Whenever someone mentions Obama, or when i see one of the many Obama bumper stickers in Seattle, these are what i immediately think of:

• A wolf in sheep’s clothing
• Buyer’s remorse?
• Don’t blame me, i did not vote for Obama! (Ralph Nader is my man!)
• Biggest hype – and flop – since Segway
• He’s obviously a Christian!
• Judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one
• Worse than Bush!
• Promises made and promises broken

Throughout the country, fellow Muslim Americans are running into tremendous oppositions in finding new places where they can pray. For some, even California is not far away enough from Ground Zero for the Muslim community center. If Muslim Americans are not allowed to build the community center due to its proximity to Ground Zero, shouldn’t we also ban Catholics from building churches in any neighborhood where teenage boys were abused? How about prohibiting Baptists from constructing any churches because a few extremists bombed abortion clinics and murdered doctors? Israel brutally attacked USS Liberty resulting in the death of 34 American sailors with 170 seriously injured, so does it mean we should not allow Jewish Americans to build any synagogues in areas where survivors of this attack still live? Worse, in parts of the country, Muslim Americans are even harassed when they try to practice their faith.

When some vile opponents of the community center realized their argument that the community being too close to Ground Zero was weak and unconvincing, they switched track and started accusing the community center planners of having completely unproven ties to terrorist organizations. The vicious mud-slinging strategy of maligning Muslim Americans, making them the new boogeyman is all too clear to me: By throwing mud all over, they know at least some will stick. Some, like former Congressman Newt Gingrich, even made the preposterous argument that no “Ground Zero mosque” should be allowed until churches or synagogues are permitted in all of Saudi Arabia. The last i heard, the United States of America is not a theocracy, so does Gingrich want to replace our core values with Saudi Arabia’s? Women are not permitted to drive in Saudi Arabia and using Gingrich’s flawed logic, women should not be allowed to drive here either.

I understand some of the fear of Islam are genuine but if your daily sources of news about Islam and Muslims are “Fox News” and Jihad Watch, which selectively quotes passages from the Koran to prove that Islam is a violent religion hell-bent on world domination and killing infidels, how can you see the fact that majority of Muslims, especially Muslim Americans, have nothing to do with the so-called Jihadists? If i want, i can certainly pick out passages from the Holy Bible and the Talmud/Torah to demonstrate how violent Christians are and how vicious Jews are with regard to gentiles.

It pains me to see most Americans collectively blaming our fellow Muslim Americans for the crimes of a few. Many appear not to have learned the lesson of the brutal internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. It angers me to hear politicians inflaming – i liken it to shouting fire in a packed movie theater – the bigotry against Muslim Americans in order to score some cheap immediate political points.

Warren Buffett’s classic quote “it’s only when the tide goes out that you learn who’s been swimming naked” is equally applicable here. Now that the tide is out, bigots like Newt Gingrich and Glenn Beck are caught crapping and pissing in the water while many “yes Muslims have rights to build there but…” politicians - cowards from both political parties – are exposed not wearing any pants. Saying Muslims have a right to build a community center two blocks from Ground Zero but they should not because a lot of people have “strong emotional resistance” is like telling African Americans they had the right to sit anywhere on the bus but they should only sit at the back because a lot of Whites would be offended if they sit at the front. You simply cannot defend the indefensible.

A recent poll by Pew Research Center shows that almost one in five Americans think President Obama is a Muslim. Instead of responding to the anti-Muslim smear by proclaiming the President’s personal religious belief is his own business and why it would not have mattered if he was a Muslim, Obama caved and the White House spokesman found the need to clarify that Obama “is obviously a Christian” and “he prays everyday.” Obama answering anti-Muslim slurs with “but I’m Christian” is like answering racism by saying, “but my mom was white.”

It would have been politically expedient to join the yes-but crowd. It also would have been politically safe to avoid discussing this at all cost. But it takes a significant amount of courage to speak up for and to defend the Constitutional right of the few, especially when going against the opinion of majority. One of the courageous few is Jake Towne, who is running as an independent Congressional candidate for the 15th district of Pennsylvania. Jake could have taken the easy way out by banding with the yes-but crowd or keeping quiet about this growing anti-Muslim hysteria. But no, Jake released a very courageous statement defending the rights of Muslim Americans to build the community center. At the moment when politicians are either fanning the anti-Muslim flames or cowering like cowards, Jake’s stance on protecting the First Amendment rights of Muslim Americans, knowing that it is likely a politically-suicidal move that may cost him some votes in the upcoming election, is extremely encouraging and is to be applauded. Courage is doing the right thing in the face of immense opposition by the majority. Jake Towne, i am proud to say, has it.

When i became a naturalized citizen of this great country, i swore to support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I am an atheist and i do not particularly like any religion. But i cannot sit down and keep my mouth shut while one particular group of Americans are having the freedom to practice their religion denied. I have been speaking out against this attempt to deny the Constitutional rights of Muslim Americans but i realized another way to honor my oath is to financially support Jake Towne’s campaign since i, not being from the same Congressional district, cannot vote for him. For Americans who strongly believe no one group of Americans can be denied of its rights, please support Jake Towne’s campaign.

Once is all i needed. Once is all i can bear. I am referring to the horrifying video footage of Iraqi civilians being gunned down by a pair of U.S. Apache attack helicopters in 2007. Among the 12 civilians killed were Reuters journalist Namir Noor-Eldeen and driver Saeed Chmagh. The extremely graphic and disturbing video was very difficult for me to watch. It showed a group of Iraqi men milling about on the street casually, along with the two Reuters’ employee. A couple of them appeared to be carrying AK-47s and a third person was carrying either a tripod or a RPG. They were not engaged in attacking the Coalition Forces.

At some point, the Apache pilots requested permission to engage the Iraqis and that was granted soon after. The first burst of cannon fire from the Apache helicopters killed most of them. Two unarmed Iraqis, including journalist Namir Noor-Eldeen, attempted to run away but was tracked and gunned down. The only survivor, who appeared to be seriously injured, from the initial attack was Saeed Chmagh. As he was desperately trying to crawl his way to safety, one of the pilots could be heard baiting him on (from the air) to pick up a weapon so that they could finish him off. At that moment, a black Kia minivan showed up. Two guys got off the van to carry the injured Saeed into the van. From the conversation between the pilots and the command, it was very clear that they were inching to kill everyone in the van. After finally receiving the permission to engage the minivan, the helicopters fired at the van, almost completely obliterating it. The two guys who were carrying Saeed thought they found shelter behind a wall but were gunned down. When the CF (Coalition Forces) ground troops showed up, they found two injured children in the minivan.

After watching the disturbing 18-minute video, i was literally shaking. The only thing that came to my mind was how callously these people were killed. The Apache helicopter pilots seemed to take pleasure in making sure that they targeted and killed everyone, including unarmed people in the group. In several instances, they were even laughing as they were firing on the people, completely desensitized from the fact that they were taking lives. According to the US Rules of Engagement for Iraq in 2007,

1. You may engage the following individuals based on their conduct:
a. Persons who are committing hostile acts against CF.
b. Persons who are exhibiting hostile intent towards CF.

It was evident in the video before the initial fire from the helicopters that they were not committing hostile acts against CF. It is not clear to me what “exhibiting hostile intent” means. Does carrying a AK-47, which was a very common sight in Baghdad, imply exhibiting hostile intent? The helicopter pilots, which were under absolutely no threat while flying quite some distance away, made no attempt to distinguish between suspected armed insurgents and unarmed civilians. ROE Rule 2f stressed to “ALWAYS minimize incidental injury, loss of life, and collateral damage“. By engaging the Iraqis with the 30-mm cannon on the Apache helicopters, it was impossible to minimize incidental injury, loss of life and collateral damage. ROE Rule 2c prohibited the targeting or striking of “anyone who has surrendered or is out of combat due to sickness or wounds.” The pilots completely ignored this rule when it gunned down the good samaritans who were trying to carry the mortally wounded Saeed into the black minivan.

Until the publication of the video by WikiLeaks, Reuters had been seeking for the release of the video using Freedom of Information Act since 2007 but to no avail. It took the effort of several whistleblowers in the U.S. military and the courageous folks at WikiLeaks.org to allow this video to see the living daylight. After demands by Reuters, the incident was investigated and the U.S. military concluded that the actions of the soldiers were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and its own “Rules of Engagement”. This begs the question: if actions of the pilots were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and our own ROE, how many more incidents like this were not reported? This incident involved the deaths of two Reuters employees and even though Reuters was unsuccessful in their attempt to get the video released, they were able to force CENTCOM to investigate. How many other incidents involving the killing and maiming of unamed Iraqis in similar manner were investigated? The CENTCOM investigation cleared the Apache pilots of any wrongdoing and insisted that they were following standard operating procedures. If that was the case, why was there a need to cover up the tragedy? After the video was made available to the public yesterday, CENTCOM suddenly had a change of heart and posted the outcome of their “investigation” online. According to Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com, “those formal investigations not only found that every action taken by those soldiers was completely justified — including the firing on the unarmed civilian rescuers — but also found that there’s no need for any remedial steps to be taken to prevent future re-occurence.” In another word, it is business as usual when it comes to targeting “insurgents” – or who we think are insurgents – who are not posing any threat to our Servicemen and women. There is something deeply and profoundly wrong with our standard operating procedures when it allowed the atrocious targeting of unarmed men who came out from the minivan to assist the gravely injured Reuter employee.

Update
Upon reviewing the released sworn testimony from the pilots, the Economist noted the irrelevance of them mistaking Noor-Eldeen’s camera as a RPG (my emphasis):

I was looking at Capt. [redacted]‘s video at that point and I saw the guy crouch behind the corner which now, what I hear was a camera. But, yes sir, we came around the corner, Capt. [redacted] had his TADS on that and I was watching. I think I even made the comment…I can’t remember if I said he’s firing, or I saw a flash. I think you can probably hear it on the tape and what caught my concern was at the end of the alley that he was peaking [sic] around was a HMMWV, so I think that’s when I called [redacted] and he said yea they saw the same thing. Both aircraft decided when we got around the corner we would engage in that direction.

The focus on Mr Noor-Eldeen and his camera is misleading. The helicopters had already decided to attack the group of men on the ground well before the photographer peeked around the corner. Watching the video released by Wikileaks, we hear the pilots request permission to engage at 3:48. Their perception of a threat, at that point, is that several men they see are carrying weapons. (Two of the men, the Reuters staff, are in fact carrying camera bags, but two or perhaps three others appear to be carrying assault rifles or an RPG.) The pilots are granted permission to engage at 3:55. They do not begin shooting immediately, not because they are unsure they are looking at enemy combatants, but because the men on the ground move behind a building. Then, at 4:09, 20 seconds after requesting permission to start shooting, a pilot spots Namir Noor-Eldeen apparently assembling his camera at the corner of the building, and says hurriedly “He’s got an RPG!” When the helicopters circle 90 degrees and have an angle on the group from behind, they begin firing, killing everyone in the group.

Israel’s goal since it occupied East Jerusalem in 1967 has been to empty it of its original inhabitants, that is its non-Jewish residents. The Israelis have been bulldozing Palestinian homes with the dubious reason of them being illegally built or expanded without permits – permits that are never issued to Palestinians – while simultaneously constructing houses for Jews only. The only reason why the Obama administration made a bigger deal out of this was that Vice President Biden was embarrassed by the pie-to-his-face Israeli housing announcement. Otherwise, it probably would have been a business-as-usual response issued by the State Department that “it is not helping” on the Israeli land theft which has continued unabated.

So Secretary Clinton defended the Obama administration’s criticism of the latest Israeli actions and yet in the same breath, she vowed “unwavering” and “enduring” support for Israel. In order to change an undesirable behavior, a verbal rebuke has to have some teeth. There should be a threat that follows the rebuke, for example, threatening to withhold the $3 billion dollars a year aid to Israel, for it to be effective. By proclaiming unwavering and enduring support for Israel, why should the Israelis be doing anything different from what they have been doing, since they are fully aware of the “rock solid” and “forever” support? This is like telling your child that he should not be bullying his playmates but then immediately give him a lollipop and tell him no matter what he does, he will always be rewarded with candies. It is this unwavering and enduring support we have provided Israel for so long that have directly resulted in the stalemate we have today.

The only way for us to make Israel change its destructive policies, which are not only detrimental to the Israelis but are also endangering the lives of our servicemen and women serving in the Middle East, is to threaten to withhold $3 billion dollars aid. Or better still, threaten to be fair. Secretary Clinton stated that “our credibility in this process depends in part on our willingness to praise both sides when they are courageous, and when we don’t agree, to say so, and say so unequivocally,” but to say and not act on it is like a toothless tiger. Being fair to both sides will go a long way to restoring whatever that is left of our credibility and removing the anything but perceived favoritism for Israel.

Update 2.

Update 3.

Take a good look at them. These are the Israel-first American organizations and politicians who place Israel’s interests above America’s.

AIPAC (America Israel Public Affairs Committee):

The Obama Administration’s recent statements regarding the U.S. relationship with Israel are a matter of serious concern. AIPAC calls on the Administration to take immediate steps to defuse the tension with the Jewish State.

Instead calling Israel to stop obstructing efforts by the Obama administration in its attempt to resolve the conflict, AIPAC, which apparently has sworn allegiance to Israel, has the chutzpah to tell the administration to take immediate steps to defuse the tension.

ADL (Anti Defamation League):

We are shocked and stunned at the Administration’s tone and public dressing down of Israel on the issue of future building in Jerusalem. We cannot remember an instance when such harsh language was directed at a friend and ally of the United States. One can only wonder how far the U.S. is prepared to go in distancing itself from Israel in order to placate the Palestinians in the hope they see it is in their interest to return to the negotiating table.

A true friend and ally does not endanger the lives of the citizens of his friend. A true friend and ally does not throw up road blocks in every attempt by his friend in finding a resolution for the conflicts he is currently involved with.

Elliott Abrams, former Special Assistant to President GW Bush:

The current friction in U.S.-Israel relations has one source: the mishandling of those relations by the Obama administration.

Yes, blame it on the Obama administration. Why couldn’t the Obama administration just keep its mouth shut when Israel decided to steal more land from the Palestinians to build more houses for Jews in Jerusalem?

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT):

“Let’s cut the family fighting, the family feud,” Lieberman said. “It’s unnecessary; it’s destructive of our shared national interest. It’s time to lower voices, to get over the family feud between the U.S. and Israel. It just doesn’t serve anybody’s interests but our enemies.”

Israel and the United States DO NOT have a shared national interest. This so-called shared national interest myth is conned by Israel-firster like Joe Lieberman, whom when it comes to Israel has never thought of America’s interest first. We certainly do not share the same enemies. If Israel wishes to continue the antagonistic policies with its neighbors, it should be dealing with the consequences of its policies alone, and not drag us into the pile of shit it created.

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS):

“It’s hard to see how spending a weekend condemning Israel for a zoning decision in its capital city amounts to a positive step towards peace,” said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan. He complained that the administration was attacking a “staunch ally and friend” when it should be focusing on the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear problem.

No matter how hard it tries empty Jerusalem of its original inhabitants by populating with its Jewish citizens and making lives as difficult as possible for Palestinians, the occupied and illegally annexed East Jerusalem IS NOT Israel’s capital city. But that fact is probably too difficult for a Christian Zionist like Sen. Brownback to comprehend.

Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev):

It was an “irresponsible overreaction”.

Rep. Shelley Berkley, how much money are you getting from pro-Israel organizations?

Rep. Christopher Carney (D-PA) and Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL):

“We urge your Administration to refrain from further public criticism of Israel and to focus on more pressing issues affecting this vital relationship, such as signing and enforcing the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act when it comes to your desk.”

Rep. Carney and Rep. Kirk, i urge you to stop putting interests of a foreign state above America’s. You are after all elected officials in the United States of America, not Israel.

Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY):

“We should not have a disproportionate response to Israel. We need to be careful and measured in our response, and I think we all have to take a step back.”

Telling a so-called friend like Israel to stop sabotaging every effort made so far by this administration is considered “disproportionate response”? Seriously, Rep. Engel, are you sure you are not a member of the Knesset?

Eric Cantor (R-VA):

To say that I am deeply concerned with the irresponsible comments that the White House, Vice President, and the Secretary of State have made against Israel is an understatement. In an effort to ingratiate our country with the Arab world, this Administration has shown a troubling eagerness to undercut our allies and friends. Israel has always been committed to the peace process, including advocating for direct talks between Israelis and Palestinians, in effort to bring this conflict to an end. Unfortunately, the Palestinian Government continues to insist on indirect talks and slowing down the process.

Israel has always been “committed” to the peace process by stealing more land from the Palestinians and settling them with Jews only. In fact, in the years that followed the signing of Oslo peace accords in 1993, the number of Jewish settlers in the occupied territories (excluding East Jerusalem) grew from 116,000 to more than 300,000. Good people of Virginia should probably be concerned that their representative not only has a propensity to lie and misconstrue but also the obvious demonstrative behavior of not putting America’s interests first.

Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY):

“The Administration, to the extent that it has disagreements with Israel on policy matters, should find way to do so in private and do what they can to defuse this situation.”

Again, blame the Obama administration for being stabbed in the back by the Israeli government. Oh yes, the administration should do what they can to defuse this situation, just like a rape victim should probably not wear that rape-inducing dress in order to defuse the situation with her rapist. For Rep. Israel, America always come first when it comes to choosing who to blame between her and Israel.

Update 2:
Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), at the annual AIPAC policy conference:

On the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, “the State of Israel can’t run even a 5 percent chance of that happening and neither can we,” Bayh added.

Bayh … earned the first standing ovation of the conference when he commented on the U.N.’s Goldstone report on the Gaza conflict. “The truth of the matter is that the Israeli Defense Forces risked their lives to avoid civilian casualties,” he said.

“I think the timing of the housing announcement was unfortunate and some of the rhetoric on our side was probably too aggressive, but the main thing is the relationship is strong and unshakable and we should now move forward and build on that,” Bayh said.

The state of Israel may not be able to risk a 5 percent chance of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capability, but what the fuck has that got to do with us? Once again, Mr. Israel-First is trying to bamboozled us into thinking that Israel and us share the exact same interests.

“The truth of the matter is that the Israeli Defense Forces risked their lives to avoid civilian casualties” ? So had IDF not “risked their lives to avoid civilian casualties”, are we talking about tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza massacred instead of just 1400?

“Some of the rhetoric on our side was probably too aggressive” ? Are you fucking kidding me? Is telling Israel to stop doing things that endanger the lives of our servicemen and women in Middle East too aggressive? Once again, it is undeniably clear whose interest Sen. Bayh has in his mind when it comes to Israel and us.

Update 3.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), 3/23/2010:

“We in Congress stand by Israel,” the leader of the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, assured Netanyahu at an all-smiles appearance before the cameras. “In Congress we speak with one voice on the subject of Israel.”

For your information, in Congress, only you and your likes of Israel-firsters speak with one voice on the subject of Israel. True patriot like Rep. Ron Paul does not blindly stand by Israel.

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), 3/23/2010:

“I never thought I’d live to see the day that an American administration would denounce the state of Israel for rebuilding Jerusalem,” Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana said on the House floor Tuesday after meeting Netanyahu. “I urge the president to stop all this talk about settlements in Jerusalem and start focusing on isolating a threatening and menacing and rising nuclear Iran,” he said.

So illegally tearing down Palestinian homes while building Jews-only homes is now considered “rebuilding” ? May be i should just head over to Rep. Pence’s house to tear it down and build myself a swimming pool, since this is all about “rebuilding” right?

Mark Regev, a spokesman for Mr. Netanyahu, said the final status of the existing settlements would be determined in negotiations with the Palestinians. “In the interim, normal life should be allowed to continue in those communities,” Mr. Regev said.

Ah…pulling the same old “final status” trick again. The last time Palestinians were deceived into believing that everything would be resolved in the “final status” negotiations, the settler populations in the occupied West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem, increased by more than 114,000 in the 10 years since Oslo (1994 – 2004) with more land being stolen for growth of existing settlements, construction of new settlements and Jews-only bypass roads.

In the same article:

In an interview with Army Radio on Monday, Ehud Barak, the defense minister and leader of the center-left Labor Party, gave a hypothetical example of a family of four that originally moved into a two-room home in a settlement. “Now there are six children,” he said. “Should they be allowed to build another room or not?”

He added, “Ninety-five percent of people will tell you it cannot be that someone in the world honestly thinks an agreement with the Palestinians will stand or fall over this.”

In the occupied East Jerusalem, where Israel has been making substantial changes in its demography by settling Jews in areas originally occupied by Palestinians, Palestinian homes have been demolished because they were “built without the required permits,” which were never granted to Palestinians as part of a deliberate Israeli policy to push them out of Jerusalem. Should the Palestinians in East Jerusalem be allowed to build another room or not? That is the question Ehud Barak should be asking himself. If Palestinians are not allowed to grow in areas they legally owned, do you think that Jews should be allowed to grow in settlements deemed completely illegal by the international community?

U.S. law specifically banned the use of any portion of the $3 billion dollars we give Israel each year for the illegal Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank but why is no one making the same argument that the $3 billion dollars sent by us allowed Israel to divert money to settlement activities?

In a review of tax records conducted by Reuters last year, it was determined that “at least 13 American organizations have been claiming charitable status as they have pumped more than US$35 million into the settlement enterprise over the past five years.” These organizations have claimed the tax exempt status because they are “charitable” organizations and the IRS responded that the groups are qualified if the funds go to “charitable, religious and educational purposes”. But that’s the exact claim made by founders of Holy Land Foundation and look where they have ended up.