with domestic violence per se and has no enforcement powers.

Various “merchants of hatred” aka Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, (stripped of his British citizenship but preaching in London via satellite), and his next-in-command, Anjem Choudary, are predicting that the Islamic flag will soon be flying over 10 Downing Street and they may be right. They are banking on British Muslim population growth and conversions. I note that they are not yet talking about taking over Harry Potter’s Hogwarts School or Buckingham Palace but surely the flight of uncensored imagination as well as the British royal monarchy’s days might well be numbered.

Then, there is the fatwa just issued against Sir Paul McCartney of the Beatles if he dares perform in Tel Aviv as part of Israel’s 60th anniversary celebration. When the various anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian groups failed to persuade Sir Paul to cancel his engagement, they sent in the fatwas. I hope Sir Paul gets an entire unit of elite soldiers to guard him against this horrifying intimidation.

And, while all this is happening, (not to mention the burying alive of Muslim girls and women in the Pakistani Badlands, the violent closure of girls’ schools in Afghanistan, the kidnapping and forced conversions of Christian girls, also in Pakistan)–Hollywood delivers up unto us a religious Muslim hero, played by Don Cheadle who, at great risk, takes on the “bad” Islamist terrorists but in the name of Islam. I only wish. Perhaps such heroes will emerge; perhaps they already exist by the drove. But at this moment in history, Hollywood should try to be a little more even-handed. By the by: The Islamic terrorists in The Traitor are either presented as soulfully sympathetic or as too shadowy to really care about.

Does an Islamic flag already fly over Hollywood? I fear it does. It would be another matter if that flag, like the burqa, did not symbolize jihad and hatred of America–if, for example, it meant that Americans are super-trendy, even honorary Europeans. That is not the case. Hollywood seems to be the first kid on the block to assume a full Dhimmi position.

 I watched ABC News Anchorman Charlie Gibson interview Governor Palin last night and was horrified by his blatant disdain for her and by the Grand Inquisitorial nature of the interview. He was not there to draw her out but to trap, shame and expose her as an unqualified fraud. He never smiled. He never paused. He literally looked down at her as he peered through his half-lowered glasses. He grilled her relentlessly, on and on, and when he thought she did not have the right answer e.g. as to what the Bush Doctrine really is, he “failed” her right on camera.

According to Charles Krauthammer, writing in the Washington Post, it was Gibson who failed to understand that the Bush Doctrine has evolved through four phases and is not about America’s right to pre-emptive deterrence. Take that, you uninformed bully.

In addition, Judith Weiss, a sister-blogger and moderator of the super-excellent LiberalHawks listserv group, has called my attention to the NewsBusters’ unedited transcript of the Gibson interview. ABC manipulated the hell out of the interview–they sliced and diced context and content in an attempt to present Palin as slightly flustered, unsure, superficial, and dangerous. Weiss demands that ABC release the entire unedited interview. PJM’s own Glenn Reynolds has suggested that from now on, interviewees should take their own camcorders with them on the set–and then release the unedited interview on the internet.

If Gibson represents the kind of gauntlet the mainstream media has in store for Palin–I suggest that in the future she come fully armed! (Just joking but I’m not sure what else would inspire any civility towards her).

Contrast this with O’Reilly’s interview with Obama. They were affable, jocular, relaxed. Both were “tough” but there was a level playing field between them. Obama has a habit of “touching” his opponents. He did this with Hillary, and I’ve seen him do it with McCain. He did this again with O’Reilly. Obama just enters their personal physical space. Psychological research on “touching” indicates that it is a statement of power. Whoever does the “touching” is indicating that he is the more powerful of the dyad. Thus, “touching” is not necessarily a touchy-feely anti-corporate kinda thing but is quite the opposite.

Contrast the Gibson-Palin scandal with the interviews of both candidates last night at Columbia University by PBS’s Judy Woodruff and Richard Stengel. The candidates were not on stage at the same time, although they met long enough for Obama to assert his “touching” authority over McCain. (McCain keeps calling for Obama to join him in coast-to-coast Town Hall meetings; Obama has not yet responded.) In any event, the Columbia interviewers were respectful and even-handed to both McCain and Obama. Both candidates were allowed to speak at length. Neither were badgered. I must admit, both candidates and perhaps the subject (National Service) was a bit boring. I literally found myself falling asleep. Obama looks older than when he first began this campaign. Oddly enough, McCain does not. Both candidates drew applause (Obama drew more). Both candidates agreed that Columbia should allow the ROTC back on campus. McCain was genial, likeable, Obama was eloquent and smooth.

A Final Word for Charlie Gibson: Look: It is fine to disagree with someone on the issues. But this must be done with civility, not hostility. And, I am not sure that the interviewer has as much right to air his views and reveal his own biases on camera as does his interviewee, especially if she, not he, is running for the Vice-Presidency. The hostility of the Gibson interview is one more example of how the culture wars in America are playing out. I have even suggested that this war might very well worsen and become the beginnings of a Civil War if Obama does not win.

The following comment illustrates the difference between how Gibson interviewed Obama and Palin:

cedarford:A woman at a Hillary website (nom de plume - Nancy Kallitechnis) posted what she found reviewing Gibsons questions to Obama compared to the questions he later asked the VP nominee Palin:

The following is a breakdown of the questions asked of the nominees:

Obama interview:

How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to “win”?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?

Palin interview:

Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
Questions about foreign policy
-territorial integrity of Georgia
-allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
-NATO treaty
-Iranian nuclear threat
-what to do if Israel attacks Iran
-Al Qaeda motivations
-the Bush Doctrine
-attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]

There’s no doubt the Charles Gibson interviews showed extreme prejudice against Palin and extreme favoritism towards Obama…He constantly questioned her ability to lead but never questioned Obama’s ability to lead..

I showed this to a few co-workers. Two of the women, both Obama supporters, were completely disgusted with the dramatic difference in the puffball questions Obama got compared to Palin. Both were offended and said the media was so in the bag for Obama that they never would question the media is sexist, was out to destroy Hillary, and now is working on Palin while “our guy” is clearly getting red carpet treatment..Then one said - you know, seeing this shit happen makes me think he isn’t my guy…I really feel for Gov Palin getting abused like that..

Link to what may be Nancy from Cal Tech’s work and Anchoress’s own (irate) thoughts on the smear editing work Gibson’s staff did was by The Anchoress, at her website:

http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/09/12/side-by-side-gibson-questions-more/

A NOTE TO MY READERS

I read each comment and learn a great deal from them. I have had to asterisk quite a few Comments today. Please remember: No direct insults: Basic Netiquette 101. (I am so old-fashioned).  I do not understand why someone like “Gina,” who sent a Comment late on Sunday evening, has to write the following: “She (Sarah Palin) is dumber than a bunch of rocks! She is Alaskan Trailer Trash.”

Gina: Are you one of those Natural Born Killers? Have you watched too many cop shows, judge shows, or reality shows, and do you now believe that insulting someone in public office is the same as criticizing their views?  It is not.

On September 11, 2001, at about 11 A.M., I walked over to my computer and typed the sentence: “Now, we are all Israelis.”It always begins with the Jews. Osama Bin Laden called the assault on America “blessed attacks” against the “infidel…the new Christian-Jewish crusade.” He explained that the twin towers had fallen because of American support for Israel.

War–and a new kind of anti-Semitism–had been declared.

I was not a direct victim on 9/11. I was at home, transfixed before the TV set, watching it live as it continued to happen, and I did not move from my spot. I knew that when I got up, nothing would ever be the same again. I would no longer feel safe in my native city or country or in the world. I would no longer be able to assume that life as I’d known it, with all its illusions, would continue. How could it?

At 8:45 A.M. and at 9:03 A.M. two planes (American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines flight 175) hijacked by Islamic terrorists crashed into the World Trade Center. AT 9:17 A.M. the Federal Aviation Administration shut down all New York City airports and, for the first time in history, all American airports. At 9:30 A.M. President Bush announced that the country had been attacked by terrorists. At 9:43 A.M. a third hijacked plane (American Airlines flight 77) crashed into the Pentagon. At 9:45 A.M. the White House was evacuated. At 10:05 A.M. the south tower collapsed. At 10:10 A.M. a section of the Pentagon collapsed and a fourth hijacked plane (American Airlines flight 93) crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. At 10:13 A.M. the United Nations was evacuated. At 10:28 A.M. the north tower collapsed. At 10:54 A.M. Israel evacuated all Israeli diplomatic missions to the United States. At 12:04 P.M. the Los Angeles airport was evacuated and closed. And at 1:27 P.M. the city of Washington declared a state of emergency.

The twin towers had burst into flames and were tumbling down; firefighters and police officers rushed in. People with horrified eyes and covered with white soot burst out of the building; a tornado of debris whooshed after them as they kept on running. Incredibly tiny people were holding hands as they jumped to their deaths from high floors, and still the towers continued to burn and melt and fall. In my mind, they are falling still, out of heaven, into hell. Falling into eternal memory.

At 4:25 P.M. the American Stock Exchange, the New York Stock Exchange, and the NASDAQ announced that they would remain closed on September 12th. By late afternoon the wind began to carry bits and pieces of charred paper, smoky scraps of metal, and bits of unidentifiable debris into my (old) neighborhood in Park Slope, less than two miles from Ground Zero, and the air smelled of scorched souls, acrid and agonizing. It was a sickening combination of industrial fuels, hate, and human cries; it burned my throat and my eyes and my mind. I will never forget it. Nor will I forget the small impromptu shrine that instantly and instinctively arose nearby: flowers, candles, an American flag, a small umbrella to shield this makeshift memorial from the elements—I paid my respects there almost every day for more than a year.

The firehouse on Union Street was located two blocks from where I lived. They lost twelve firefighters out of twenty-five on that day. For months afterward, the firehouse was ablaze with lit candles and flowers. Wordlessly, tearfully, people brought baked goods and left small donations; bagpipes pierced the Brooklyn air with sonorous grief in funeral after funeral for these suddenly missing firefighters.

They will never come back, not one of them, and we will never see their like again. I survive them, we all do. In their place and for their sakes we must find the courage to stand up to evil as best we can. From now on, we will be pleading their case–and the case of all civilians everywhere who are now hostage to terror.

9/11 has continued for a long time. It is still happening. It is not over yet.

9/11 was a direct hit on democracy, modernity, religious pluralism, and women’s rights. When Islamofascist terrorists are attacking my country, my culture, and my people, I choose to oppose them. Americans must understand that a new kind of war has been declared upon our civilization and we must find effective ways of stopping those who wish to destroy Western civilization and individual freedom.

Do I dare to defend America from its critics who simplistically charge it with racism, capitalism, imperialism? Yes, with pleasure, I so dare. As imperfect as American democracy might be, what we have achieved here would constitute a revolution in any Arab or Muslim country

Friends: I wrote the above in 2002 and published it in 2003 at the very beginning of my book The New Anti-Semitism. I needed to create a verbal snapshot of that day, a memorial marking that moment in time when the Death Artists tore all asunder, ripped a huge and gaping hole into the fabric of our civilization.

Since then, so many people have lost so much: Some have lost their lives and their dearest relatives; many rescuers have lost their health. I have a friend who believes that New Yorkers have gotten sicker more often since 9/11. (Imagine what Israelis must feel–some of whom have personally survived pogroms, the Holocaust, five wars of self-defense, and then the equivalent of 9/11 every month for a few years. These frequent attacks stopped only after Israel built the Security Fence aka the “Apartheid” Wall.)

9/11 has changed our lives as travelers. Now, we all have to wait on long lines at the airport, remove our shoes, have our small bottles of water confiscated. I do not hear people cursing Richard Reid, the Shoe Bomber, (he’s the reason we have to take off our shoes) or the three London terrorists who were just convicted of belonging to an Islamist cell and plotting to smuggle explosives in soft drink bottles on board aircraft flying from London to America. (They’re the reason we cannot bring any liquids on board with us).

I do hear Americans cursing America for the excesses of Abu Ghraib; the alleged “torture” and the absence of lawyering at Gitmo for enemy combatants; the suspicion shown towards Arabs, Muslims, and Middle Easterners at airports which, in their view, amounts to a high civil rights crime. I do have Muslim friends who are stopped too frequently and questioned too closely at airports but what else can America do? All the terrorists who have attacked America, both here and abroad, are Arabs and Muslims–Islamists if you insist, because this distinction allows us to believe that there are many “good” Muslims with whom we may work.

I no longer live in Brooklyn, I’m back in Manhattan. Now, when I pass the ground upon which the Twin Towers stood, I usually look away. But sometimes, I gaze, silently, as sadness washes over me but the sadness strengthens my resolve never to forget, never to forgive, and to never give up.

I admit it, call me crazy, but I was utterly charmed by Governor Sarah Palin which is to say that, despite her beauty, her smiles, and her humor, I saw that she was also Annie Oakley-deadly and no man’s pushover; indeed, I would not mess with her. (Well, did you think this veteran feminist would be charmed by a woman because she is a lightweight?)

After all, Palin represents a state that gave women the right to vote in 1912–New York State enfranchised women in 1917; a state in which women like Libby Riddles and Susan Butcher have won the incredibly difficult dog sled race known as the Iditarod. Butcher won it three times in a row–something that no man has ever done. The race covers 1,161 miles of Alaskan wilderness and the racer, known as a “musher,” often faces 100 mile an hour winds, blizzards, wild animals, thin ice, avalanches, snow blindness, and sleep deprivation.

As I said, although Palin may not come from either the urban east or west coasts of America, this does not mean she is a lightweight. Folks: She’s an iconoclast and a reformer who (now, here’s a Newsflash for you), did not endorse President George Bush in 2000. She endorsed Steve Forbes in 1996 and 2000.

However, the minute she closed her mouth–literally–Palin was subjected to allegations of “fraud” or “witchcraft.” Precisely because she was so sensational at the RNC, media commentators, on both sides of the aisle, shockingly pointed out that Palin’s speech had been written for her and thus, might not really express her own ideas and thus, might not count. Her success was not exactly real, it was only an enchanting performance. Of course, all political speeches are written for the candidates, both male and female, although the candidates also help shape them and sometimes rewrite them. Do they really think that Senators Obama, Biden, or McCain do not have speechwriters? Does Obama’s rock concert-like performance not count as one? Oh, shades of Hillary Clinton–methinks it’s a woman running for high public office.

The mainstream media and the blogosphere challenged her personally, not politically, and they went on and on about whether Palin was the mother or the grandmother of her “special needs” youngest son, Trig; whether she ever bothered to stay home long enough to teach “abstinence” to her seventeen-year-old pregnant daughter Bristol, etc. See Here and Here for some coverage of the media coverage.

Seven days after her candidacy was announced, a concerted feminist attack on both the East and West coasts was unleashed against Palin. Judith Warner, who has a blog at the New York Times, wrote as follows: “It turns out there was something more nauseating than the nomination of Sarah Palin…It was the tone of the acclaim that followed her acceptance speech.” To be fair, Warner, who once interviewed me about my book Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman, understands that some women may perhaps vote as a function of “Is she like me or not like me? If she’s not like me, can I like her?” But Warner concludes her article by saying that “We’re not likely to get a worthy female president anytime soon.”

And, on the same day, my old friend Gloria Steinem wrote a piece in the Los Angeles Times. Gloria has always been a decent and gracious woman, but she is also a hard-core Democratic Party operative. Her piece is titled: Palin: wrong woman, wrong message. To her credit, Steinem rejected the personal attacks on Palin and then proceeded to attack her politically.

Steinem wrote that “Palin opposes just about every issue that women support,” and goes on to list just what those issues are: Creationism (a belief in God and/or a belief that God created the world in seven days) and the right to learn about this right alongside classes about evolution; A disbelief in “global warming” (as if this is a “belief” right up there with a belief in God); “opposition to gun control” but support for “government control of women’s wombs.”

Ah, the abortion issue, always, only, the abortion issue. We fought hard for that right, and we have been forced to continue fighting for it. I don’t agree with the Right to Life position but I can work with someone whether or not we agree on this hot-button issue. All those feminists who believe that we can work with tyrants and misogynists surely should be able to work with those who oppose abortion. Yes? No?

But, prithee pause: Many women voters share Palin’s beliefs, including some feminists. In fact, some feminists are still in shock over the Democratic Party’s mistreatment of Hillary and of women. Some have vowed to write in Hillary’s name or to vote for McCain. Steinem is plenty worried about them because she appeals to this group specifically. She writes: “To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying: “Somebody stole my shoes, so I’ll amputate my legs.”

Marcia Pappas, the President of New York State NOW just sent around a funny but painful piece in which she compares women who love abusive men to women who love abusive political parties. She is specifically thinking of the Democratic Party. Of course, Pappas wanted Hillary. (With Pappas’s permission, I have reproduced that article at the end of my own piece. It is titled: To: Women Who Love Their Political Party Too Much.” )

I bet that Obama is sorry he did not pick Hillary as his Vice President and I bet the Democratic Party is even sorrier they did not find a way to have both Hillary and Barack. Sending Hillary out to attract the woman’s vote on Obama’s behalf–that’s not good enough.

Bloggers and journalists have either created or passed along  an incredible number of large lies about Palin. Some bloggers–right here at Pajamas–and some mainstream media (CNN for starters),  have also done some fact-checking.

For my part, I have been researching Palin’s record for a few days now. Funny, but her position on women’s issues is not all that clear. My guess is that Palin might be pretty good on some issues that are crucial to women. What I’m about to suggest will be considered heretical. Why? Because I am absolutely willing to talk about women’s issues without placing abortion dead-center.

I have worked with some Christian conservatives who are anti-abortion but who are, nevertheless, pro-woman. Interestingly, they have sometimes taken pro-woman stands that are, in my view, even more radical in certain areas than those taken by secular feminists. Indeed, I have found that religious people can also be profoundly pro-woman. Feminism cannot be defined only by secularists or only by one political party.

If Palin is a Law and Order candidate then she might be good on the issue of domestic violence; rape; incest; child pedophiles; and sexual harassment. I don’t know, I’m not sure, she has no record in these areas. I would love to hear her talk about these issues. If Palin is a Law and Order kinda gal, then she’d also be good on the issue of trafficking/sexual slavery; pornography; and prostitution.

These are all woman’s issues and feminist issues too.

Further, I bet Palin strongly opposes Jihad, Islamism, terrorism, and therefore Islamic gender apartheid. Palin might actually be willing to risk being called an “Islamophobe” in order to take some radical steps to ensure that Islamic gender apartheid does not further penetrate the West. I am talking about face-veiling, female genital cutting, arranged marriage, polygamy, honor killings, etc.

I would like to know where Governor Palin stands on these issues. I am sure they will –and should–come up in her debate with Senator Biden who sponsored the Violence Against Women Act.

Further, I would like to know where Palin stands on the issue of equal pay for equal work and on the Equal Rights Amendment. As a mother with a helpful husband, what programs would Palin support for mothers whose husbands are ill, have died, have lost their jobs, or who have abandoned their families? What about mothers without husbands altogether? What are Palin’s views about the rights of mothers/primary caretakers and of dependent children? George Bush-era Republicans cut many services to families in crisis. Do McCain and Palin plan to continue in this sad and sorry way or do they have some new ideas?

Feminist groups would be very short-sighted indeed to alienate Palin or to write her off as McCain’s “unqualified” pick before she makes her views on such issues known.

On Sunday, Sept. 7th, Tammy Bruce became the first feminist to open her heart publicly to Governor Palin. Today, I join her in the pages of Pajamas Media.

I will be writing about Senator McCain, separately, in the future.

Marcia Pappas’ Letter:
To: Women Who Love Their Political Party Too Much
By NOW-NYS President Marcia Pappas
September 9th, 2008
Many years ago, I read a book called “Women Who Love too Much: When You Keep Wishing and Hoping He’ll Change” by Robin Norwood. It’s a book to help women look at why they might find it difficult to leave unhealthy relationships. So I got to thinking, what if we exchanged “men” for “the party?” I have often used this analogy when talking about my feelings and to explain why women have such difficulty holding their “party” accountable for its actions.

In the women’s movement, we often say the personal is political. For as long as I can remember, I’ve known that abusive relationships can extend beyond our personal relationships with individuals into our political lives. So let’s re-read Women Who Love Too Much, substituting “the party” for “men.” It will show the dynamics of some current events, so I urge you to take this test I send, with love and a desire to empower women. Women inside and outside the women’s movement, please ask yourself these questions:

1. Do you find yourself attracted again and again to a troubled, distant, party?

2. Do you obsess over a party that is emotionally unavailable, addicted to power, money, alcohol, or other women?

3. Do you neglect your friends and your own interests, your ethics, and ideals to be immediately available to the party?

4. Do you feel empty without the party, even though being with it is torment?

If you answer yes to any of these questions, please continue. If not, continue anyway. Maybe you can help another suffering sister who needs to break away from a dysfunctional party.

Why do so many women become obsessed with a political party that is emotionally unavailable, addicted to work, alcohol, or other women, a party that cannot love them back with laws to support women’s rights?

Women inside and outside the women’s movement need recognize the roots of our destructive patterns. These symptoms can apply to men as well as women and Republicans as well as Democrats. However experience shows me that more women than men suffer from this syndrome. Be truthful with yourself. Do you fit this description?

1. You come from a dysfunctional society in which your emotional needs were not met. (Women grow up in a patriarchal society that devalues everything we do).

2. Having received little real nurturing, validation, or encouragement to be yourself, you try to fill this unmet need vicariously by becoming a care-giver, a champion especially to a party that appears to be, in some way, needy.

3. Because you were never able to change the culture into a society of supportive, caring society that believes in the true equality, you respond deeply to the familiar type of emotionally unavailability that you can change through love and devotion.

4. Terrified of abandonment, i.e. losing the Supreme Court, you will do anything to keep the relationship from dissolving. Women have been duped by the party; and some feel they’ve nowhere else to go.

5. Almost nothing is too much trouble, takes too much time, or is too expensive if it will help the party with which you are involved.

6. Accustomed to lack of respect in a patriarchal, misogynist society, you are willing to wait, hope, and try harder to please the party.

7. You are willing to take far more than fifty percent of the responsibility, guilt, and blame for the failures inside and outside the party.

8. Your self esteem is critically low, and deep inside you do not believe you deserve to be happy. Rather, you believe you must earn the right to enjoy life. You are convinced that you can earn that joy by submitting to whatever the party wants, even if it means supporting unqualified candidates or trading off one civil right off for another. In other words, you are subservient.

9. Having experienced little security in life, you have a desperate need to control your party. You mask as “being helpful” your efforts to control people and situations.

10. In a relationship with the party, you are much more in touch with your dream of how it could be than with the reality of how it is.

11. You are addicted to men in the party and to the emotional pain they inflict. It’s all you know. After all, women have been hurt by patriarchy since birth.

12. You may be predisposed emotionally and often bio chemically to addiction to drugs, alcohol, and/or certain foods, particularly sugary ones. This is the reason so many women have “body image” issues that lead to obesity, anorexia, or bulimia.

13. By being drawn to a party with problems that need fixing, or by being enmeshed in situations that are chaotic, uncertain, and emotionally painful, you avoid focusing on your responsibility to yourself and to the issues you espouse.

14. You may have a tendency toward episodes of depression (the outcome of living in a patriarchal, misogynistic society that has oppressed you for your entire life), which you try to forestall through the excitement provided by an unstable relationship with the party.

15. You are not attracted to any political party that is kind, stable, reliable, and interested in you and the issues you support. You find such political parties to be boring.

What does this test say to you about you and your relationship with your party? You decide. Is it time to leave the party, or will you stay and keep wishing and hoping they will change?

Folks: I have just published the following two comments in response to “The Coming Civil War in America.” These comments arrived in the afternoon of September 8, 2008.

The first, written by one “Jack Thomsen” reads as follows”:

“I like Palin, and might vote GOP if she was on the top of the ticket. Should she wake up in the VP mansion.. there will be a note under her pillow dispatching her to NRA rallies to boost enlistment of goy boys to die for Israeli expansionism…Sorry…the Neocons and Tel Aviv are still running the Republican Party… Palin is a NON ISSUE>… and will not receive my vote.”

Check it out, the Comment is posted at my blogsite.

Quickly enough, Thomsen’s thoughts are seconded by one “schnargley” who writes:

“I agree with Jack thomsen. This is an old story documented from many centuries ago in historical treatises such as “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” While we on the Left have always been for pacifism and non-aggresion (we were even against the unprovoked war against the German people and invasion of Germany in the 1940’s) at times, as Sartre and Marcuse taught us, it has been necessary to resort to resistance and “necessary violence” as my comrades had to in St. Paul last week, before they were brutally assaulted and silenced.”

Join me in heaving a major, mighty sigh. Since I do not believe in censorship I have posted these two fairly odious comments. They are both anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli, anti-military, anti-Republican Party, and historically inaccurate–and that’s just for starters.

Oh, where to begin? The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a Russian (Christian)-crafted forgery; nothing of this kind was ever written by Jews. Tel Aviv is not behind sending “goy boys” to die for “Israeli expansionism.” In fact, Israel has been doing a lotta heavy lifting and absorbing a lotta hate meant for the West. Indeed, Israel has given up land (Gaza for example) for which it has absorbed even more rocket attacks against civilian Israelis. Finally, the “Left” has not really been “pacific.” Lenin, Stalin, and Mao were not pacifists. The angry, keffiyeh-wearing demonstrators who carry anti-American/anti-Israeli banners aloft and who call themselves “pro-Peace” are not for peace at all.

I wonder why such Jew-haters are commenting at my blogsite?

Each of the Presidential candidates and those who support them are fighting for the soul of America. Each has a radically different world view; each inhabits a radically different culture. They listen to different music, watch different movies, read different media. Each mainly socializes only with others who are like themselves. They do not talk to those with whom they disagree and when they do, it is often with anger and contempt.

I have lived in both worlds. I still do. There are good people on both sides of the great divide. Nevertheless, their values and tastes are different. One world is a glittering and violent urban metropolis where one can lead an anonymous life–or reach for the stars. The other world is a Small Town where everyone knows everybody’s “business,” prays together, helps out in emergencies, joins the civilian fire department, and usually joins the Army.

And here’s a newsflash for you: Some people can live in a large city psychologically even if they live in a small town and vice versa.

The Democratic National Convention had music by the great Stevie Wonder; Jennifer Hudson, like Senator Obama, a sudden and recent star who won an Academy award for her supporting role in Dreamgirls; Melissa Etheridge; Sheryl Crow; the very popular soul singer, John Legend who performed twice, once alone and once with Will.i.am, a member of the funk/hip-hop group, The Black Eyed Peas. Robert Moore, a Rosebud Sioux tribal Council member, sang a traditionally non-traditional version of the national anthem.

The entire convention, especially the last night when Obama spoke, was the equivalent of a rock concert. To many people, especially younger people, this is what moves them, what is real. Only celebrity, “spectacle,” performance, and popular music have authority, are familiar, and command their respect.

The Republican National Convention had very little music. I myself saw and heard only one young Christian rock singer. Maybe there was more music and I missed it. Perhaps the Republicans decided to focus on the speakers and not on the entertainment. The RNC website lists no musical entertainers, probably courtesy of Hurricane Gustav.

However, the presumably anti-feminist Republicans have now chosen a woman as their Vice-Presidential candidate. Democratic feminists are not at all happy about this because despite Palin’s oratorical gifts and enormous charm, she is a feminist–but from “another world,” one in which feminists are married, God-fearing, pro-military, pro-guns, pro-American energy independence–and anti-big government, anti-taxes, anti-jihad and anti-abortion. It is feared that Palin may also be pro-censorship. Her position on women’s economic rights is as yet unclear.

Today, the Democrats have announced they will employ a troop of “female surrogates,” including Senator Clinton of New York, Governor Janet Napolitano of Arizona, and Governor Kathryn Sibelius of Kansas to take Governor Palin on and hopefully steal her thunder away from voters in battleground states.

Sounds like it will be a page from my book Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman.

I wonder why the guys are so uncomfortable taking a woman on publicly? In the political arena, they do so all the time, usually behind closed doors–except if that woman is Senator Clinton. How ironic, that Senator Obama has had to turn to her now.

In my opinion, President Amadinejad might indeed have formidable opponents in Senator McCain and Governor Palin who understand that we are at war and that it is one we must win. Unlike Senator Obama, I bet they do not view the terrorists as “perverting the Islamic faith” (Obama said this in his interview with O’Reilly) but rather, as expressing it all too well. On this very point, (whether there is a “good” and “peaceful” Islam or not), our Republic will either stand or fall.

To be fair: Whether or not they can always practice what they preach, (Clinton got a pass on his various sexual assaults), to their credit, Democrats condemn racism, sexism, homophobia and poverty; support women’s reproductive rights, including birth control and non-abstinence-based sex education, equal pay for equal work, big government, and independence from foreign oil. They tend to oppose the military in general and the war in Iraq in particular.

This is not exactly the Republican Party platform. The Republicans are talking about soldiering and Islamic fundamentalist terrorism and about the dangers of appeasing such terrorists.

As I said: They are cultures, perhaps worlds, apart. McCain has said that he wants to work with everyone, “Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.” I am not sure that Obama has weighed in on this precise point as yet, but he has said that he would sit down and try to work with America’s enemies.

In 2000, when President Bush won (others say “when Bush stole”) the election, the Democrats became enraged, some say “deranged.” That rage has grown. If McCain wins–I predict that the cultural wars will not only intensify but will turn into the beginnings of the next Civil War in America.

What do you think will happen after one side wins and the other side loses? Will blue or red states want to secede from the union? Will there be more violent and ugly confrontations upon encountering ideas and practices with which one disagrees?

Folks: I am in bed with a fever and battling an infection and cannot do further justice to this theme at this time. I hope my readers can fill in the blanks and point out to me what I haven’t covered.

NEWSFLASH: To My Readers: I am very glad to hear from and publish those of you who write–but I am uncomfortable with the direct insults that some, but not most, readers are hurling at each other. Going forward, I will not publish comments that attack someone else as “paranoid, fascist, idiot, moron, ” etc. Attack the ideas, oppose the issues at will. Describe a point of view as “fascist” but not the person themselves.

This is not a high school (or shall I say college) class. Too much is at stake for us to degenerate into simplistic and insulting name-calling.

Thank you.

The Ms Manners of the Internet

The decision about whom to vote for in the race for President and Vice-President is a wrenching one for many Americans. It is for me.

I agree with Joe Lieberman that this is neither an ordinary election nor an ordinary historical moment. (Yes, he also said that John McCain is no ordinary candidate.) I also agreed with Fred Thompson who said that, unlike their opposition, McCain and the Republicans believe that we live in the best country in the world, one worth defending with honor (as opposed to viewing America as the worst country in the world and making speeches abroad to please America’s enemies). In addition, I agree with Thompson that character, judgment, courage, humility, a sense of duty, wisdom and honor are traits that a war-time President requires.

The Democratic candidates talk a language with which I’m familiar, a language which opposes racism, sexism, homophobia, poverty–and yet I am stirred by the fact that John and Cindy McCain have also “walked the talk” by adopting a special needs orphan girl from Bangladesh. Although I have viewed adoption as a complex and not always as an altruistic affair, in this case, my heart was opened by the McCain family’s magnificent service to others. And, John McCain has certainly “walked the talk” of a soldier by behaving with unbelievable courage and moral strength while enduring a terrible and torture-filled captivity in Vietnam.

Thus, here are some wrenching bottom lines: Do we vote to keep abortion legal and to stop the anti-Choice conservatives from taking over the Supreme Court–or do we vote to make sure that the American military is allowed to stop the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists in their tracks? Can we really achieve both goals by voting for one candidate? If not, then what is the more pressing priority? For ourselves, for our country, for the world at this moment in history?

If American women retain the right to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term–in my view, a prerequisite to female human freedom, what does this mean if the jihadists bomb the country back to the seventh century? If the jihadists triumph, American women will be forced to convert to Islam, to wear veils or burqas (body bags), and risk being stoned to death, hung, or honor murdered if they want to choose their own husbands, attend college, dress like modern American girls do, or convert to another non-Islamic religion.

Leiberman was tactically brilliant in suggesting that Americans, including his fellow Democrats, should care more about their country than their Party; being a Republican or a Democrat is nowhere near as important as being an American. “We need a President our allies will trust and our enemies will fear.”

I can’t wait to hear Governor Palin speak tommorrow night. I understand that she has invited both her pregnant daughter and her daughter’s boyfriend/future husband to join her at the Convention. Classy. Gutsy.

Mind you: Senator Obama’s eloquence is thrilling and the good old laundry list, beginning with abortion, matters a great deal to me. But jihad is here and here to stay and I would need to be persuaded that Obama and Biden really understand that. Also, since anti-Semitism, disguised as anti-Zionism has arisen today on the Left, not the Right, as has the academic feminist betrayal of a universal vision of human rights for everyone, everywhere, including Muslim women and dissidents, I would need to be assured that voting for abortion does not mean that I end up voting against Israel, against the Jews–and against Muslims who are under Islamic seige.

Please share your Bottom Line dilemmas with me.