mykeystrokes.com

"Do or Do not. There is no try."

“Despicable Goals”: ISIS And The Far-Right Have The Same Enemies’ List

ISIS and certain American conservatives have something in common: They both hate the same Muslim Americans. This became apparent Wednesday when the new issue of ISIS’s magazine, Dabiq, was released.  (I downloaded it on my home computer—which likely means hello no-fly list.)

In this issue of Dabiq, ISIS identifies Muslim Americans they believe should be targeted for death because they have become apostates per ISIS’s own made up version of Islam. Did any of these Muslims actually leave the faith? No, but ISIS claims that if a Muslim American is involved in American society, and especially in U.S. politics, he or she has become an apostate—even if that person is an imam who has dedicated his life to Islam.

Not that this matters to ISIS, but there’s no death penalty called for in the Quran for a person leaving the faith. But ISIS would never let the principles of Islam get in the way of its political goals.

And ISIS targeting Muslims for death is nothing new. As I have pointed out time and time again, ISIS’s mantra is submit to ISIS or die. They don’t care if you are the most devout Muslim in the world, they will kill you if you don’t do exactly what ISIS demands. That’s why experts note that 90 percent plus of the victims of ISIS are Muslims.

Now here’s the interesting part. Every person ISIS wants targeted, without exception, has already been targeted by American conservatives. Granted, not for death; things aren’t that bad yet. But they have been the targets of sustained political attacks. It appears that ISIS and many on the right in American politics both view the same Muslim Americans as a threat, but for different reasons.

ISIS has marked a diverse group of Muslim Americans for death, from white converts who are now leading imams to an African-American member of Congress to leaders of Muslim American organizations. These people are all very visible Muslim Americans who have also trashed ISIS countless times in the media. I will only list the names of the people targeted by ISIS if the person has agreed to my including their name or issued a public statement. (I don’t want to help ISIS terrorize people.) So here they are and here’s also a taste of the right-wing attacks waged against these very same people.

  1. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) has been targeted for death by ISIS because as one of the two Muslims in Congress, he’s a visible role model for Muslims, inspiring them to become active in American politics and serve in our government.  Oddly enough, Ellison is also hated by the right for the same reason ISIS hates him, namely because he’s both very visible and effective. Just a few of the attacks include Former Rep. Michelle Bachmann, who claimed Ellison was part of the Muslim Brotherhood. Glenn Beck infamously questioned Ellison’s patriotism, demanding of Ellison on national television, “Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.” And the bottom-feeding website Breitbart.com (Trump’s biggest cheerleader) has attacked Ellison numerous times, alleging that he has nefarious (but fabricated) ties to terrorism.

Ellison issued a defiant statement in response to ISIS’s threat that truly sums up how Muslims view this murderous cult. Referring to ISIS as Da’esh, Ellison called it “a collection of liars, murderers, torturers, and rapists. No Muslim I know recognizes what they preach as Al-Islam.” Ellison added that he was in essence proud that Da’esh targeted him because it “means I am fighting for things like justice, tolerance, and a more inclusive world.”

  1. Imam Suhaib Webb. ISIS has attacked him as being the “All-American imam” who connects with young Muslim Americans by using “thug life vocabulary and the latest pop culture references.” And they blast Imam Webb for publicly praising President Obama after he offered blessings on the Muslim Eid holiday. ISIS hates any Muslim leader who, like Webb, is encouraging American Muslims to become part of the fabric of our nation. The guys in ISIS are in “great” company because both Fox News and Breitbart.com have also attacked Webb, making unsubstantiated claims that the imam has a history of “ties to radicalism.” And many in the anti-Muslim circle of hate from Robert Spencer to Front Page.com have led a campaign to smear Webb as a radical linked to terrorism.

Webb responded in a phone conversation that ISIS targeting this group of visible Muslim Americans is proof that they are having an impact in both countering ISIS’s efforts to recruit Muslims and ISIS’s lies.  “No one can ever say again that Muslim Americans aren’t speaking out against ISIS after this because there’s now proof with these threats that we are and that it’s both effective and angering ISIS,” Webb explained.

  1. Mohamed Elibiary. ISIS claimed that Elibiary was an apostate because he had worked in the Department of Homeland Security. Well, guess who else has attacked Elibiary? Ted Cruz’s new national security adviser, Frank Gaffney, who claimed Elibiary was part of “The Muslim Brotherhood’s infiltration of the Obama administration.” And Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) waged a jihad on Elibiary while he worked in DHS, apparently at the urging of people like Pam Geller.

Elibiary’s response to ISIS via Twitter was also defiant, noting proudly that ISIS targeted him for his “service enforcing American laws 2 protect all Americans, Muslims included.”

  1. Nihad Awad. The executive director of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Awad was pictured at the top of the article in the ISIS magazine in the crosshairs of a gun sight. ISIS wants him dead for his work in defending the civil rights of American Muslims to ensure they have the same rights as all other Americans and feel welcomed in America. (ISIS wants Muslim Americans to be alienated to make it easier to recruit them.) Yet, as most are likely aware, CAIR and Awad has long been attacked by people on the right, from GOP politicians like Ben Carson, who just a few months claimed CAIR is a “supporter of terrorism” to Fox News, to of course Cruz’s adviser Gaffney, who has smeared Awad as a “Hamas lover.”

Awad responded to being on ISIS’s hit list with a statement that read in part, “The best response to such threats is to continue challenging extremism, whether it is espoused by organizations like ISIS or by Islamophobes who seek to demonize Islam based on that group’s brutality. “

The big takeaway is that ISIS and the right in America have much in common on this subject. They both attack American Muslims who serve in our government and want to encourage other Muslims to do the same. They both ridicule those working to defend the rights of American Muslims to ensure that Muslims feel welcomed in our country. And they both fear that the more visible American Muslims become in contributing to our nation, the more it will undermine the vision they both share for how Islam should be defined.

Of course, there’s one big difference. ISIS wants these Muslims killed. The right in America only wants these Muslim Americans to be demonized, scorned, and marginalized.  Let’s hope that neither group will succeed in achieving their despicable goals.

 

By: Dean Obeidallah,  The Daily Beast, April 14, 2016

April 16, 2016 Posted by | American Muslims, Conservatives, ISIS, Keith Ellison | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

With HPV Vaccine Rumors, Michele Bachmann Is The New Joe McCarthy

Joe McCarthy knew how to rile up the base. He knew his political hot buttons. He knew how to stoke fear and create a movement. He knew how to build a following by ratcheting up the rhetoric, the facts be damned.

Sadly, Rep. Michele Bachmann has followed in his mold: questioning the  patriotism of members of Congress, fanning the flames of hatred of gays  and lesbians and, now, attacking the vaccine to prevent cervical cancer.

This  HPV political maneuver may be her last. This should be her “have you no  sense of decency” moment, just as the Army-McCarthy hearing was in the  1950s.

Somehow, the anti-vaccine movement has gained steam in the United  States. Rumors that traditional vaccines caused autism began to spread.  They were disproved but not before many parents declined to vaccinate  their children.

A Science Times article in the New York Times (“Remark on  Vaccine Could Ripple for Years”) points to a three to four year drop in  vaccination rates after such publicity. Diseases such as measles and  whooping cough, supposedly under control, have seen outbreaks. According  to the Times, “measles cases in the United States reached a 15-year high last spring. ”

The  HPV virus is, unfortunately, far too common. More than 25 percent of  women 14 to 49 have been infected, 44 percent in the 20 to 24 age range.  Not only can HPV cause cervical cancer but it can cause other cancers  as well.

Last year only 32 percent of teenage girls had been given the vaccine.

If Michele Bachmann’s scare tactics prove true to form, there will be  a drop in the number of girls and women protected. By putting out false  information, by repeating the statement of someone at the debate that  the vaccine caused mental retardation, she set back the effort to save  women’s lives. Hardly a pro-life position.

In fact, the vaccine can prevent unnecessary surgery for several  hundred thousand women a year and even allow women to successfully carry  a pregnancy to term.

Over 35 million doses have been distributed without any serious side  effects. Thank goodness doctors and clinics and reputable research  organizations moved quickly to take on Michele Bachmann.

But,  make no mistake, she even stayed on the issue in Thursday’s debate. This  woman won’t quit, no matter the facts or the implications of her  actions.

She sees a political opening and she takes it, she sees a chance to  rile the base and she seizes it, she sees a good sound bite and off she  goes.

If, in fact, the experts are correct and this will set back  vaccinations for years, Bachmann will need to do more than apologize for  her McCarthy-like tactics. As he ruined innocent lives, she may  responsible for doing the same. She will have to look herself in the  mirror and know that her actions led to more women losing their lives.

By: Peter Fenn, U. S. News and World Report, September 23, 2011

September 24, 2011 Posted by | Congress, Conservatives, GOP, Health Care, Ideologues, Ideology, Politics, Republicans, Right Wing, Teaparty | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Dear Conservatives: Drop The Charade On Israel

As a liberal American Jew, I get treated to the predictable mock-outrage from conservatives every time a Democrat says something about Israel. In this case, it was President Obama’s remarks on Israel in his speech today. Sure, there was the usual routine of conservatives ignoring the basic facts of the matter (saying Obama called for Israel to accept the unacceptable pre-1967 border, when he actually said that the border should be BASED on the pre-1967 line), but I can’t even get mad at that anymore.

What’s got me upset, and has made me upset for a while, is American conservatives acting as though they (and only they) are capable of speaking for Israel. Michelle Bachmann already called Obama’s words “a betrayal” and Mitt Romney said that Obama “threw Israel under the bus”. Who made these schmucks experts on Israeli policy? What gives them the right to treat our spiritual homeland like it’s something only they can understand?

They DON’T understand Israel. Israel, the Middle East, and the world at large won’t be served by a refusal to negotiate and a refusal to make mutual concessions. All that does is create more resentment, more frustration, more anger…that’s not what we need. In the past twenty years, all they’ve done is give Israel money and weapons. They haven’t made any genuine effort to bring about peace. If you’re going to criticize one approach to the peace process, you have to present an alternative. Otherwise, it just seems disingenuous.

I have a friend, a guy I’ve known almost since birth, who put off law school for a few years to join the Israeli military. This hard-line approach advocated by conservatives just puts him, his fellow soldiers, and civilians in increased danger. It doesn’t solve problems, just amplifies them, and people who truly cared about Israel would realize this. Instead of only paying lip service to Israel, why doesn’t Bachmann, Romney, and the rest of their ilk actually do something constructive?

It’s also very hard to take all the pro-Israel talk seriously when Glenn Beck spews forth nonsense about George Soros and the Holocaust, Palin calls herself the victim of a “blood libel”, Republicans in Texas oppose a Jewish speaker of the state House, Limbaugh equates “banker” with “Jew”, and so on. Given that Israel is a Jewish state, it’s hard to imagine how one can truly support it while harboring a less-than-welcome attitude toward Jews. And while I’m on the subject, stop with the whole idea of promoting “Judeo-Christian values”. It seems that the only Jewish values they like are the very specific values of one Jew from Nazareth…

I’m not sure why American conservatives insist upon playing this game because it’s not going to get Jews to vote for them (Jews have been pretty solidly Democratic since the early 1900s). But that’s besides the point. It doesn’t matter why they do it.

It’s fake.

It’s insulting.

And it needs to stop.

By: Pandaman, Daily Kos, May 19, 2011

May 20, 2011 Posted by | Congress, Conservatives, Democrats, Foreign Policy, GOP, Middle East, Politics, President Obama, Republicans | , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The Tea Party’s Religious Inspiration

If American politics were a TV show, it would by now have jumped the shark. Then again, American politics is a sort of TV show, considering its surreal plot lines, its cast of kooky narcissists, and an epistemology that blithely combines absolutist religious convictions with post-modern relativism: belief that the Bible is literally true comfortably co-exists with disbelief in simple, verifiable matters of fact, like the President’s place of birth or the absence of an HCR death panel mandate. It’s not surprising that, under the influence of the Tea Party, freedom is just another word for no abortion rights (and no contraception or cancer screenings for poor women). 

Not long ago, the Tea (taxed enough already) Party was often presumed to stand for what its name implies — low taxes and limited government services (or at least limits on programs and services not enjoyed by its members.) But a new Pew Forum survey offers some quantitative evidence that Tea Party members tend to be religiously inspired, social conservatives; the movement “draws disproportionate support from the ranks of white evangelical Protestants … most people who agree with the religious right also support the Tea Party.”

Pew’s findings are unsurprising. You might have inferred the Tea Party’s religious motivations from the statements and policies of its established or aspiring political leaders, at state and federal levels. I’ll refrain from offering an extended litany of their wacky assertions and legislative ideas. Just keep in mind a few examples.

One of the subtler but also most hysterical expressions of legislative sectarianism is the wave of state proposals aimed at banning the non-existent threat of Sharia law. At first glance, you might mistake this trend for an effort to keep religion out of government, but a law intended to impose special disadvantages on one religion is no less sectarian (and violative of the First Amendment) than a law intended to extend special advantages to another.

So it’s not surprising to find proposed bans on Sharia law in conservative states, like South Dakota and Texas, alongside extreme anti-abortion proposals. (You can find atheists and agnostics who oppose abortion rights, but generally the anti-abortion movement is overwhelmingly religious and tends to divide along sectarian lines: according to Pew, “most religious traditions in the U.S. come down firmly on one side or the other.”) The notorious South Dakota bill that would arguably legalize the killing of abortion providers has been tabled; but a bill pending in Texas requires doctors to conduct pre-abortion sonograms for women and to impose on them a description of the fetus’s arms, legs and internal organs. Supporters of this bill insist that it is “pro-woman;” its purpose is empower them and “ensure there are no barriers preventing women from receiving the information to which they are entitled for such a life-changing decision” — barriers like a woman’s right to decline a sonogram or description of the fetus.

But the right wing’s aggressive sectarianism extends far beyond the usual battles over abortion and other culture-war casualties. Just listen to Mike Huckabee gush over Israel (biblical Zionists have been carrying on about Israel for years, but these days they have Tea Party stars on their side.) Michelle Bachmann claims that “if we reject Israel, then there is a curse that comes into play.” Note former Senator Rick Santorum’s defense of the Crusades, which, he laments, have been maligned by “the American left who hates Christendom.” Remember the Bible-based environmental policy of Illinois Congressman John Shimkus, now chair of the House Environment and Economy Sub-Committee. “The Earth will end when God declares it’s time to be over,” Shimkus famously declared in a 2009 hearing. Reading from the Bible and citing God’s promise to Noah not to destroy the earth (again), Shimkus said, “I believe that’s the infallible word of God and that’s the way it’s gonna be for his creation.”

Pay particular attention to Indiana congressman Mike Pence’s revealing declaration that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a federal bill prohibiting workplace discrimination against gay people “wages war on freedom of religion in the workplace.” If religious beliefs legitimized workplace discrimination, as Pence advises, then Title Vll of the 1964 Civil Rights Act would be unconstitutional at least as applied to people with religious compunctions against hiring women or members of particular racial or religious groups: If you believe that God did not intend women to hold traditionally male jobs, for example, or if you simply don’t like Mormons, then, in Pence’s view of religious freedom, you have a constitutional defense to employment discrimination claims by female or Mormon job applicants. But I bet that Pence would hesitate to defend a constitutional right to discriminate categorically against women or Mormons in the workplace; and if I’m right, it means he recognizes religious biases as defenses to discrimination claims as long as they’re biases he shares. Pence’s position on ENDA demonstrates the confident, theocratic approach to governing enabled by the Tea Party’s electoral successes.

Of course, Pence and Shimkus, among others, are hardly the first theocrats to land in office. There’s nothing new about the religious right’s drive for political power, which helped sweep Ronald Reagan into the White House in 1980, when liberal stalwarts were swept out of the Senate. What does seem new is the increased dominance of the Republican Party by sectarian religious extremists and their acquisition of power during a prolonged economic crisis and even longer war — a period marked by national pessimism, fear of terror, and a bipartisan assault on civil liberty unprecedented in its scope (thanks to technology) if not its intentions. In other words, what’s worrisome is our vulnerability, susceptibility to demagoguery, and diminishing margin of error. We don’t have time for the unexamined certitudes of religious zealotry.

If only Tea Partiers and their legislative surrogates would take seriously the Constitution and the founding fathers they so frequently invoke. Then they’d respect the First Amendment’s prohibition on government-established religion, which codified the Founder’s belief in a secular, civil government that accommodates diverse religious practices and beliefs. They’d understand that the Establishment clause doesn’t merely bar the federal government from requiring us to attend a federal church; it bars Congress from turning sectarian religious beliefs into law (unless they coincide with practically universal moral codes, like prohibitions on murder.) “People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution, they don’t put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible,” Maryland State Senator Jamie Raskin once said (to appropriate acclaim.) It’s an accurate statement of law and constitutional ideals, but, sad to say, an increasingly aspirational description of political practice.

By: Wendy Kaminer, The Atlantic, February 25, 2011

February 27, 2011 Posted by | Constitution, Religion, Tea Party | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment