Friday, March 6, 2015

Of Giant Schwanstuckers, Monster Whoppers & Biggus Dickus

According to popular legend, or at least Mel Brooks, having a giant schwanstucker can satisfy a woman's deepest desires:

Truth be known, my goal has always been to get a woman to sing that song ever since I saw Young Frankenstein. Sigh . . . .

Now we learn that, in Nigeria at least, they've gone beyond the very well endowed giant schwanstucker size and are breeding men equipped with the dreaded "Monster Whopper."

Not only are these monster whoppers too big for bums, they are also too big for normal delivery, shall we say. So much so that today, a "Nigerian Woman Files For Divorce Because Her Husband's Penis Is 'Too Big.'"

What the hell are they putting in the water in Nigeria? And do they bottle it?

All of this should remind us, as once told by Monty Python, that Biggus Dickus is no joke:

Lastly, a note for the ladies. Sorry to say, but according to Ann Althouse all those old tales about nose size being a reliable indicator . . . no. The only way to find out what's in the package is to unwrap it.

And even if the present you unwrap is, say, a bit underwhelming, ladies, take a lesson from global warming and ice melt:



Understanding The Dangers Of And To The House Of Saud

We have Islamic terrorism in the world today largely because of Wahhabi Islam out of Saudi Arabia and those other sects of Islam infected by Wahhabi Islam, including Khomeini's bastardized variant of Shia twelver Islam. But Wahhabi Islam, and now its variants, are as much a threat to the Saudi regime as they are to the rest of the world.

The Sauds were a warrior clan in 18th century Arabia. They made common cause with the Islamic spiritual leader Wahhab, that the Sauds would conquer under the moral authority of Wahhabism in return for Wahhabist support for their regime. The entire legitimacy of the Saudi monarchy rests on their appeasing and promoting of Wahhabism.

The Saudi wars of conquest were to go on for the next two centuries until, in 1932, Ibn Saud was able to claim much of the Arabian Peninsula as his own. Having finally achieved total control of an area with vast oil wealth, money and power soon corrupted much of the Saudi Royal family. The most notorious example of this corruption involved Crown Prince, later King, Fahd. As described by a BBC article in 2005:

For some, the most memorable image of Fahd bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud is as a young prince, emerging from a casino on the French Riviera in the early hours of the morning, an actress on each arm.

People remember him wearing an expensively cut Western suit and gazing out confidently, not in the least troubled by the wholly un-Islamic combination of drink, women and gambling.

This was not, of course, an aspect of the King's past which could be openly discussed in the Saudi media. But everyone knew the rumours.

There were stories of all night sessions at seedy clubs in Beirut, of affairs with belly dancers, and of the wife of a Lebanese businessman paid $100,000 a year to make herself available.

Then in 1969, Fahd was said to have lost $1,000,000 in a single dusk-to-dawn marathon of Scotch-fuelled gambling at the tables of a Monte Carlo nightclub.

Needless to say, many of the true believers in Wahhabism came to see the Saud clan, quite rightfully, as deeply corrupt. As to damage control in the wake of Crown Prince Fahd's actions, the Sauds didn't change their ways so much as become obsessive in controlling public exposure and scrutiny. Second, the Sauds attempted to reclaim their religious legitimacy by significantly enhancing support for the Wahhabi religion. This was when the Sauds started exporting Wahhabism around the world on an industrial scale and which continues to this day.

Unfortunately for the very wealthy Saud clan members, the vast majority of whom would much prefer reclining in the arms of a Western consort with a fine scotch to sitting in a Mosque, their lifestyle -- as well as their very pragmatic ties to the U.S. for self defense -- have made the Saudi clan the target for many of the Wahhabists outside of their control. As the David Ignatius wrote not long ago in the Washington Post, "Sunni and Shiite extremists, otherwise deadly adversaries, share a common dream of toppling the House of Saud."

So there you have it. The world's most vicious cycle, for the Sauds and the world. The Saudi clan must fully fund and support the Wahhabists to maintain their legitimacy. The Wahhabists they create want to destroy the Saudi clan because it is corrupt. The Saud's have every reason to help us, but they can't turn off the spigot that is the well spring of all Islamic terrorism today without destroying their regime. And if they do that, no Scotch, no prostitutes, only mosques. No, they'll ride this camel until it dies -- hoping against hope that we in the West can save them from their own Wahhabist terrorists. And the utter insanity of it all is that, even with all of that, it really is in our interests to cooperate with the Saudis.

Special thanks to the ever brilliant Andrea of Bookworm Room for inspiring and contributing to this post.


Thursday, March 5, 2015

Humans & The Great Canine Alliance

The great alliance of the mammal kingdom has been that between man and canine. It stretches back tens of thousands of years, when man and some wolves first made common cause for, presumably, food, security and companionship. And it has continued down through today with dogs, all of whom, despite their many shapes and differences, are genetically identical -- to less than 1% of their DNA -- to their ancient wolf ancestors.

Calling a dog "man's best friend" apparently doesn't do them justice. If current research is correct, they should be known as Homo Sapien's best friend. They are the reason we're around today to blog and bloviate, while all of the other human variants died off or were absorbed. This from the Guardian:

Dogs are humanity’s oldest friends, renowned for their loyalty and abilities to guard, hunt and chase. But modern humans may owe even more to them than we previously realised. We may have to thank them for helping us eradicate our caveman rivals, the Neanderthals.

According to a leading US anthropologist, early dogs, bred from wolves, played a critical role in the modern human’s takeover of Europe 40,000 years ago when we vanquished the Neanderthal locals.

“At that time, modern humans, Neanderthals and wolves were all top predators and competed to kill mammoths and other huge herbivores,” says Professor Pat Shipman, of Pennsylvania State University. “But then we formed an alliance with the wolf and that would have been the end for the Neanderthal.”

If Shipman is right, she will have solved one of evolution’s most intriguing mysteries. Modern humans are known to have evolved in Africa. They began to emigrate around 70,000 years ago, reaching Europe 25,000 years later. The continent was then dominated by our evolutionary cousins, the Neanderthals, who had lived there for more than 200,000 years. However, within a few thousand years of our arrival, they disappeared.

The question is: what finished them off? . . . Most argue that modern humans – armed with superior skills and weapons – were responsible. Shipman agrees with the latter scenario, but adds a twist. We had an accomplice: the wolf.

Modern humans formed an alliance with wolves soon after we entered Europe, argues Shipman. We tamed some and the dogs we bred from them were then used to chase prey and to drive off rival carnivores, including lions and leopards, that tried to steal the meat.

“Early wolf-dogs would have tracked and harassed animals like elk and bison and would have hounded them until they tired,” said Shipman. “Then humans would have killed them with spears or bows and arrows.

“This meant the dogs did not need to approach these large cornered animals to finish them off – often the most dangerous part of a hunt – while humans didn’t have to expend energy in tracking and wearing down prey. Dogs would have done that. Then we shared the meat. It was a win-win situation.” . . .

By contrast, there is no evidence of any kind that Neanderthals had any relationship with dogs and instead they appear to have continued to hunt mammoths and elks on their own, a punishing method for acquiring food. Already stressed by the arrival of modern humans in Europe, our alliance with wolves would have been the final straw for Neanderthals.

Nor does the story stop in Europe, added Shipman. “I would see this as the beginning of the humans’ long invasion of the world. We took dogs with us wherever we went after our alliance formed in the palaeolithic. We took them to America and to the Pacific Islands. They made hunting easy and helped guard our food. It has been a very powerful alliance.”

So, hug your hounds today and don't get too upset with them for hogging the sofa. They've earned a few rewards . . .

Oh . . . . whose a good boy? Whose a good boy?


Wednesday, March 4, 2015

Self Emasculation . . .

Via Gerard Van Der Luen at the great American Digest Blog, comes the story of Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, an Indian spiritualist who has managed to convince some four hundred men to castrate themselves.

Rumor has it that, following the vote on funding for the President's immigration bill, his mission accomplished, Mr. Singh will soon be leaving his current job as a motivational speaker for Congressional Republicans.


Republicans, Immigration, The Constitution, & Is It Time For A Third Party Yet?

President Obama, with his Immigration plans, has brought us to the point of a Constitutional crisis. He is unilaterally making new law with his plan to give millions of illegal aliens social security numbers, and work permits, and apparently, retroactively available Earned Income Tax credits. (It's hard to buy loyalty without taxpayer cash, of course). Regardless of the policy, whether one thinks it right or wrong, it is the President's unilateral act that must be the focus.

The Presidents immigration plan is not "executive discretion," its legislation that, per Art. 1 Sec. of our Constitution, only Congress has the authority to authorize. It is a textbook act of tyranny of the kind over which we fought a Revolution. If this is allowed to stand, it will be the single most corrosive act taken in oppression of our "liberties" since our founding. And as a practical matter, it is an act that threatens long term repercussions for our economy and politics.

Fortunately for this nation, we just elected the largest Republican House majority in a century and gave Republicans a comfortable majority in the Senate. Surely, they will act decisively to check this act of tyranny. They have full control of the public purse. And yet . . . within the past few days, the House and Senate have passed bills fully funding Obama's immigration orders. The roll call for the House vote is here. It was House Speaker Boehner's choice to bring a clean bill to a vote, and the vote succeeded 257 to 167, with 75 Republicans voting for approval.

This has been a supreme act of treachery and cowardice by the Republican leadership and by all who supported these votes.

The Republican Party can no longer be relied upon to protect the Constitution or the interests of this nation. We must now rely on the Courts to correct this obscenity, but given the partisan and compliant nature of our Courts, that is a forlorn hope indeed.

It is time to support a third party. It is the last remaining peaceful alternative.


Tuesday, March 3, 2015

Israeli PM Netanyahu Addresses Congress On Obama's Plan That Would Allow Iran's March To A Nuclear Arsenal

This was without doubt the most important speech PM Netanyahu has ever given and likely will ever give on a matter of our national security. Netanyahu's purpose was to educate Americans about the danger of Iran and to explain why Iran cannot be allowed to continue its efforts to build a nuclear arsenal. The threat Iran poses is not just to Israel, but to our country as well.

Did PM Netanyahu succeed? Time will tell. Unfortunately, many Democrat Congressmen and women boycotted the speech, making this issue of national defense a partisan political issue. And equally unfortunately, the major networks boycotted the speech, refusing to carry it. If the speech is to have its effect, it will have to break through a Democrat wall of silence.

PM Netanyahu gave a good summary of the Iranian theocracy's incredible record of bloodshed, aggression, conquest and terror. Not since its inception in 1979 has the theocracy moderated its actions, nor changed its targeting of Israel, Jews and Americans. And indeed, even as Iran develops its nuclear arsenal, it also is developing Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM). The only purpose of ICBM's is to reach out and touch countries at great distance, including the U.S., with nuclear weapons.

When Obama ran for President in 2008, he stated that under no circumstances would he allow Iran to achieve nuclear weapons. Iran had to stop enriching uranium. And yet now, President Obama is negotiating a deal that would leave Iran with its nuclear program intact and, as it is currently constituted, a nuclear arsenal inevitable. It's insane. In trying to justify this plan, Susan Rice claimed that its impossible to stop Iran's nuclear enrichment. That is just ridiculous.

If Iran truly needs nuclear power for peaceful purpose -- which, given their oil and gas supplies, they do not -- then there are certainly reactor types that can provide it without also providing the enriched uranium and plutonium used for nuclear weapons. But what Iran has, between its reactors and heavy water plant, is a factory for producing nuclear bombs.

We were well on the way to breaking the Iranian economy with international sanctions when Iran held out the possibility of a deal to Obama and he bit like a trout on a worm. He dispensed with much of the international sanctions regime as he had dreams of doing a deal with the mad mullahs. The outlines of that deal are now clear. Iran get's to continue its march to a nuclear weapon while Obama claims some sort of hollow diplomatic victory. For the sake of our national security, Obama must never be allowed to complete this deal.

Let's hope that the Prime Minister's speech has its desired effect. The lives of our children and their children depend on it.


The Genius Of Obama In Uniting Israel & The Sunni Arab States

Try for a moment to imagine any scenario where a U.S. President has united Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt in mutual accord? Try to imagine a scenario where Saudi Arabian newspaper columnists are penning their full throated support and hope for the success of Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu? That is the stuff of which Nobel Peace Prize's are made. And Obama has accomplished it.

This is the concluding paragraph of an article penned by Dr. Ahmad Al-Faraj yesterday, appearing in the Saudi daily Al-Jazirah:

Since Obama is the godfather of the prefabricated revolutions in the Arab world, and since he is the ally of political Islam, [which is] the caring mother of [all] the terrorist organizations, and since he is working to sign an agreement with Iran that will come at the expense of the U.S.'s longtime allies in the Gulf, I am very glad of Netanyahu's firm stance and [his decision] to speak against the nuclear agreement at the American Congress despite the Obama administration's anger and fury. I believe that Netanyahu's conduct will serve our interests, the people of the Gulf, much more than the foolish behavior of one of the worst American presidents. Do you agree with me?

Obama, with his insane policy of trying to deal with the mad mullahs and bless off on their nuclear program has managed to do the impossible. If they give out Nobel Peace Prize's for wholly unintended consequences, Obama should be a shoe-in. And extra points to the Saudi columnist for recognizing Obama's place in the pantheon of U.S. Presidents.


Stonewalling & A Government Unafraid

In 2012, Landmark Legal Foundation submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to EPA. By law, EPA was required to timely respond. They didn't, and indeed, they seem to have purposely clouded their actions so that, even at this date, it is not clear whether the EPA ever fully responded to the request and whether they destroyed evidence. The Landmark Legal Foundation brought suit against EPA for these failures, and in a depressingly useless 25 page opinion issued yesterday, Judge Royce Lamberth castigated the EPA, found misconduct, yet held no one, including the EPA itself, liable. There are no criminal or professional referrals. Indeed, the Judge even bemoaned the fact that the EPA would very likely continue its pattern of misconduct despite the findings in the case.

This is par for the course in our country today. No one is held liable. There are no consequences for those in government.

- The travesty of the IRS investigation has been going on for two years now. The IRS may well have tipped the balance in the 2012 election. We now know that people have been lying about the availability of documentary evidence, and yet no one is being held accountable.

- In Benghazi, the government refused for years to provide relevant information. They claimed to have conducted an internal investigation -- a whitewash that deliberately excluded the upper echelons of the State Dept. -- and reassigned a few people.

- After years of stonewalling on the Fast and Furious documents, the Obama administration claimed executive privilege, turning discovery into a snails pace.

- We have Obamacare today because the DOJ prosecuted Sen Ted Stevens of Alaska under false pretenses. Stevens lost his re-election bid but the DOJ attorneys, whose "egregious" acts included hiding evidence from the defense. To date, those in charge of the prosecution in the upper levels of the DOJ have not been held liable.

- In 2007 we suffered the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. While it's causes were firmly rooted in government, at least some aspects of our economic system were criminally corrupted, in particular the bond rating companies that gave AAA status to subprime loans. Yet not a single individual has been held liable for any of that, and with Dodd Frank, many of the practices that led to our economic crisis are being repeated.

As Hillary famously asked about Benghazi, "what difference does it make?"

Well, to answer, it's the difference between liberty and tyranny. It is the difference between repeating catastrophic errors and or correcting for them. But, because the DOJ and the MSM are, today, largely arms of the Democrat Party, and because Congress is largely supine, none of this will be addressed. It will not change. Judge Lamberth can shake his fist at the EPA all he wants. Until there are heads on pikes, it is useless. And until then, our government will become ever more corrupt.

Update: The NYT has broken a story apparently leaked from the Benghazi Select Committee being chaired by Congressman Trey Gowdy. One of the mysteries surrounding the Benghazi intestigations has been why so little correspondence was produced from then Sec. of State Hillary Clinton. Today we learn, because Hillary, in a clear violation of protocol and almost certainly the law, routed all her correspondence while Sec. of State through a personal e-mail account, one that she set up on the day of her confirmation hearings for Sec. of State. I really want to hear her under oath asking "What difference does it make?" The likelihood that she'll be held to account for this . . . I won't recommend holding your breath.


Monday, March 2, 2015

Wolf Bites

Semper speed dial: If You Want Something Done, Ask A Marine

More Mysterious Than The Setting Of The Sun: CNN’S ‘Religion Expert’ Has Absolutely No Idea Why ISIS Is Targeting Christians

Given The Track Record Of The Blue Urban Governing Model, Who Could Have Seen This Coming: Chicago Nears Fiscal Freefall

Measured Against What Moral Code?: Can Atheists Be Moral Too

I Called This In 2008: Dodd-Frank institutionalized bailouts and bad banking practices

A Timely Public Service Announcement: Don't Drink

When Cops Go Bad: Video Exonerates Man Set Up By Louisiana Police

Stand At Attention & Salute: National Commando Day


Sunday, March 1, 2015

Netenyahu To Speak As Obama and The Mad Mullahs Slouch Towards Bethleham

Barack Obama intends the centerpiece of his foreign policy legacy to be a de facto alliance with Iran–a stroke so brilliant that only he could think of it. The U.S. will set Iran up as the dominant regional power in the Middle East, in part by allowing it to develop the nuclear capability for which its rulers have long yearned, and in exchange, Iran will keep the peace and subdue troublesome upstarts like ISIS. To someone who grew up thinking that the call to prayer from a minaret is one of the most beautiful sounds on Earth, this might make some kind of sense. To those of us forced to live in the real world, it is bonkers.

John Hinderaker, Powerline, The Mullahs: Still Crazy After All These Years

The left has continuously and catastophicly misjudged Iran's theocracy since 1979, when Jimmy Carter made Iran's theorcratic revolution possible. Carter wholly misunderstood the ideology and threat of Ayatollah Khomeini, allowing him back into Iran to take over the revolution under the belief that Khomeini was rational and could be swayed by American economic benefits. We are still paying for Carter's catastophic naivety today, as Iran remains the single most destabilizing influence, not just in the Middle East, but the world. You can read the roll-up of Iran's actions here. Since I wrote that in 2008, little has changed other than Iran's machinations are starting to pay off. The theocracy is playing an ever-more dominant role in Iraq, and the Shia rebels they were backing in Yemen have forced that country's leadership to flee. The rebels now control the capital.

Now things portend to get much worse. Obama too misjudges Iran, seeing them as a ratonal actor that can be a "partner for peace" in the Middle East and that can be entrusted with nuclear weapons. To call Obama's plans "bonkers," as John Hinderaker does in the quote at the top of this post, is to understate the existential danger of Obama's plan by an infinite order of magnitude. While Israel of course sees this Obama madness as the greatest of dangers, it is certainly not just Israel in the Iranian sites. If anyone in this country does not see the same existential danger to America and Western civilization as a whole, they are suicidally delusional. Yet if nothing is done to derail this insanity, the Obama deal, a deal of Chamberlainesque proportions, will be done.

Enter PM Bibi Netanyahu, who will speak to Congress this week. Obama is pulling out all the stops to delegitimize Netanyahu and his speech, for it really is only the Israeli PM and his ability to sway American public opinion that can stop Obama's suicidal march. As Caroline Glick writes:

Netanyahu is not coming to Washington next Tuesday to warn Congress against Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, because he seeks a fight with Obama. Netanyahu has devoted the last six years to avoiding a fight with Obama, often at great cost to Israel’s national security and to his own political position.

Netanyahu is coming to Washington next week because Obama has left him no choice. And all decent people of good will should support him, and those who do not, and those who are silent, should be called out for their treachery and cowardice.

Treachery and cowardice indeed. Unfortunately, such people rarely pay the price their acts so justly deserve. As it is, Obama and the entire left, whose hands are bloodied from throwing away our victory in Iraq for the benefit of their domestic political narrative, will pay no price except perhaps in the history books, assuming our nation survives to write them.

I'll shift gears here and close this post with the single most prophetic and troubling poem ever written. It's by William Butler Yeats, who penned it in 1921, in the wake of the horrific destruction wrought in World War I. And when one thinks of the world today, it is far too easy to think that it could have been penned to describe our reality.

The Second Coming
by William Butler Yeats

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Update: This from the sidebar and headline on Drudge at the moment:

Netanyahu takes off on 'historic' US mission...
Tickets in High Demand Despite Dems' Boycott...
White House Offers Rebuttal Before Speech...
Collision Course 6 Years in Making...
KRISTOL: Vindication for Zionism...
Kerry asks for benefit of doubt on Iran...
Palestinian activist: Boycott of Israeli products begins...



Egypt Designates Hamas A Terrorist Organization

A tiny bit of good news for the forces of civilization. An Egyptian Court has declared Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood offshoot currently in control of the Gaza strip, a "terrorist organization." This from al-Jazeera:

A judicial source told AFP news agency that the court issued the verdict on Saturday, a ruling seen as keeping with a systematic crackdown on Islamist groups by President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. . . .

Egyptian authorities have accused Hamas of aiding armed groups, who have waged a string of deadly attacks on security forces in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula.

In January, an Egyptian court also declared Hamas' armed wing al-Qassam Brigades a "terrorist" group. . . .

Armed groups in Sinai have killed scores of policemen and soldiers since Morsi's overthrow, vowing revenge for a crackdown on his supporters that has left more than 1,400 people dead. Most of the attacks however have been claimed by the armed group Ansar Beit al-Maqdis, which has pledged its allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

There has been no word yet on whether Egypt acknowledges Hamas to be associated with Islam (sarcasm).

The Obama administration has been at odds with Egypt's current administration under President al Sisi since it came to power in a coup in 2013, overthrowing a Muslim Brotherhood administration and Obama ally that was intent on making Egypt into a permanent theocracy. In striking comparison to Obama, President al Sisi is the only politician on a national stage who has had the courage to openly charge that Islamic teachings motivate and cause terrorism. He did so at the same time he challenged the supreme religious council in Egypt to address and correct these teachings.


Saturday, February 28, 2015

Wolf Bites

Standing Athwart (AP) History: College Board AP U.S. History Standards Would Teach US History Through The Lens Of the Oppressed versus the Oppressor

Obama, Reid & Pelosi Makes Four: Bush Defends His Support For Immigration & Common Core

Go Green, Rev Your SUV: Carbon Dioxide Greening The Planet

The Left's Continued Drive To Do Away With The Judeo-Christian Religion: South Carolina college scrutinized for 'biblical' stance on homosexuality

Ummm, No, Don't Think So: Megan McCardle Thinks It's Time To Give Jonathan Gruber A Break

That Was Fast: A Brief History Of The Speed of Light

Pondering The Unponderable: The Mechanics Of An 800kt Nuclear Explosion Over Manhattan

Doesn't She Look Good In Her DNA?: Constructing A Face From A DNA Sample


Straying Off The Left's Plantation On Islamic Terrorism

Tulsi Gabbard is a thirty-three year old combat veteran and a Democrat Representative for Hawaii. She is also in the midst of learning a harsh lesson in Democrat politics. One does not stray off the Democrat's plantation.

Rep. Gabbard's sin is to be harshly critical of President Obama's refusal to admit that the atrocities being committed around the world by soldiers of Allah for the glory of Islam are in any way associated with Islam. Ms. Gabbard, calling the President's refusal to make the association "mind boggling," has opined:

Every soldier knows this simple fact: If you don't know your enemy, you will not be able to defeat him. . . Our leaders must clearly identify the enemy as Islamist extremists, understand the ideology that is motivating them and attracting new recruits, and focus on defeating that enemy both militarily and ideologically.

She could not be more correct. She is sounding a theme made on this blog for a decade now. And yet, for making that point repeatedly in the wake of the most recent ISIS atrocities and the like, Rep. Gabbard is now suffering the consequences of speaking against the party line:

Her comments have stunned political experts in her home state.

“It is very, very unusual for a junior member in the president's own party to criticize him,” said Colin Moore, assistant professor at the University of Hawaii Department of Political Science. “Especially for someone considered a rising star in the party. This is a serious gamble for her.”

Michael W. Perry, of Hawaii's most popular KSSK Radio's "Perry & Price Show," said that "while Gabbard is correct in her 'emperor has no clothes' moment, she may have lost her future seat on Hawaii's political bench." He said she's committed "a mortal sin" by challenging Obama, and "now the knives are out."

For now, she's taking her hits in the media.

The editorial board of the online political news journal Civil Beat, owned by eBay Founder Pierre Omiydar, said "the bright-red Right" is promoting her criticism but she is not "presenting serious policy arguments."

"One wonders where Gabbard is going with this. Sure, the Iraq war veteran and rising political star is achieving national prominence in a high-profile discussion. But at what cost?" the editorial board wrote, saying her comments could be dismissed "as pandering from a young pol with lofty ambitions."

Bob Jones, columnist for the Oahu-based Midweek, wrote a scathing piece suggesting Gabbard should be challenged in 2016. "I take serious issue when somebody who's done a little non-fighting time in Iraq, and is not a Middle East or Islamic scholar, claims to know better than our President and Secretary of State how to fathom the motivations of terrorists, or how to refer to them beyond the term that best describes them -- terrorists," Jones said.

Right, because the Obama foreign policy as regards Islam and the Middle East has been such a ringing success that it shoudl be beyond debate. What an idiot Mr. Jones is.

As to Ms. Gabbard, a free range intellectually honest democrat is so rare to spot in the wild, really. Haven't seen any since the days of Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Zell Miller. Well, maybe Manchin. Jury is still out on him. But one that looks good on a beach in Hawaii . . . that's unique.