Obama's Oprah Factor

By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann

The era of celebrity endorsements ended some time ago. We no longer buy the shaving cream that Derek Jeter tells us to use; nor do we vote as some Hollywood actor suggests. We have come to assume that political endorsements are often the product of partisan loyalty rather than any particular standard of merit and that commercial testimonials come only in exchange for cash.

But Oprah’s endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is truly unique and will have a profound impact on the presidential race. She transforms a candidacy into a movement and will increase his momentum from a growth curve to a surging wave.

It is not just that people trust what Oprah says. Her endorsement is important because of who she is and what message her support sends to those like her. As the most famous black woman in the world, she is a cultural icon. And as a figure who effortlessly crosses the racial divide, she has a special role in a presidential primary that pits the first woman against the first black to contest for president with a serious chance of victory. In this environment, Oprah’s demographic is her message.

Oprah sends a message to all American women that it is OK not to vote for Hillary and one to African-Americans that they need to vote for Obama. Were Oprah seen primarily as a black leader, her endorsement of a candidate of her own race running against one of her own gender wouldn’t mean that much. If her reputation were one for putting her race constantly ahead of her gender, her endorsement of Obama would seem automatic. But that is not who Oprah is.

She is iconic to women of all races; to them she’s a woman who is black, not a black who is female. So her refusal to endorse a fellow female seeking the presidency is tremendously significant to women voters. She sends a message by her unusual intervention in a political contest in which a woman is running. It reads: A woman, yes. This woman, no.

Oprah’s embrace of Obama’s message of change stamps his campaign mantra as legitimate and turns experience into a disqualification rather than an attribute for Hillary. That this much-admired woman would turn against Hillary in order to seek change in Washington lifts Obama to JFK proportions even as it pins on Hillary — to her detriment — the Nixon slogan of 1960: “Experience counts.”

But to black voters, Oprah’s endorsement, precisely because it flies in the face of her gender, is especially significant. The message it sends to African-Americans is: It’s time. Her foray into politics to endorse Obama makes it clear that his candidacy has special relevance to all black men and women everywhere. It is not so much that she has reached into politics to back Obama as that the senator’s candidacy has such meaning for any citizen who is black that it reaches into Oprah’s life and demands that she come forth to support it. Her endorsement seems to suggest that just as anti-Catholic bigotry went away when John Kennedy was elected, so racism may fade in the aftermath of an Obama presidency.

Oprah’s backing also helps tilt the balance of power to Obama and away from John Edwards. Two challengers would have much less chance of beating Hillary than one would in a straight-on battle. But Obama and Edwards sound so much alike that it is hard to distinguish for which one to vote. Oprah’s endorsement almost anoints Obama as the challenger.

Finally, we must recognize that this is truly the first Christmas campaign, conducted not only against the harsh backdrop of news coverage but on a stage also festooned with holiday cheer. Now, in addition to the flag as a prop for campaigning, we have reindeer and Santa. Oprah is from the world of Christmas — mystical, cheerful, appealing, even beguiling. She is no policy wonk but is cast well as a black, female St. Nick bringing joy to the world. Her endorsement softens Obama, wraps him up, and makes of him a Christmas present to America.

The Suicide of Reason

By Janet Levy

The Suicide of Reason: Radical Islam's Threat to the West
By Lee Harris


For most in Western societies, the behavior of Muslim fundamentalists is often incomprehensible and, at the same time, terrifying, as illustrated by incidents which make news headlines.

The most recent is that of Gillian Gibbons, a British teacher at a school for children of the Sudanese elite and foreign diplomats. Gibbons was charged by the Sudanese government with inciting religious hatred after honoring a 7-year-old student’s innocent request to eponymously name a classroom teddy bear “Mohammed.” Gibbons was found guilty under Sharia or Islamic law of blasphemy against the prophet Mohammed. She was jailed and informed that she could be punished by 40 lashes and six months in prison. After a “fair” sentence of 15 days was announced by the ruling clerics, frenzied rioters brandished swords and knives across Khartoum, screaming for her death.

In Saudi Arabia, a woman gang raped by seven men was sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in prison for being in a state of “khalwa” or in the presence of unrelated males. Under Sharia law, women can appear in public only with male relatives. The victim’s lawyer had his license to practice law confiscated after he deemed the rapists’ sentence lenient and the victim’s sentence unjust.

In 2005, a 14-year-old Iranian boy died after receiving 85 lashes for eating in public during the Muslim holiday of Ramadan.

Such incidents provoke outrage, shock and bewilderment in the West, which perceives the innocence of these victims and the injustice of their punishments for violating outmoded codes of behavior. But Muslim societies perceive these same actions as unacceptable breaches of and major offenses to a rigidly enforced code of behavior and moral precepts.

This dichotomy between attitudes in Western and Muslim societies is explored in depth in Lee Harris’ recent book, The Suicide of Reason. In it, Harris contrasts the enlightened societies of the West and its “rational actor” with the fanatical societies and “tribal actor” that characterize much of the Muslim world. He examines the phenomenon of the “rule of law” Western culture that is guided by broadminded self-interest and tolerance. In contrast, he explores the “rule of the jungle,” his reference to that faction of Muslim culture that is based on a common narrative of superstition and prejudice with a shame-induced, group ethic that fosters a willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice, suicide.

Harris describes the inherent conflict between Western civilization and its emphasis on reason and individualism and Islamic societies that teach intolerance and nurture fanaticism. Western cultures, imbued with a belief in the inevitability of the drive for individual freedom, view as fanatic, those societies which fail to modernize and adopt changed values. Harris posits that the West is disadvantaged in this way because it reacts to the story of change implicit in the history of the Muslim faith and creation of Islamic nation states. However, tribal societies don’t necessarily embrace modernization and abandon their zealotry, upon which their social order is based. Their fanaticism, which includes glorification of martyrdom, thus becomes a weapon that defeats all Western attempts to deal with tribal societies, including negotiation, conventional warfare and punitive economic measures. So, while Islam seeks to destroy the West’s enlightened way of life with the fanaticism of jihad, the West sabotages itself by non-judgmentally viewing these actions as cultural variations or efforts to procure freedom from an imagined oppression. Harris further contends that the West’s reliance on reason in the face of fanaticism will destroy Western society.

In The Suicide of Reason, Harris explains the evolution of America’s enlightened culture as a natural development originating from the ideal circumstances of pioneer life. He describes how America was settled by stubborn, rugged individualists who fled to the New World to escape religious persecution and freely practice their religion. These early settlers were mostly Protestant dissenters who valued hard work, were determined to hew their own path and refused to take orders from anyone. While the Old World remained a hierarchal society of landowners and serfs with a strong military and government enforcing laws and maintaining the status quo, the North American continent was a wilderness unburdened by history and rife with opportunity. It was geographically separated from Europe and free of threats except for Indians. It couldn’t be conquered, only settled, and every pioneer was in charge of his own destiny. While the Old World admired the life of the idle rich and military strength and subjugation were the keys to wealth and power, in America, a settler with a Protestant ethic cleared his own land or paid someone else to do it. He held in contempt those who subjugated others to do their work. Hard work was honorable and the route to freedom, wealth and the good life. These unique characteristics of the New World – the right to keep the product of your labor, religious freedom and the lack of imposition on others – spawned American liberalism. Thus, America became fertile ground for the creation of a culture of enlightened reason.

In his provocative book, Harris contrasts this path of cultural evolution with an examination of the foundation of pre-modern societies, such as tribal or Islamic cultures ruled by “the law of the jungle.” Thus, hewing to tribal values, Islam is a totalitarian religious and political ideology that protects the ummah, or the Muslim world, from being undermined and preserves mandated tribal behaviors and beliefs. The fanaticism inherent in Islam produces a group allegiance that supersedes all other potential attachments. The tribal code and tribal cohesion takes precedence over anything else and a collective fanaticism fosters cultural protectionism. Harris maintains that it is impossible to appeal to a sense of reason in societies bound by fanaticism because enlightenment directly challenges and threatens their beliefs and very existence.

Another feature of tribal societies is the existence of religious authorities that control the populace and serve as their spokespeople. Fanatical intolerance demands that critics or apostates are shunned and condemned to death. There is no room for self-reflection. The only criticism permissible is that levied at “the other” or the non-believer. Ironically, the very qualities that are shunned and prohibited by cultures of reason are viewed as good and virtuous by fanatical cultures. In Islamic fundamentalist societies, the mullahs endeavor to fan the flames of fanaticism in order to make it more intense and powerful.

The principle of honor is of primary importance in radical Islamic cultures. The honor of the community must be protected at all costs and far exceeds any notion of the individual or of individual rights. Religious leaders, who view the world across a long-term time horizon, operate for the good of the ummah, the propagation of Islam over time and the enforcement of Islamic law.

Tribal success hinges on the inculcation of a uniform system of steadfast shared values and of a sense of shame so deep and visceral that it is impervious to reason and makes death preferable to tribal code violations and the accompanying loss of collective honor. It solidifies a rigidly imposed “us vs. them” mindset in which “the other” is a cursed object of abject enmity. The faithful are indoctrinated and prepared to sacrifice themselves for furthering fanatic tribal goals. Martyrs for the cause are celebrated and elevated to a position of honor.

Tribal cultures thrive on the vacuum that chaos presents. It is a boon to fanaticism and totalitarian control. In a state of chaos, all behaviors become permissible and extreme measures are easy to enforce on desperate populations.

Against such beliefs and behaviors, the enlightened societies of the West are ill equipped to do battle, Harris says. In Western societies, like America, elites serve as critics of the status quo and are often opposed by the populace. They keep any impulses toward fanaticism by the masses in check. Chaos is anathema to reason or order, which must be maintained at all costs. Indeed, the fear of anarchy often leads to appeasement and repudiation of beliefs.

Harris defines America today as a “carpe diem feel good” society in which the happiness of the individual is placed above responsibility to the community, world or future. Rights are cherished above duties, the present valued more than the future, and material acquisitions deemed more important than hard work.

Shaming is used as an effective tool in the enlightened West but with a different twist from that of the Islamic world. People are shamed into thinking the “right” thoughts and ostracized for intolerance and aggressive behavior. This serves to dilute cultural values and life-preserving warrior behavior necessary for survival. In America, people are generally unwilling to make the ultimate sacrifice and will do anything to avoid death and loss of property. The society operates under the notion that all differences can be resolved with negotiation rather than bloodshed. Potential warriors, such as alpha males are feminized, drugged and shamed out of existence. Essentially, mandatory multiculturalism enforces respect for other cultures and disrespect for American culture, Harris argues.

Harris further suggests that America’s Protestant tradition of independent thought and action has been replaced by programmed thought, further weakening our ability to deal with fundamentalist Islamic societies. America’s teachers are “salesmen of a particular ideological brand” and enforce a groupthink mentality of the “correct” opinions. For example, instead of critically evaluating multiple points of view about women in society, students are told that women are oppressed and that they must be purged of their anti-feminist views. Politically correct values and attitudes religiously demand tolerance for different points of view. It is deemed contemptible to view our American culture, our nation or any religion as superior and practically de rigueur to be tolerant of the intolerant and odious, such as Muslim fundamentalists and 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Thus, Western civilization is stripped of the notion that anything precious and worth protecting or fighting for exists.

In summary, the West is suffering from an insidious ideological assault from the outside by fundamentalist Islam that could result in profound societal damage, while at the same time we are, from the inside, undermining our core values and traditions. We are not experiencing a clash of civilizations, but an overt attempt to dismantle the worldwide status quo. The West is vulnerable, because it has failed to recognize that survival hinges on being intolerant to the intolerant and acknowledging the superiority of our way of life and the exceptionalism of America. We will probably be unable to change the Islamists and alter their three-pronged prescription for non-Muslims – death, subjugation or conversion – but we can prevent them from changing us. Through our “enlightened” democracy and lack of cultural protectionism, we are inadvertently aiding their cause. Our ability to fight has been severely weakened by the enlightened principles of tolerance and multiculturalism that we have grown to cherish and by a lack of group cohesiveness and respect for our common values and accomplishments. While we think short-term and teach our children to have contempt for our culture, the Islamists think long-term and teach their children to die for Islam.

According to Harris, our success in fighting the threat of radical Islam will depend on a willingness to defend ourselves against that most potent weapon for survival: fanaticism. Societies that are the most fanatical about their preservation will prevail. America’s best hope is that the struggle for our survival may cause us to awaken and recognize the nobility of our culture as something worth fighting for. We must return to our core traditions and values, take pride in our ethical superiority and exceptionalism and recognize a sacred duty to instill Western ethos in future generations and as widely throughout the world as possible.

Islamic Extremist Convention 2007

Starting December 21st, Rosemont, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago, will play host to two organizations tied to the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), the inspiration for so many of the world’s worst terror groups. The organizations, the Muslim American Society (MAS) and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), have an extremist history of their own. Soon Chicago, December 2007, will become a part of that history, as the Hyatt Regency O’Hare packs in thousands of Muslims that refuse to speak out against those that use their religion as a means to commit violence.

Most people in America are unaware of the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood is not just an overseas group – that it’s here in America, as well. Indeed the group has had a presence in the United States starting in the 1950s. MAS was established in 1992, because MB leaders thought that previously created American MB groups were becoming too assimilated into Western society. ICNA was founded in 1971 as an embodiment of MB Pakistan or Jamaat-e-Islami (JI).

Both MAS and ICNA use the internet to spread violent forms of bigotry. MAS is currently propagating material via the internet calling for the murder of Jews and the waging of war against non-Muslims, while ICNA runs a website, Why Islam (WI), where WI leaders and members target Jews and discuss the merits of Hamas and Hezbollah.

Also, both MAS and ICNA have had individuals involved in their organizations that are serving prison sentences after having been charged with terrorist activity. Randall Todd “Ismail” Royer, the former Communications Director for MAS, was convicted of conspiring with Laskar-e-Taiba (LeT), an Al-Qaeda related group, to attack Americans and Indians overseas. And four members of the ICNA-related ‘Houston Taliban’ were charged with jihad training with firearms for the purpose of joining the Taliban to, as well, attack Americans overseas; so far, three of the four have been found guilty.

Furthermore, ICNA has been involved in terror financing. When the Al-Khidmat Foundation (AKF), a Pakistani “charity” run by JI, gave $99 thousand to the head of Hamas, Khaled Mashaal, in August of 2006, ICNA was the group’s top donor. As well, shortly before and shortly after the attacks of 9/11, the Southeast division of ICNA (ICNA-SE) was soliciting funds for Al-Qaeda related groups via the web.

None of the above has raised any eyebrows in Chicago, as the city will be opening its arms to MAS and ICNA for their 6th Annual Convention, commencing on December 21st and ending December 25th. Included in the gathering, much like all of the groups’ past conventions, will be a large list of the country’s most outspoken Islamic radicals. This year’s event features:

• Jamal Badawi. Badawi was named by the U.S. government as an “Unindicted Co-conspirator” for the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial that began in July, which dealt with millions of dollars in fundraising for Hamas. Badawi has authored a book entitled Gender Equity in Islam, in which he justifies the beating of women by their husbands.
• Jamal Said. Said is the imam of the Mosque Foundation, located in Bridgeview, Illinois, an Islamic center with ties to Hamas. Said served as the Treasurer of the Al Aqsa Educational Fund, an entity identified by the FBI as a Hamas “charitable” front. Said, like Badawi, was also named as an “Unindicted Co-conspirator” for the HLF trial.
• Raed Tayeh. Tayeh is a former Executive Board Member of the Chicago chapter of the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), the now defunct American propaganda wing of Hamas. In November 2001, Tayeh was fired from his job as a Congressional aide to then-U.S. Representative Cynthia McKinney, when a letter of his was published by a newspaper accusing Jewish lawmakers of exhibiting inappropriate loyalty to the State of Israel.
• Zulfiqar Ali Shah. Shah is the former South Asia Director of KindHearts, an Islamic “charity” that was shut down by the U.S. government in February 2006 for raising millions of dollars for Hamas. In a June 2001 article in Islam Online, Shah is quoted as saying, “If we are unable to stop the Jews now, their next stop is Yathrib (The Prophet's city of Medina), where the Jews used to live until their expulsion by Prophet Muhammad (SAW). That’s the pinnacle of their motives.”

While MAS and ICNA are portrayed in the media as “mainstream” and “moderate,” their involvement in extremist activity makes them anything but. They are groups that openly promote violent organizations and propagate hate towards non-Muslims. This is evidenced in the type of speakers they invite to their events; in the way they use the internet to spread radical Islam; and in their members’ direct involvement with terrorist groups. Yet, regardless of this, MAS and ICNA have built up a tremendous following.

When the American public asks why Muslims haven't mobilized against the radicals in their community, one only has to look upon the MAS ICNA convention, where thousands of Muslims in attendance will be turning a blind eye to violence in the name of their religion. The theme they are using for this year's event is “Islam Universal Message & Universal Values.” If the Islam that is portrayed by MAS and ICNA - one that is violent and intolerant of others - truly is the religion's universal message and values, then there can be no place for it in our society or anywhere else.

However, if the religion of MAS, ICNA and the Muslim Brotherhood is a false expression of Islam, then Muslims of good conscious need to come out from hiding, stand up and say so - loud and clear - so that all in their community, radical and otherwise, hear their voices. “Chicago beware!”