March 19, 2008

An Obama Presidential Candidacy: Dead On Arrival

Dick Morris has a new column that says, "Will the Gospel According to Jeremiah Wright sink the Obama candidacy? Not very likely." Morris argues that Obama can manage the controversy, and claims to be able to foresee just how it will develop:

As the controversy matures, he can increasingly depict those who fan its flames as trying to live in the past and re-fight the civil wars of race that have divided America.

I'm not buying it. A candidate who is best friends with - who takes his children to be taught by the preachings of - a pastor who preaches, "God damn America" - can never be elected President of the United States. Nowhere near a majority of the American public will ever vote for a leader who is best friends with a man who preaches "God damn America." The notion is absurd. It's over.

But look at the bind this puts the Democrats in. Obama is the winner of the popular vote in the primaries so far. If the Dems don't nominate him, it could lead to a massive implosion of the party, as many Dems will feel that the will of the people was ignored.

There's still a chance that the Dem voters in the remaining primaries will take their responsibility very seriously, and will destroy Obama by voting heavily for Hillary.

If that doesn't happen, the Dems will be forced to nominate the most snake-bitten - i.e. fatally cursed - candidate in American Presidential history.

How did it happen? The MSM has tilted the playing field in favor of the Dems for years, refusing to criticize them, refusing to examine their faults. So the truth about Obama's pastor remained hidden, when it should have come out a year ago. The result is a Democratic Presidential candidate who has all but won his party's nomination - yet can't stand up to the inevitable scrutiny.

MSM's support of the Dems is unearned, and therefore essentially false. False support is dangerous. And in this case, it's brought the Dems close to massive implosion.

Update 3-25-08: Victor Davis Hanson has a new article which supports a similar view:

Over the past four days, I asked seven or eight random (Asian, Mexican-American, and working-class white) Americans in southern California what they thought of Obama's candidacy - and framed the question with, "Don't you think that was a good speech?" The answers, without exception, were essentially: "Forget the speech. I would never vote for Obama after listening to Wright." In some cases, the reaction was not mild disappointment, but unprintable outrage.

..Where are we now? At the most fascinating juncture in the last 50 years of primary-election history. Superdelegates can't "steal" the election from Obama's lock on the delegate count. And they can't easily debase themselves by abandoning Obama after their recent televised confessionals about abandoning Hillary.

News for the NY Times: Shariah Law is Hell on Earth

Think of your life growing up. Imagine if all the women were required to be covered from head to toe, with a burka, so that they could not be seen. Imagine if all the women needed permission to step outside of their own homes. Imagine if the men could go to jail for talking to a woman. You've just imagined what real life is like today for men and women living under Shariah law.

Yet astonishingly, last weekend the NY Times printed an article in defense of Shariah law. The first page of the web version contains this howler:

In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world. Today, when we invoke the harsh punishments prescribed by Shariah for a handful of offenses, we rarely acknowledge the high standards of proof necessary for their implementation. Before an adultery conviction can typically be obtained, for example, the accused must confess four times or four adult male witnesses of good character must testify that they directly observed the sex act.

That's right - male witnesses. In Shariah law, the testimony of a female is worthless against that of a man's. Yet this article takes this as an example in favor of Shariah.

From the same article: 

Unlike in Iran, where wearing a head scarf is legally mandated and enforced by special religious police, the Islamist view in most other Muslim countries is that the head scarf is one way of implementing the religious duty to dress modestly — a desirable social norm, not an enforceable legal rule.

Such things are not 'enforceable legal rules'? Tell that to the American woman who was arrested last month for just talking to a man at a Starbucks in Saudi Arabia.

A 37-year-old American businesswoman and married mother of three is seeking justice after she was thrown in jail by Saudi Arabia's religious police for sitting with a male colleague at a Starbucks coffee shop in Riyadh.

The article contains plenty of CYA statements to the effect that, for example:

How many know that until the 18th century, the laws of most European countries authorized torture as an official component of the criminal-justice system? As for sexism, the common law long denied married women any property rights or indeed legal personality apart from their husbands.

The 18th century - that's the 1700's. The author of this reprehensible article should recall that it's the 21st century now. And here's an example of the state of Shariah law's attitudes towards women today. It's good for a laugh too. From Memri:

The Recommendations

A source in Saudi Arabia's Shura Council reports that the council has submitted a recommendation to senior elements in the country to permit women to drive vehicles, with the following stipulations:

• The woman driver must be under 30.
• The woman's driving is conditional upon the permission of a relative [father, husband, brother, or son].
• The woman driver must obtain a driver's license from the center for teaching women to drive.
• The woman driver must be modestly dressed.
• The woman driver will be permitted to drive alone in the cities, but outside the cities she must be accompanied by a relative.
• The woman driver will be permitted to drive Saturday through Wednesday between 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM.
• The woman driver must have a cell phone with her, so she can call for help in an emergency.
• The woman driver must pay a certain sum when her license is issued; this sum will be set aside for car repairs.

The Shura Council also ordered the following:

• The establishment of a special women's transportation department; this department will collect the fees.
• The establishment of a telephone emergency center.
• The establishment of transportation centers for women in the cities, which will be under religious supervision.
• The council stipulated that a woman driver who violates these rules will have her license revoked.
  

In the framework of this recommendation, the Shura Council is required to impose a one-month prison sentence and a fine on anyone talking with a woman driver from another car, and an eight-month prison sentence and a fine on anyone who sexually harasses a woman driver.

The perpetual separation of men from women is precisely what the author of this NY Times article left out of his analysis.

The massive attack Shariah law makes on everyone in a society, is inconceivable. The women must stay locked up in virtual prisons in their own homes, unable to go out without permission from a man. When they go out they must be covered up in burkas that punish the men by preventing them from seeing the women, and punish the women by preventing them from being seen by the men. And the men can go to jail for merely talking to a woman. I have news for the author of this NY Times article: that's hell on earth.