In Islam, polygamy is practiced according to the Koran for the purpose of breeding as many warrior killers as possible.  And breeding warrior killers is just what Osama bin Laden did with the wives who were gifted to him. The women were on call at all times to gratify his sexual desires and produce male heirs, taught from early childhood to commit murder in the service of jihad.

Najwa Ghanem, first cousin and wife of bin Laden, married him when she was only 15 and he 17.  Najwa gave birth to 11 of bin Laden’s children, one of whom is the fourth son, Omar bin Laden.  Najwa says her “tyrant” husband forced her to have as many children as possible to create “Islamic warriors.”  The children were raised and trained–against Najwa’s will–to be suicide bombers. The training included teaching his children to murder their pets as preparation for what they would do to human beings.

Despite the child abuse and tyrannical marriage, Najwa says she never complained:

I reminded myself that my husband knew much more about the big world than any of us.  We were all pearls to my husband, and he wanted to protect us.

The anti-woman beliefs and values of Islamic religion and culture have made these so-called “pearls” into fool’s gold. Muslim women may consider themselves “pearls,” but Najwa says, “few women dance with joy when they contemplate sharing their husband with other women.”

Despite Najwa’s complaints about her “tyrant” husband and polygamist marriage, both of whom she fled after 9/11,  she says she remained married to bin Laden, living in an undisclosed location but not in contact with her husband.

Not all Muslim wives come to reject the polygamist life and jihadist child rearing as Najwa bin Laden did.  Many girls embrace jihad because, like boys, they are also bred for terror. One such woman is bin Laden’s fifth wife.

The youngest wife of bin Laden, 29 year-old Amal Ahmed Abdul Fatah, who was with him when he was killed, was gifted to bin Laden by her Yemeni family when she was only 18.  Bin Laden demanded the girl “be of high moral value,” (these wives must be virgins or they’re useless), and she, like all bin Laden wives, “would be called to do almost anything bin Laden wanted.”

That included murder.

What’s the newest trend in feminism today?  SlutWalks are all the rage, where women dress like sluts and proudly embrace their sluthood. This will apparently have the double effect of fighting back against blaming the victim for being raped, as well as being empowering for women — because being a slut in modern feminism is supposedly empowering. Of course, all that these SlutWalks are really doing is proving that the death knell for femisogynists is continuing to ring.

Pseudo-feminists advocating for sluthood is nothing new. Instead of being looked down upon, sleeping around is considered to be embracing sexuality. It’s healthy, empowering, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a misogynistic anti-feminist prude (and probably a right-winger to boot!) So the comment made by a Toronto policeman that “women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized” naturally meant that femisogynists should revel in sluthood! And while the Toronto cop’s comment may have been what kicked the event off, fighting back against victim-blaming is nowhere near the only goal of these SlutWalks. Unsurprisingly, organizers want women to be proud of their sexuality and to reclaim the word slut.

Historically, the term ‘slut’ has carried a predominantly negative connotation. Aimed at those who are sexually promiscuous, be it for work or pleasure, it has primarily been women who have suffered under the burden of this label. And whether dished out as a serious indictment of one’s character or merely as a flippant insult, the intent behind the word is always to wound, so we’re taking it back. “Slut” is being re-appropriated.

We are tired of being oppressed by slut-shaming; of being judged by our sexuality and feeling unsafe as a result.

Ah, yes, the ever-present threat of slut-shaming. Why can’t more people be supportive of sleeping around with a different random guy every night? Clearly, if more people were supportive of being a slut, there would be less rape. Or something.

So far, there have been SlutWalks in Toronto, Dallas, London, Ottawa, and Boston. There are many, many more planned, all around the world, in cities like Montreal, Orlando, Tucson, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Philadelphia. This is all to the liking of many noted femisogynist leaders. Jaclyn Friedman appeared at the Boston SlutWalk as a featured speaker. Feministing has multiple posts glowing with approval of the SlutWalk. Jill Filipovic said she was with the walkers in spirit. And Amanda Marcotte offers up the most common defense of the SlutWalks: it’s, like, supposed to be funny, you humorless prudes:

I’ve been broadly supportive of this, because it brings together two of my favorite things in the world, feminism and humor.

… Of course, since Slutwalk is built around humor, it baffles the humorless. And so defenders of Slutwalk have entered into this maddening space that is the equivalent of trying to explain a joke to the humorless, and if you’ve ever tried to do that, believe me, it may be the biggest waste of time on the planet.

Oh, I get it! Debasement of women as humor! Hilarious! And it’s progress, too. It’s just what the original feminist leaders envisioned when they were fighting for equality: the right for women to be called sluts and be proud.

I am always skeptical whenever anyone uses phrases like “big oil” or “big business” which are just code words for “evil capitalists.” Notice, those phrases never get used when talking about teachers unions (which actually give more money to lobbyists and political campaigns than “big oil”). The newest talking point to run around Washington D.C. and the cable networks has to do with “oil subsidies.” Rachel Maddow sternly rebuked the evil oil executives claiming they need to give up these lucrative subsidies and a cacophony of similar demands is rising from the Left and the Right.

At first this seemed comical because leftists seem to have finally found a subsidy they don’t like, something no one thought was possible. After all, these are the same people who think it’s A-OK to give fifty thousand dollars to every black person claiming to be a farmer because they grew Chia Pets on their windowsills. After further investigation, it turns out that the “subsidies” in question are really just tax incentives. So it makes perfect sense why Maddow and the Left are intent on demonizing the oil executives and confiscating their “subsidies.”

Maddow is maddeningly obsessed with incorrectly labeling tax cuts or incentives as “spending.” What any third grader could understand that Maddow cannot is that letting people keep more of the money they made cannot possibly be compared to spending other people’s money in the way the government spends tax dollars. It’s like comparing apples to socket wrenches.

Instead of running around claiming to want to end “oil subsidies,” why don’t they just say what they really mean? The Left (and some on the Right) want to impose unfair and oppressive taxes on the oil companies…and only the oil companies. The tax incentives in question are no different than tax incentives other corporations receive. Eliminating them for oil companies alone is the very definition of an unfair tax and while I’m no lawyer, I think there are rules about that in the Constitution (a document the Left clearly hates).

Tricking the American public into believing the oil companies are taking food off their tables by dipping into the U.S.Treasury is unconscionable and while we expect as much from Maddow and her ilk, Paul Ryan ought to be ashamed of himself for repeating this damaging lie.

If you want to talk about yanking actual outrageous subsidies away from companies, what about nixing the hand-outs to car companies to produce electric cars no one wants to buy? What about stopping the bribery of people who don’t want to buy them with thousands of dollars in order to change their minds? What about pulling the tax dollars being sent to Brazil so they can drill for their oil, which won’t benefit Americans at all? If the politicians in Washington are going to get their panties in a twist over subsidies, they should go after the multitudinous subsidies that actually affect taxpayers and are going to prop up technology or products people don’t want.

At least we know our oil and gas companies produce a much needed and much appreciated product. Despite their best attempts to demonize the oil companies, the Left has failed to make people unwilling to buy gas. What we need now is some commonsense drilling to bring prices down.

I would like Maddow to explain exactly how taxing oil companies and increasing their cost of doing business is going to bring down the price of gas. Short answer: it isn’t.

Last night I watched an incredibly moving documentary about the early civil rights movement in America in 1961. The film is based on Raymond Arsenault’s book about the many hundreds of young volunteers who faced savage beatings and possible death as they rode buses in an attempt to end Jim Crow racial segregation laws and practices. Directly by Stanley Nelson, the film shows us the extraordinary dignity and determination of the “freedom riders” whose courage inspired and guided even the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

These young people were mainly African-Americans, but they were also white, and both male and female. They dressed conservatively and were trained not to fight back—not even when they were being beaten by racist mobs wielding baseball bats, lead pipes, sharp instruments, deadly fists, and hearts filled with hate. Buses were surrounded by mobs of 200 men. One bus was blown up. Bus drivers refused to drive the buses. Southern governors and police officers refused to protect the “freedom riders” or to stop the would-be lynch mobs. Ku Klux Klan members in full regalia literally marched over their bleeding faces. Journalists and photographers were attacked. The “freedom riders” were arrested.

Finally, President John F. Kennedy and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy had to send in federal marshals. They also requested that the Interstate Commerce Commission end the “white only” and “colored only” facilities for interstate travelers.

I felt absolutely connected to this struggle. I felt indebted to these valiant Americans. I am sure others of my generation felt likewise. As I watched the non-violent riders—their transcendent purity, dignity, courage—I realized that many leftists of my generation have now assumed that Arabs, Muslim jihadists, and “Palestinians” are somehow the same as these brave, young Americans.

They are not. Arabs are not using non-violent tactics to achieve their reactionary goals. They are violent in every way. Their goals are not to obtain rights for their people but rather to return them to the 7^th century and to destroy both the Jewish and Christian presence in Muslim-majority countries.

I don’t know how to convey this insight to my generation of leftists. They do not read conservative websites. They view me as a “traitor” for having abandoned them by evolving to a deeper and greater understanding of reality. If you know any leftists, please ask them to read this piece.

The size of her breasts, the shape of her backside, and of course, her name. These are some of the details Le Monde, the French “journal de référence,” and its subsidiary Le Post published about the woman who says IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn groped her genitals and forced her to perform oral sex on him in a room at the Sofitel near Times Square.

France-Soir described the cut of her hotel maid uniform and how good she looks for a woman in her thirties, while France’s RMC radio reported that Strauss-Kahn’s attorneys were surprised by how “unattractive” she is.

And a bevy of friends and supporters rallied to the defense of Strauss-Kahn, a leading figure in the French Socialist Party, hoping to discredit his accuser lest she derail their plans for him to oust Sarkozy in the 2012 presidential elections.

A photo of the alleged victim is all over Twitter, and a Facebook profile in her supposed name was deleted shortly after links to it began to appear on blogs and social media sites. It’s unclear whether the Facebook profile was hers or a hoax account set up to smear her name. Today, another name and photo are circulating in the French media. It doesn’t matter if they get it right–the effect is the same. Just as they did to the accusers in the Julian Assange rape case, the “pro-woman” Left has launched a vicious campaign to terrorize and shame this woman into silence.

The despicable Bernard-Henri Lévy, author of the “Free Roman Polanski” petition, called Strauss-Kahn “a friend to women” who “bears no resemblance to this monster, this caveman, this insatiable and malevolent beast.” Henri-Levy tapped into his own inner monster by assailing the accuser on his blog and at the Daily Beast:

I do not know—but, on the other hand, it would be nice to know, and without delay—how a chambermaid could have walked in alone, contrary to the habitual practice of most of New York’s grand hotels of sending a “cleaning brigade” of two people, into the room of one of the most closely watched figures on the planet.

“Bernard-Henri is scandalized that a mere chambermaid can get a ‘great’ man like Strauss-Kahn in trouble with the law merely by credibly accusing him of sexual assault,” writes Jonah Goldberg. Decades of carefully constructed class narratives are tossed out the window in the service of the Left’s political goals. The downtrodden worker is exalted only so long as it’s convenient, only so long as she remembers her place in the power structure.

Commenters at the American “feminist” blog Jezebel smell a “honey trap.”

Why would someone throw away a decades long career and reputation for something they had no chance of getting away with.

Well, if the Sarko campaign offered the maid $100k, she might lie about it at the station and then disappear to live someplace else.

This almost NEVER happens. You almost NEVER hear tales of high level politicians sexually assaulting and raping random women like maids, waitresses .

An accusation does not a conviction make, and I’d argue it’s important to see every angle before making some snap judgment about anyone here. Especially when political powers are involved. There’s nothing wrong with saying, “This smells fishy.” Especially when, well, it does.

Meanwhile, French politicos are in full damage control mode:

“In the process of fighting for freedom, I lost my own freedom,” Dutch politician Geert Wilders explained.

Our weekly Canadian program, “On the Front Line,” was one of the media outlets carefully selected to interview Wilders during his first visit to Canada last week. For several years, public and private discourse has centered around the sensationalism of Wilders’ epic battle against the Islamization of the West. But this interview (still to be aired) revealed some of Wilders’ less publicized views on moderate Islam and the personal cost of his quest.

Wilders, who remains under explicit death threats from Muslims, is dismissed by leftists as a scary, anti-Muslim radical.  While one may disagree with his views and methodologies, his struggle against radicalism is nothing short of a Western obligation. The principal point of contention on Wilder’s approach is that he does not readily make a distinction between moderate and radical Islam.   He referred to the famous Belgian Professor of Islamic Studies—Urbain Vermeulen—describing Islam as 95 percent ideology and 5 percent religion.  Islam, like communism and fascism, is totalitarian and seeks to rule every aspect of individual and state life.

Wilders pointed out that “there are almost more mosques than windmills in Holland today.”  His answer is to stop building new mosques and madrassas that teach violence and hate, and to stop immigration from Muslim countries to stem the Islamization of the West. He does not advocate deporting Muslims, except those that have crossed the “red line” which refers to any Muslim acting according to Shariah and against our values (for example, practicing FGM and honour killings). Such Muslims, says Wilders, should be stripped of their western nationality and sent back to their countries of origin.

Yet on further probing about the moderate Muslims who face death threats fighting for the same anti-Islamist cause, Wilders did recognize the existence of moderates and makes a key distinction between the Muslim individual and the ideologies of Islam. The more moderates the better, he said, and we should support them in any way possible.  He also made the point that the Koran regards such Muslims as apostates worthy of death, yet if they see themselves as Muslims, we must support them.

The final question we posed to Wilders concerned  the personal toll on his life, even before the release of his short film “Fitna.” His neutral look gave way to his humanity with a brief sadness as he replied:

This popular post was originally published May 11.

Western journalists seem shocked—shocked!—by the apparently shabby day-to-day living conditions of master villain Osama bin Laden. After all, the multimillionaire occupied a villa in an elite region where Pakistan’s military elite lived. Had he grown long in the tooth, had Bin Laden “lost it”? How surprising that he lived shabbily, in one room, with an ancient television set.

If the journalists had done their homework, they would not have been surprised at all. Bin Laden chose to live in relatively primitive, ramshackle, sparsely furnished settings for a long time. While he still lived in Saudi Arabia, before he had to flee to Sudan and thereafter to Afghanistan, he condemned his wives and children to lives of physical, medical, and psychological hardship.

Yes, he himself had fast cars, fast planes, the most expensive horses—weaponry too. In his childhood and early married life, he had lived in magnificent and luxurious dwellings. Thereafter, he insisted on an increasingly spartan existence as a matter of ideology and mental health as well.

Just as the Arab and Muslim despot lives far above his lowliest subjects, so too, do many father-despots, each in his own home, live far more comfortably than they allow their own children and wives to live. In fact, a father-despot’s children, both sons and daughters, are taught to literally fear and serve their fathers–but they also desperately want his approval and love. Their father is their only protector.  Even if he torments his sons, they will stand by his side.

Thus, on the one hand, earlier today, Omar bin Laden, Osama’s fourth son, condemned “those forces [that] carried out their criminal mission and obliterated an entire defenseless family.” Omar, suddenly the dutiful and loving son, now finds that his father’s burial at sea was “unacceptable humanely and religiously.” He is also threatening to “follow that crime through the American and international justice (systems) in order to determine the true fate of our vanished father.”

This sounds like a loving son who had a loving father. That is not the case. Here is what Omar bin Laden has written about his life with his father Osama:

There were other absurd rules regarding our conduct. We were allowed to speak in his presence, but our voices must be kept low and our words carefully measured. In other words, we should not ‘over-talk.’ We were told that we must not become excited at any situation. We should be serious about everything. We were not allowed to tell jokes. We were ordered not to express joy over anything. He did say that he would allow us to smile so long as we did not laugh. If we were to lose control of our emotions and bark a laugh, we must be careful not to expose our eyeteeth. I have been in situations where my father actually counted the exposed teeth, reprimanding his sons on the number their merriment had revealed.

According to Omar, his father was not “warm”; in fact, he “caned” him and his brothers “for the slightest infraction.” Osama was very, very cruel and deprived his sons of their much needed asthma medication—even as he force marched them without water for hours and in the desert. In addition, he allowed his sons to be brutalized by sadistic teachers. He refused to give his sons “pocket money” for “school snacks.” He told them, Omar writes:

‘No. You need to suffer. Hunger pangs will not hurt you.’ Improbably, our father was different from so many fathers who wanted nothing but the best for their children. Our father appeared to relish seeing us suffer, reminding us that it was good for us to know what it felt like to be hungry or thirsty, to do without while others had plenty. Why? He said that we would end up being the stronger. Those with plenty would grow up weak men, unable to defend themselves.

And yet, Omar has now come forward as his father’s injured heir, his rightful son. He is now identifying with or standing for the very father who abused and endangered him.

This, too, is not unusual.

First, growing up, Omar and his brothers all learned that they would have to endure paternal cruelty and humiliation and that their tender and sympathetic mothers would not and could not intercede on their behalf. Osama bin Laden’s wives, especially Najwa, Omar’s mother, are portrayed as joyfully submissive, uncomplaining, very religious, quite passive. Najwa gave up her desire to decorate her home, which was, essentially, her prison. She never wore expensive clothing or jewelry. She never uttered a single complaint—not even when she was deprived of most conveniences and normal amenities. Omar writes:

Although we lived in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, which is one of the hottest and most humid cities in a country that is known for its hot climate, my father would not allow my mother to turn on the air-conditioning that the contractor had built into the apartment building. Neither would he allow her to use the refrigerator that was standing in the kitchen. My father announced, ‘Islamic beliefs are corrupted by modernization.’

Thus: Cruel and tyrannical father + absolutely helpless mother=shamed filial identification with the very fathers who abused them. In addition, the sons of rich men do not wish to expose how they, too, were humiliated; therefore, they deny the harsh reality which both shames and exposes them. They minimize the abuse. They even remember a fleeting “good” moment or two. They want to be loved by the fathers who do not love them. They want the sons of poor men to look up to them as the sons of rich men.

Women do not even count.

Osama bin Laden’s father had 57 children and saw Osama rarely. He was not kind to him. In turn, Osama was even less kind, even more cruel to his many sons.

Originally published on August 14, 2010

Last week The American Prospect revealed an unsettling workplace trend. This discovery is completely unanticipated, so prepare to be shocked.

When female coworkers are out of earshot, men sometimes talk about them.  Just awful, right?  And guys aren’t just discussing the work habits of their female colleagues — occasionally they mention their looks!

This is the new “sexual harassment”: not the groping, fondling, and obscene comments of yesteryear, but “what’s said about [women] when their backs are turned.” According to the Prospect‘s Ann Friedman, “behind-their-back comments are also intimidation and bullying of a sexual nature.” And this indirect harassment is even worse than dealing with run-of-the-mill lewdness from male coworkers.

[G]iven that networking and reputation are keys to success in many professions, what people say about you is arguably more important than what they say to your face. If your professional contacts are talking about your legs rather than your résumé, you’re at a disadvantage. I know how to handle direct sexist comments. It’s much harder to think about how to shut down a conversation about me that I may not even be aware of.

Watch out, guys: if you’re hanging out at the bar after work, be sure to limit the leg talk to women who aren’t coworkers. Unless, of course, the owners of said legs are around to “handle” the comments.  Got it?

Friedman describes some of the other conversations that would be off limits in her Utopian vision of a world in which men no longer talk about attractive women: continue reading …

NRB Archives. This list post was first published in January here.

There’s nothing the left loves more than a victim. Our entire victim-culture can be summed up into one Oprah Winfrey Show, complete with boxes of Kleenex and clichéd advice about “moving forward” and “finding one’s inner beauty.” Admittedly, it’s tempting to get sucked in. Who doesn’t feel the heart strings tighten when a true story of hardship is presented, complete with video clips of beach walking and wailing orchestral instruments? But “victims” have become entertainment that equal big ratings and instant stardom. As such, one must always be on the lookout for the big hoax.

Surfing Drudge the other morning I ran across an article on some books at Harvard which had been peed upon. These weren’t just any books, but all of them were books with gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered themes. Reading the article and the outrage from the Harvard librarians about “bias crimes” got my hairy eyeball twitching. The word “hoax” came to mind immediately. And sure enough, it has been discovered not only was it not vandalism, but an accident brought on by one of the library’s own staff members. There are questions, however, like why was there a bottle of urine sitting on a shelf in the LGBT section in the first place?

All I’m saying is, it stinks. And it’s not just the urine. It’s not like it would be the first example of a fake crime intended to bring attention to a societal “problem” in the eyes of the vandal. Perhaps someone should investigate the librarian to find out if one of his/her pastimes is inciting unrest. The following are examples of the worst hoaxes committed by radical leftists in the name of social justice.

And we’re starting with a college professor who spray-painted her own car, and then pretended she was the victim of a hate crime: Kerri Dunn.

Originally published on May 11, 2011

Life is funny, life is great, but life is also strange, the way it all boils down to one’s views on only two or three subjects, namely Israel, Islam, and America.

Yesterday, I met with a potential intern sent my way by a local area college with whom I’ve happily worked before. She seemed alert, bright, interested, talented and ready to start her (unpaid) full-time summer internship almost immediately. I had already told her to visit my website and to read some of my articles and assumed that she knew my current subjects and views. She did. In fact, on the phone, she went out of her way to agree with me on my critique of the academic feminist view that the Islamic face veil and polygamy are “liberating” for women.

Just after we finished discussing hours and possible projects, she stopped, smiled smoothly, and said this:

“But I have to tell you that I take issue with your position on Israel.”

“Oh” said I. “Have you lived in Israel, do you know any Palestinians, have you read many books, written many articles, taken many courses about Israel and about the Middle East?”

“Well no,” she said, “but I feel strongly about it.”

And then I said: “So, based on your feelings and perhaps on some peer pressure, you are willing to give up an internship that you might otherwise want?”

I stressed that I had no problem with her holding a view different than my own. I asked her whether she could work with someone with whom she did not agree exactly on this one issue.

She paused. And then she said: “But I have another problem. I think it is wrong to condemn all of Islam.”

Now I looked at her for a moment without saying anything.

Then I spoke.  “But I don’t. In fact, I champion the work of some religious Muslims as well as those of secular Muslims and ex-Muslims and I work with Muslim and ex-Muslim dissidents and feminists. To expose honor killings, to challenge Islamic gender apartheid practices is not the same as condemning all Muslims or all Islam.”

Again, I told her that I could work with someone with whose views I did not completely agree; could she? Although by now I was fearing that if she said yes that instead of working for me  she would force me to teach her in an unpaid tutorial.

She was not yet done.

“I also take issue with an article you wrote in which I believe you are stereotyping lesbians and Jewish lesbians.”

Friends: I actually managed not to laugh out loud.

Four Afghan women have achieved something that would have been unimaginable a decade ago: they are training alongside male recruits to become pilots in the Afghan Air Force. Amidst headlines about poverty, illiteracy, and breathtaking levels of violence against women, their accomplishments are beyond heartening.

Second Lt. Sourya Saleh hopes to serve as a role model for other Afghan women after completing her aviation training in the United States.

“We are very happy to be going to open these doors for the other women to come and join the military, to show them you can do this and make our country proud,” she said. “We want for all Afghan girls to know they can do anything.”

Another newly minted officer, Second Lt. Mary Sharifzada, told the Air Force Times that becoming a pilot has been her dream since she was a little girl:

“I want to show the people of Afghanistan that women are strong,” Sharifzada said. “We want to show the people of the world that the women of Afghanistan are strong and they can do anything they want.”

“They said I’m as brave as a man,” said Second Lt. Masooma Hussaini.

As brave as men, and according to Lt. Col. John Howard of the Thunder Lab training program, as capable as their male counterparts. But these women and future recruits may not get the chance to prove “they can do anything they want” if the United States selects Brazilian aircraft manufacturer Embraer to supply turboprop planes for the counterinsurgency effort in Afghanistan.

In the April 2011 issue of Smart Girl Nation, my friend Ashley Sewell explains how the Brazilian plane would bar skilled female pilots from flying Light Air Support (LAS) and light attack and armed reconnaissance (LAAR) missions:

The front-runners are the American-made Hawker Beechcraft AT-6 (a plane like the T-6 training aircraft that would accommodate 95% of women pilots) and the Brazilian-made Embraer EMB-314 (a plane that sticks to older standards thus eliminating the possibility of being flown by a woman).

Those older standards exclude more than 80 percent of women (and small men) from safely flying the planes that will be used to train and equip the Afghan Air Force.

There’s no question that operational performance and pilot safety should be the primary criteria in choosing between the Embraer and Hawker Beechcraft planes. But if the two aircraft perform comparably, can we afford to indulge the Commander-in-Chief‘s childish love affair with Brazil, forcing the struggling Afghan Air Force to sideline much needed talent?

That’s not the only reason the Hawker Beechcraft proposal is superior.

Deborah Gardner, Peace Corps Volunteer, Murdered in Tonga

That great lefty favorite, the Peace Corps, just had a 50th birthday! You can tell, because it’s demanding presents. The Lefties who totally love conscience-salving stints in third world countries rejoiced and then swiftly returned to their soy lattes and organic arugula. Senator Harry Reid issued a breathless, sycophantic statement in which he, being Harry Reid, couldn’t resist making things up, pouting and petulantly trying to cling to funding.

I’m deeply discouraged that Republicans have proposed slashing significant funding for a program that trains workers for a 21^st century global economy, builds good will around the world and promotes public service. Instead of reducing the effectiveness of a highly cost-effective program, we should cut government spending in a smart, responsible way that targets waste and excess while keeping our economy growing.

Of course, he had nothing to say in response to charges that perhaps the Peace Corps isn’t so peaceful. At least not for the women who were raped – and then blamed for being raped - during their stints in the corps. No ado was made about the House hearing on Wednesday investigating the same, or the legislation proposed by Congressman Poe (R-TX) that would require some Peace Corps oversight. In fact, the New York Times reported that Democrats wished to, as always, sweep such things under the rug in fear that their precious funding might be lost:

[W]hether such a bill would pass Congress is unclear. Representative Niki Tsongas, Democrat of Massachusetts, is co-sponsoring Mr. Poe’s bill, but other Democrats are skittish about it. They worry that the legislation, and Wednesday’s hearing, might be used to undermine the Peace Corps — the legacy of a Democratic president — and cut its funding.

Hey, what’s a little rape, with the added insult of victim blaming, as long as we keep our sweet, sweet funding? You know what I am skittish about, Democrats? Funding an organization wherein women are raped, assaulted and even murdered; 1,000 women have been sexually assaulted while in the Peace Corps in the past decade alone. And 23 Peace Corps volunteers have been murdered since its creation. This isn’t new, either. Peace Corps volunteer Deborah Gardner lost her life in Tonga in 1976.

Deborah Gardner was murdered by fellow Peace Corps worker Dennis Priven, who turned himself in. After stabbing her – 22 times – to death. The Peace Corps reaction? Try to cover it up:

“Even after everyone knew it was Dennis, already that effort by the Peace Corps to put the blame somewhere else. And to make things go away,” says [author Phil] Weiss. “That impulse has seized the Peace Corps within moments of Deb’s death.”

As revolting as that is, they went one further. The Peace Corps hired, and paid for, the best defense attorney available in Tonga. Priven was found not guilty and the Peace Corps quietly shuffled him back to the United States. Where he lived freely, for decades. Working for the government. No, really:

Weiss says Priven has led a small, anonymous life since then. He’s divorced, and he recently retired after working for decades for the U.S. government.

“Twelve years after Deb’s death, he was working for Social Security,” says Weiss. “And ultimately was their top computer guy in the Brooklyn office.

Kate Puzey was 24 years old when she was brutally murdered, her throat slit, while working for the Peace Corps in 2009. Her concerns about a fellow employee were ignored, and then the subject of an attempted cover-up after her death.

Jessica Smochek was gang-raped in Bangladesh in 2004.  This is how the Peace Corps gave her aid afterward: not only medical malpractice, but they blamed her. For being gang-raped (emphasis mine):

Peace Corps medical officer refused to give her a proper physical examination. Instead, the medic confiscated the former English teacher’s cellphone so that she could not alert her fellow volunteers and instructed her to tell anyone who asked about her sudden departure from the program that she was returning to the U.S. to get her wisdom teeth out. When Smochek arrived in Washington, D.C., a Peace Corps official asked her to write down everything she had done to provoke the attack.

“Shortly after I left, the country director — who never attempted to contact me after I was raped — called a meeting of several women in my former volunteer group and told them, without my permission, what had happened to me,” she said. “Then, he told them that rape was a woman’s fault and that I had caused what happened to me by being out alone after 5:00 PM. As for the other women in the group, who had been very vocal about being constantly stalked and afraid, he threatened them with administrative separation.”

Jessica was one of the courageous women who testified before Congress on Wednesday. You know, that same Congress that contains members more concerned with loss of funding than actual women and the violent crimes committed against them.