At least according to Naomi Wolf.

Behind the veil lives a thriving Muslim sexuality

…

The West interprets veiling as repression of women and suppression of their sexuality. But when I travelled in Muslim countries and was invited to join a discussion in women-only settings within Muslim homes, I learned that Muslim attitudes toward women’s appearance and sexuality are not rooted in repression, but in a strong sense of public versus private, of what is due to God and what is due to one’s husband. It is not that Islam suppresses sexuality, but that it embodies a strongly developed sense of its appropriate channelling - toward marriage, the bonds that sustain family life, and the attachment that secures a home.

…

I will let Hot Air drill down to the details, but in brief, while it was not totally satisfying to most conservatives, it was surprisingly strong in a lot of critical areas.

I didn’t get the chance to watch Barack Obama’s Cairo speech live, although I’m sure that it will be chopped up on YouTube within the next couple of hours.  Instead, I read the full text posted by Andrew Malcolm, as well as Andrew’s commentary, and in most ways, it wouldn’t differ from a similar speech given by any recent American President.  In fact, the Cairo audience may have been a little surprised about the depth of the defense of Israel’s right to exist in peace, as well as the strong denunciation of 9/11 Trutherism that has been wildly popular among Arabs, even though Osama bin Laden claimed credit long ago for the attack.

The big surprise for me, considering the amount of anti semitic advisors he has, was hi staunch support of Israel as a Nation.

And people wonder why I like her so much.

Palin links Tiller, Long slayings

Sarah Palin today picked up a widely heard theme on the right, using the murder of abortion doctor George Tiller to call attention to the murder of an army recruiter in Arkansas, allegedly by a self-styled Islamic militant:

The stories of two very different lives with similar fates crossed through the media’s hands yesterday — both equally important but one lacked the proper attention. The death of 67-year old George Tiller was unacceptable, but equally disgusting was another death that police believe was politically and religiously motivated as well.

William Long died yesterday. The 23-year old Army Recruiter was gunned down by a fanatic; another fellow soldier was wounded in the ambush. The soldiers had just completed their basic training and were talking to potential recruits, just as my son, Track, once did.

Whatever titles we give these murderers, both deserve our attention. Violence like that is no way to solve a political dispute nor a religious one. And the fanatics on all sides do great disservice when they confuse dissention with rage and death

Not sure what to make of this.  Is this a response to all the claims that Obama is a closet Muslim?  Maybe their way of making him expose himself for self preservation?

Al Qaeda has never seemed to like Obama much, particular the house slave remark back in November, so I guess the loss of love continues now with the Pres Elect maintaining silence on Israel’s Gaza offensive:

Report: Al-Qaida No. 2 blames Obama for Gaza fight

Al-Qaida’s No. 2 leader lashed out at President-elect Barack Obama in a new audio message Tuesday, accusing him of not doing anything to stop Israel’s offensive in the Gaza Strip, according to an intelligence monitoring center.

The recording purportedly by Ayman al-Zawahiri was al-Qaida’s first comments on the Gaza crisis since Israel launched its offensive against the Islamic militants of Hamas on Dec. 27.

In the comments, which were posted on a militant Web site and obtained by the SITE Monitoring Service, al-Zawahiri described Israel’s actions in Gaza as a “crusade against Islam and Muslims” and called it “Obama’s gift to Israel” before he takes office later this month.

Again, I apologize, I seem to have been missing for another week or so.  Life is like that, sometimes.  Chalk it up to some needed down time and a family reunion.

So one of the ‘big’ stories on my return to the blog world was the whole Rachel Ray kerfluffle over her scarf?

So initially I assumed there was some dark sinister message hidden in her headgear, but then I saw the picture you see to the right.

And I don’t get it.

Oh, I get the fact that it is somewhat similar to a kaffiyeh, the traditional Arab headdress worn by our enemies in the middle east.

But at the same time, it is a scarf, around the neck of a woman who hosts a TV cook show, and who has never to my knowledge made a single political stance on the war or on Islamfacism.

So the accusations that this was something nefarious fell on deaf ears here.

With due respect to the people who have taken a solid offended stance on this, I have to solidly disagree.  This was a much ado over nothing.

Props to the Dutch Court for not folding under Islamofacist pressure.

Dutch court: Geert Wilders has free-speech right to criticize Islam

Amazing, the things that are litigable these days. This wasn’t the public prosecution hinted at by the Dutch government last week but “merely” a private suit filed by the Netherlands Islamic Foundation to have criticism of Islam deemed an “incitement” under Dutch law and thereby worthy of being censored. Note the rationale:

The NIF wanted to know if Wilders had broken the law with his public declaration in August last year that the Koran is a fascist book and comments that Mohammed was a barbarian.

According to the judge, the term fascism must be seen in a broader context. The NIF associated it with the Holocaust and ‘other evil practices from Nazi Germany’. But fascism should, said the judge, be seen as ‘a collective term for ideologies which fundamentally embrace a totalitarian political system which leaves no room for people with other ideas’.

Via Hot Air:

Amazing, the things that are litigable these days. This wasn’t the public prosecution hinted at by the Dutch government last week but “merely” a private suit filed by the Netherlands Islamic Foundation to have criticism of Islam deemed an “incitement” under Dutch law and thereby worthy of being censored. Note the rationale:

The NIF wanted to know if Wilders had broken the law with his public declaration in August last year that the Koran is a fascist book and comments that Mohammed was a barbarian.

According to the judge, the term fascism must be seen in a broader context. The NIF associated it with the Holocaust and ‘other evil practices from Nazi Germany’. But fascism should, said the judge, be seen as ‘a collective term for ideologies which fundamentally embrace a totalitarian political system which leaves no room for people with other ideas’.

When it came to Mohammed, the NIF was unable during the hearing to deny that he was a barbarian, reports ANP. Furthermore, the organisation was not able to disprove the fact that Islam consists of beliefs that are in contradiction to democratic principles, the judge said.

I never understood the original brouhaha over the danish cartoons, but then again I have never understood both the Muslim intolerance to them, nor the liberal hypocrisy surrounding them.  Liberals, it seems, will defend the Muslims, and portray these cartoons as racist and intolerant, yet they will offer no such outrage when Christians are likewise targeted.  I admit I find that irritating, but not unexpected.

One reason is that Christians generally have a sense of humour and don’t express the same level of outrage.  Catholics rarely take to the streets, swords in hand, and demand death to the infidels.  Might be part of the reason.

The cartoons that were at the center were a mixed bag of boring to biting.  Some I thought were pointless, but others were wickedly on target, showcasing the reality of radical Islam, not the peaceful Islam so many others practice. 

When the original outrage surfaced, I did not take a position.  I felt that no newspaper had an obligation to print anything, even if their decision to do or not to do so was hypocritical.

Let’s state early, I don’t listen to him very often and i don’t like the brand of show he runs, the demagoguing incite the masses kind of talk show.

I prefer intellectual discussions to his “psychological nudity”.

But I am impressed at his gumption, his chutzpah, as he sues CAIR and labels them for what they are.

Savage lawsuit calls CAIR ‘vehicle of international terrorism’: Accuses group of seeking ‘harm to those who speak against violent agenda’

Trend-setting radio talk show host Michael Savage has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against the Council on Islamic-American Relations, and has accused the organization of being a “political vehicle of international terrorism” that seeks to do “material harm to those voices who speak against the violent agenda of CAIR’s clients.”

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in California, seeks damages equal to the ongoing donations from CAIR supporters “who expect CAIR to act in this manner in exchange for continuing financial support” as well as “actual damages according to proof.”

…while others defend the Islamofascists.  In the wake of the Islamofascist Awareness Week protests two articles caught my eye.

One defends the use of the word itself, which the New Oxford American Dictionary, defines  as “a controversial term equating some modern Islamic movements with the European fascist movements of the early twentieth century”.  

Defending Islamofascism:  It’s a valid term. Here’s why.

The attempt by David Horowitz and his allies to launch “Islamofascism Awareness Week” on American campuses has been met with a variety of responses. One of these is a challenge to the validity of the term itself. It’s quite the done thing, in liberal academic circles, to sneer at any comparison between fascist and jihadist ideology. People like Tony Judt write to me to say, in effect, that it’s a historical and simplistic to do so. And in some media circles, another kind of reluctance applies: Alan Colmes thinks that one shouldn’t use the word Islamic even to designate jihad, because to do so is to risk incriminating an entire religion.