Yet Another Lib Joins the Attack on Broadcast Freedom

Further to my previous post on this unsettling issue, this:

In pursuit of the Obama White House's stated objective (see their website) to "encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media" and to "clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the national spectrum," Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) has joined Sen. Stebanow (D-MI) in publicly advocating for reimposition of the "Fairness Doctrine".

During a interview with Bill Press, Sen. Harkin said "we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again." And in a earlier interview with Press, Sen. Stebanow, whose husband had been VP for Air America, a failed left-leaning network, stated that "it is absolutely time to pass a standard," and that "whether it's called the Fairness Doctrine or something else, I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves."

In reaction to these developments, Rep. King (R-IA), a co-sponsor of the Broadcaters Freedom Act, which I described in my July 2008 post, asked if "Rush Limbaugh [so] intimidates Sen. Harkin that he wants to ration free speech?" Rep. King went on to voice his concern that allowing a liberal-dominated government to dictate what is "fair" in broadcast journalism "will stifle free speech and hurt our free flow of information." And that, of course, is precisely the liberals' goal.

Thus, the growing list of liberals who have publicly voiced their determination to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine clearly suggests that conservative fears of censorship in the broadcast media are not in the least unfounded or far-fetched.

What is acutely concerning here is that Democrats, either stealthily or openly, are intent upon imposing their "fairness" standards on the conservative-dominated broadcast media but NOT on the newspaper media which is already dominated by them.

Next, of course, will be suppression of free speech on the internet. In their arrogant and self-serving pursuit of socialist conformity, the liberals' will spare no effort to harness all media outlets in the months and years to come.

Keep your powder dry and your eyes & ears on the upcoming Telecommunications & Internet Broadcasting Subcommittee hearings. You may be sure that the progressive assault on our liberties will continue unabated and increasingly brazen.

Looming "Fairness Doctrine" Remains a Threat to Our Liberty

If one can't win fairly, then the less principled among us will try rigging the game.

And so it is with the egregiously misnamed "fairness doctrine" which liberals are attempting to re-impose on the broadcasting industry.

Underscoring that this fear is not baseless, the current FCC Chairman, Robert McDowell, a Bush appointee whose term expires in June, recently warned that the Democrats will adopt a "stealthier approach" to re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine (FD). By disguising it with another name, e.g. "localism", "diversity", "local broadcasting advisory boards", the Dems hope to effectively shut down conservative talk radio. All in the interest of "leveling the playing field," of course.

Aside from the usual suspects, Sens. Bingaman, Reid, Kerry, Schumer, Feinstein & Boxer, and Reps. Pelosi and our own when-will-she-just-go-away Rep. Slaughter, last week Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich) asserted that the liberal- dominated Telecommunications & Internet Subcommittee will soon hold hearings on the issue--all in the lofty interest of ensuring broacaster "accountability and responsibility," liberal code for suppression of free speech when apoplied to the other side of the aisle.

As we all know, Sen. Schumer recently equated conservative talk radio to pornograpy. And for Lousie Slaughter who, during my tete-a-tete with her on November 11th, denied that Schumer had drawn any such comparison at all, here's the Schumer quote, Louise: "The very same people who don't want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC to limit pornography on the air. I am for that. I think pornography should be limited. But you can't say 'government hands off' in one area of a commercial enterprise, but 'you're allowed to intervene' in another. That's not consistent."

On January 7th, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), the leading champion of broadcast freedom, warned that "the FD is at complete odds with the constitution." (As if that has any real relevance these days in D.C.) Frustrated, Sen. DeMint voiced his concern that "some of the most powerful among the Democratic leadership have openly advocated re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine," and urgently called for the "vigorous defense of freedom of the press." (If you're counting on those in the D.C. circuit, Jim, I wouldn't hold my breath.)

Am I a witless conspiracist or shameless fear-mongerer? I don't think so.

In late 2007 an aide to Speaker Pelosi stated that "conservative radio is a huge threat and political advantage for Republicans and we have had to find a way to limit it." And when asked by a reporter how she felt about the Broadcaster Freedom Act which would ban reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine, Comrade Pelosi curtly responded that "the caucus is not interested in the ban." (Very much akin to "let them eat cake.") On another occasion, when asked if she supported the FD's reimposition, she said "Yes!" No equivocation there, I'd say. And no fear-mongering here.

And forever adept at speaking out of both sides of his lawyerly mouth, through his press secretary in June 2008, BHO took this position: "[I} consider this debate to be a distraction Obama code for disturbingly on point) from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible." And to Republican leaders recently, this: "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done." An opening salvo? Very likely. Ensuring that all media outlets are in lockstep with our socialist overseers in Washington is, I fear, considered essential if the socialist makeover via tighter state control over our lives is to be successful.

But, a little historical background.

Authorized by the Communications Act of 1934, the "Fairness Doctrine" was created by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1949 to encourage the broadcasting of contrasting viewpoints on "vitally important controversial issues." Its net effect was to discourage broadcasters from covering any controversial issues at all, thus avoiding running afoul of the FCC and having to deal with aggrieved listeners altogether. Ultimately, FD virtually shut down talk radio for many years.

In 1985, the FCC reported that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, and that it might actuallly have a "chilling effect" and be in violation of the 1st Amendment as well. In a 1987 case, Meredith vs FCC,the courts declared that enforcement of the doctrine mandated by Congress and the FCC did not need to be continued. Subsequently, the FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year. (Note: the courts have not rendered a decision as to the FD's constitutionality. That will likely be our battle for another time.)

When the FD was eliminated, it opened up the airwaves for all commercially viable viewpoints. Result: conservatie talk radio which proved to be more appealing and, therefore, commercially more profitable, fluorished while its liberal talk radio competitors, e.g. Air America, limped along on life support.

Knowing that resurrecting the FD to overtly shut down conservative talk radio would unleash a torrent of First Amendment suits which he would likely lose, indications are that a Pres. Obama, in league with Pelosi and Reid, will try to circumvent the constitutional issue by advancing a sneakier strategy to achieve the same end.

Enter "localism", a vaguely defined FCC rule which requires stations "to serve the interests of their local communities by covering local issues and providing an outlet for local voices as a condition of keeping their broadcasting licenses."

Crafting a bill which more restrictively defines and enforces "localism", and co-sponsored by local reps please-go-away Slaughter (NY-28) and Major Owens (NY-11), Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) is now considering re-introducing the Media Ownership Reform Act (MORA) some of whose key provisions are as follows:

1. A broadcast company, e.g. Clear Channel, cannot own stations that reach more than 35% of American households.

2. A company may own no more than 5% of all AM and FM stations.

3. Companies cannot own a cable and broadcast station in the same market

4. Bi-annually, the FCC would need to report to Congress on how the commission's regs on media ownership have promoted and protected localism, competition, diversity of voices/ownership, children's programing, etc.

5. Would require radio statiosn to file bi-annual reports to FCC on how they are serving the community and to hold at least semi-annual local public hearings to determine if the broadcast needs of their local audience have been met.

So, Obama's Politburo, aka Ministry of Propaganda, will arrogantly tinker with and re-define free speech and freedom of the press. Incredible! (Revolution, anyone?)

A more restrictive definition of "localism" by an FCC dominated by an Obama-appointed chairperson would mean that broadcasters would need to look beyond crass commercial interests by reaching out to "leaders in the civic, religious and non-profit sectors who serve the needs of minority groups that are poorly served by the broadcasting industry." The intent, of course, is to threaten licensing revocation by the FCC if "local diversity of content" isn't achieved by broadcasters. This might well mean, for example, that a Christian radio station will be effectively saddled with a local Muslim-dominated "advisory board" demanding equal time and getting it, or losing its license to the advisory group altogether.The possible scenarios across the country are fightening.

So, while overt re-imposition of the deceptively named FD may not be politically feasible at this time--and many liberals like Bingaman and Schumer go suspiciously at length to underscore that point--if we fail to remain vigilant a surreptitious resurrection of FD under a different guise is all too probable. Make no mistake: "Localism" and "Fairness Doctrine" are one and the same. We all need to carefully watch developments on this front and to push back accordingly.

Reportedly, even Air America is opposed to the FD's reimposition. Interesting.

("Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which only the bureaucracy remains as the active element." Rosa Luxemburg)

("It is so difficult to draw a clear line of separation between the abuse and the wholesome use of the press, that as yet we have found it better to trust the public judgment, rather than the magistrate, with the discrimination between truth and falsehood. And hitherto the public judgment has performed that office with wonderful correctness." Thomas Jefferson, 1803)

Liberal Economic Madness & Political Opportunism

Reportedly, while denying bailout checks to nonresidents, the $819 billion plus so-called stimulus plan winding its way through Congress allows those without Social Security numbers to receive rebate checks. If true, illegal aliens without a SSN need only file a tax return using another number, aka "individual taxpayer idenification number", to qualify for the handout. (Not even ACORN could have done a better job rustling up future voters, huh?)

Among other "stimuli" are these items which should be stand-alone expenditures, if at all: $650 million for digital TV cable transition (A real job creator!); $150 million for the Smithsonian (???); $50 million for the National Endowment of the Arts (Yeah. That'll create tons of jobs); 2.5 billion to upgrade gov't susidized housing (A solid vote-getter); $6.2 billion to weatherize homes of low income people (Where's that voter queue?); $2.4 billion for "projects demonstrating carbon-capture technology" and $400 million to "research global climate change" (I gather to thwart the impending threat of climatic apocalypse forecasted by Gore); $600 million to "prepare the country for universal healthcare" (Oh, goody! Socialized medicine, here we come!); $15 billion for Pell Grants (An instant job creator, for sure.); $1.5 billion to "build community health centers" (???); $20 billion "for nutrition assistance to middle-income families and to extend eligibility for food stamps" (Give'em the energy needed to get to those voting booths.); of $142 billion for education which will keep the teacher unions deliriousy giddy and loyal, $14-$16 billion will be used to build "state-of-the-art classrooms" (Yeah. That'll get them thar kids edumacated and employed.); $27 billion for increased and extended unemployment benefits (Paying the idle is a surefire way of enhancing job creation.); and, because I can bear no more, $75 million for "smoking cessation programs" (Hey, Barack. Here's your chance!)

Aside from state government bailouts to the discordant tune of $300 billion which will surely encourage state governments to tax and spend more wisely in the future (guffaw, guffaw), ACORN, its allies and ilk will receive more than $750 million for "community development" and "neighborhood stabilization" programs. Conveniently omitted in the bill is any prohibition against using these funds for lobbying or political activities. You remember ACORN. This non-profit group, currently under investigation for voter fraud--in support of Democrats, of course--and extortion, spearheaded implementation of the now infamous and economically ruinous low- interest/no-down-payment programs for unqualifed home buyers around the country. (Surely, you'll agree that this is a worthy expenditure of taxpayer money.)

I could go on, but I think you can already see that this "stimulus plan" is little more than a massive giveaway intended to grow government, pay off liberal supporters and buy votes. It makes child's play of FDR's failed New Deal.

The Congressinal Budget Office (CBO), not exactly a hotbed of conservativism, projected that only a fraction of the money would get into the economy before the end of the year, and less than half the $819 billion would be spent before 2010! CBO also projects that the interest on this spending will amount to $347 billion, rendering the total cost of this "stimulus" package a dizzying $1.17 trillion! So much for simulus and Barack's favorite "responsibility" theme. But, we already know what the game plan is here. Clearly, there's much more to this scheme than economic stabilization and recovery. Much more!

And let's give credit where credit is due. Even our own "Democrat & Chronicle" castigated the bill for the "pork and goodies." The D&C pointed out that "far too much of the legislation feeds government programs and initiatives whose positive impact on the immediate job situation is not at all clear." Actually, the D&C is far too kind. The impact on immediate job creation is clear: at best, it's negligible.

Despite the fact that not one so-called stimulus plan has worked in history, the Dems persist in calling it a job creator which will magically bring about economic recovery. (Yes, folks, these insufferable Progressives REALLY DO think you and I are hopelessly stupid hayseeds who should never deign to question their wisdom or lofty motivess.)

Simply put, for $275 billion, or just a third of what's being proposed, many reputable economists believe the feds could have more easily and cost-effectively restored economic stability by reducing corporate and capital gains taxes by 10% and cutting payroll and marginal tax rates accordingly. That's a PROVEN job creator. Nothing pie-in-the-sky about this approach. But, what the Dems are pushing for is a socialist makeover FIRST and economic recovery SECOND. And all but the brainwashed know it.

While there are some helpful elements in this bill, they are glaringly few and far between. Too much of this spending bill reeks of pork and payoffs, and far too many of the items have little or nothing to do with economic stimulus.

What is very clear is that conservative Americans on both sides of the aisle should stick to their commonsense principles and continue to spurn the White House's wine- and-dine offensive intended to win them over. The country's economic stability should take precedence over placating BHO and his Progressive minions. Bi-partisanship is a two-way street, and the irritating aristocracy which is the Democratic leadership must, at long last, start dealing with it.

Bearing in mind that any stimulus package must be "timely, temporary and targetted", it's now up to the Senate to purge this bill of its profligacy and to fashion a real stimulus for our ailing economy.

Again, the liberals havent't taken leave of their senses. Not at all. Despite the fact that this spending bill accomplishes little more than subverting our free-enterprise republic, the Administation and its party leadership in Congress continue to persevere. They must be stopped, and stopped cold before it's too late.

("Experience has shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." Thomas Jefferson)

Climate Warming Myth Nails U.S. Taxpayers Again

Yesterday, the White House again manifested its adherence to a decidedly far left agenda.

Citing the specter of ruinous man-made global warming and national security considerations as his rationale, BHO ordered an already bankrupt car industry to accelerate the development and marketing of "green cars" by 2011 (9 years earlier than the original goal) and to allow a patchwork of states to unilaterally impose more stringent emissions standards which will further aggravate already seriously declining auto sales. How that's going to create jobs or rescue the auto industry is beyond me.

Already dependent upon taxpayer bailouts to stay afloat, the auto industry estimates the cost of compliance with this incredibly foolish executive order to run as high as $100 billion! And guess who's going to foot the bill for that insanity? The already beseiged taxpayers, of course. But, to the New Order, any reasoned dissent or unpleasant truth is a "distraction", an oft-used Obamaism connoting unworthiness of attention or consideration. So, get used to the bailouts and condescension, my taxpaying comrades.

While ensuring that our country is not held hostage by foreign energy producers is a worthy goal, this isn't the way to do it. Clearly, holding the auto industry and taxpayers hostage is not a sensible solution to our energy problems. Getting a comprehensive energy plan off the ground is.

OBH's edict accomplishes nothing more than placating the enviro-extremist lobbyists and their opportunistic climate warming disciples on Capitol Hill. Does it help the country? NO! Will it produce more jobs? NO! Will it work? Well, if the bailouts are gargantuan enough, then just maybe. But, to what end? To advance a shortsighted, asinine ideology and nothing more.

As our tendentiousl liberal Democrat & Chronicle newspaper loftily stated, OBH's intention is to ensure that "science will trump ideology and special interests..." Surely, another mindless progressive moment for the paper. Just who's kidding whom? Following raucous laughter, my bet is that the over 4,000 eminent and increasingly vocal scientists around the world who have publicly voiced their scientific opposition to the man-made global warming fabrication would take unbrage at the D&C's baseless UNscientific assertion. All thinking Americans understand that OBH's intention is to pay off his environmentalist supporters and to further advance his socialist and big-government agendas. I'm afraid it's really that simple.

It's going to be a rough four years, folks. What's so stunningly obvious is that our economic and energy problems can be more cost-effectively resolved by the private sector. Big government spending and ill-conceived regulation, historically the single most insidious impediments to a country's economic well-being, will accomplish precious little--but at a staggering cost--to resolve our energy and other economic and security issues. Our political leaders' re-learning this age-old lesson is going to be painful for us all. And, tragically, it's so utterly avoidable.

Man-made climate warming is an unmitigated politically inspired scam, and we'd best see the light soon, or we're all going to be in the dark. Literally.

("In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." George Orwell)

("A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the worth of labor and bread it has earned--this is the sum of good government." Thomas Jefferson)

The Governing Style and Strategy of the New Prez

(Published D&C 1/30/09)

Absent President Obama's choreographers and marketing professionals, it appears the new President will need to heavily rely upon his seductive charm to steer the ship of state.

For the moment, ingratiating himself to a still doting and servile media, co-opting conservative talking heads, and enchanting chastened GOP legislators seems to be the sum total of his governing strategy.

Clearly, the new president will need to rely on the big boys to hold his hand while he goes through his presidential paces. Enter the "Clintonista" appointments to keep him on an even keel.

But, since the new President's IQ is, reportedly, "off the charts", perhaps he will prove to be a quick-study in the area of governance. Even for an inveterate campaigner and community organizer, anything is possible, I suppose.

My humble prediction: over the next four years this thoroughly elitist and already flawed Administration will be rife with scandals and ethical breaches, and will be defined by Byzantine in-fighting, weakness in dealing with foreign threats, a disturbing level of secrecy, extra-constitutional over-reaching, and endless political missteps.

To advance the Democrats' socialist makeover of America, extremist and costly programs to deal with mythological "man-made global warming" will be foisted upon an already weakened economy; erstwhile successful defense and anti-terrorist programs and policies will be either scaled back, eviscerated or dismantled; with the help of an unrestrained Congress, reprehensible far left causes (gay marriage, pro-choice programs, expedited naturalization of illegal aliens, suffocating gov't-run universal health care, a diminution of broadcast freedom, etc) will be, in large part, successfully imposed; the undemocratic and explosive growth of unions and bureaucracies will increasingly eclipse the electorate's influence on its own government; and America will be rapidly moved closer to a failed and impotent Euro-style socialst system, a transformation which will inflct a terrible economic and human toll on the country.

Without GOP assertivenss on the Hill, all we can reasonably hope is that the damage this iniquitous socialist order imposes upon our free enterprise republican system is reversible. Otherwise, America as we know it will be but a footnote in history. A once proud and dominant economic and political powerhouse, the envy of the world, will be no more.

For the traditional and patriotic Americans among us, it's now our turn to hope. And, yes, WE CAN too if we commit ourselves to relentlessly pushing back and to be unflinching and smart in our opposition to the socialist apparatchiks in D.C. who dare call themselves our representatives.

Let's be clear: right now the far left progressive elites in Washington are no more our reps than either Stalin or Marx could have been. But, there they are in the full light of day unashamedly impelling our republic along the road to that of a ruined second-rate socialist state. Unbelievable.

What Does This New President Mean for America?

It appears that Socialism won a major victory on November 7th and sealed the deal on January 20th.

On the heels of an "economic meltdown" brought on by the housing bubble burst created by congressional ineptitude and shameless pandering, the exciting prospect of an Afro-Caucasian assuming the Presidency and the alluring give-away programs promised by an Obama Administration were simply too tantalizing to be spurned by a preponderance of voters. Thus, the hopes and fears of a majority of Americans swept Barack Obama into the Office of President on January 20th, surely a historic, if not entirely over-trumpeted, event.

Despite the pay freeze for White House staff, a perceptual PR triumph, which Obama announced today during the swearing in of his senior staff, the inauguration, a $170 million star-studded extravaganza, ushered into office a man who is still an entirely unknown quantity--unknown not only to those who didn't vote for him, but, ironically, to those who did.

I have to admit that I couldn't bear viewing the entire Hollywood-like surreality which played out before us on the tube yesterday. Frankly, the more I watched, the more painfully tremulous I became. So, for most of the day I watched more stable fare on the Discovery and History channels.

I firmly believe that America's transformation into a failed European-style socialist democracy is now underway with precious little resistance to stop it. And despite the pleasant prospect of a conservative resurgence in the 2010 congressional elections to help stem the socialist tide, I also worry about the irreparable damage which can and likely will be visted upon our free market republican system in the short span of two years.

The usual honeymoon with the new President will surely mean that our cowering Repubican brethren will grant the new President much of what he wants, inclusive of gargantuan and counterproductive stimulus spending programs which will surely increase unemployment and further exacerbate inflationary forces. The very fact that spending our way out of such an economic mess has never ever worked seems to have been entirely lost on the new Administration. Hard to believe, but it looks like the painful economic lessons of FDR's profligacy, over-regulation and high taxation will need to be learned again. Knowing this, we can only pray that the nation can somehow survive, if not altogether avoid, the economic disasters which befell the FDR years.

Despite his ritual commitment today--by executive order--to government transparency and openness and an easing of FOIA restrictions,my concerns remain. Why? I still don't know what this guy is really all about. Is he even constitutionally eligible to be President? Does this new openness extend to exposing the vaulted copy of his birth certificate in Hawaii to help lay to rest the smoldering eligibility issue? Have his numerous radical associations over the years influenced his political beliefs? Or was he so singleminded in his quest for the Presidency, perhaps an overwhelmingly consuming personal ambition, that he was willing to use anyone and everyone along the way to call the White House home without adopting any of their radical viewpoints or their corrupt predispositions? And if that's true, what does that say about his core beliefs, his principles, his personal values? Is he a man of honor, a man we can trust? Does he believe that the Office of President transcends the individual, or does he believe that he will transcend the Office? Does he intend to preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" to the letter?" Or will he continue to rely upon legions of attorneys and marketing specialists to govern? Will the Constitution and our Bill of Rights be so loosely interpreted by him as to render the documents of incidental importance? Does anyone really know the answers to any of these gnawing questions?

Never properly vetted by the cheerleading liberal media, only those of us who took the time to research this man are justifiably concerned. Swept up into the euphoric tide, the starry-eyed wishful thinkers and blind ideologues annointed BHO. For them, reality was an avoidable nuisance. Idyllic ignorance was their refuge.

While I believe the President's cabinet is, to some extent, centrist. I also know that his second level appointments are considerably less so. For us to better gauge the intentions and direction of this new order, I suggest we keep our eyes on those second-level apparatchiks.

Simply put, I don't wish any President success who advocates and attempts to implement a socialist agenda for the greatest free enterprise republican system in the history of man. In any way making us over into a "Socialist Democratic Republic of America" is neither a lofty nor a patriotic goal for any credible Chief Executive of the United States. Only if President Obama strictly adheres to traditonal American values, defends our Bill of Rights, the sanctity of life, our security and our Constitutional free enterprise republic can he count on my support and trust. Short of that, he will be continue to be viewed by me and millions of other proud Americans as little more than a charming menace to our very way of life.

At long last, idolatry must now give way to commonsense and objectivity. Now we will see and feel what Mr. Obama is really all about. Though I pray that my concerns are entirely unfounded, at the moment reality suggests otherwise.

Keep your ear to the ground and your eyes wide open. When you have legitimate concerns, voice them loudly, clearly and responsibly. Don't allow political correctness or the fear of being labelled a racist or right-wing ideologue silence you. Become constructively engaged in the political process. Remember that use of the race card is the last refuge of a scoundrel, so stand up to those who would attack you as a racist simply because you disagree with their socialist agenda. WE THE PEOPLE are still free and the 1st Amendment is, so far, still the law of the land. In the final analysis, we too have the responsibility of preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution and, in turn, our God-given way of life. Remember that the Constitution is incapable of protecting itself. The reponsibility for its protection lies squarely with us. We should always strive to stoutly and proudly defend and preserve our bountiful blessings and hard-won liberties no matter the cost.

Diversity & Inclusion Obama Style?

Merely to inject a little reality into the exuberantly hopeful, gushing, star-studded Lincolnesque inauguration, this tiny little tidbit:

Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) delivered a prayer at the National Prayer Service today. In attendance, President Obama and VP Biden.

For what it's worth, ISNA was designated an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial which produced guilty verdicts on 108 counts.

The Center for Security Policy reports that during a recent question-answer period with her students at Hartford Seminary where she teaches, Ms. Mattson made the following statements:

"Our community's Islamic faith transcends the basic rights and duties of citizenship."

"The true values of America are those which we decide to embrace as our own."

"There aren't any sleeper cells in the United States."

Regarding Wahhabism, a glaringly obvious radical wing of the Islamic faith, she defended it as merely an "Islamic reformist movement analagous to the European protestant reformation." Apparently, nothing more nor less.

She praised jihadist Maulana Mawdudi who in his "Jihad in Islam" stated unambiguously that "Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it"; that "the objective of Islamic Jihad is to eliminate the rule of any un-Islamic system"; that "the aim of Islam is to bring about universal revolution" to achieve its ends.

I guess my silly, silly question here is why was this woman chosen over those American Muslims who have voiced their opposition to Jihad, shariah law and, yes, ISNA itself? Was it merely another lapse in judgement, a simple bureaucratic oversight? Or does it portend something more concerning? Just a question. Just a silly, silly question. Probably nothing to worry about at all.