He really is the Obamamessiah, he can open the eyes of the comatose

BBC Radio 4 news at 07:30 reported on Barack Obama's speech at the memorial service for the victims of the recent shootings in Arizona. The report was brief but part did make my ears prick up (I paraphrase as closely to the words as I can remember):

'President Obama said that the had visited Congresswoman Gifford and that she had just opened her eyes for the first time'

Yes, the Obamamessiah is back and now he can heal the sick!

Meanwhile the BBC's North America editor, Mark Mardell has written another 'feel the love' piece about Barack Obama. Read the whole piece but here are a couple of highlights:

'It wasn't the usual sort of memorial service. It wasn't, for a start, very solemn. Music of all sorts, from choral to soul, built up towards the speeches. It followed pretty much the pattern of every other Obama rally I have been to.'

This was meant to be a service to commemorate the six people killed but Mark Mardell is happy that Barack Obama turns it into a rally?

'The audience whooped and hollered during the speech. But there was no doubt they were local people, and I presume this was a sort of cathartic release after days of horrible tension. The biggest cheer was when the president revealed that Gabby Giffords had opened her eyes.'

Why is there no doubt that they were local people? Is cheering at a memorial service acceptable? How about at a political rally? And there is the Obamamessiah reference, albeit watered down a bit in print.

'The US TV networks call this part of the president's job - a sort of "healer-in-chief". But here Mr Obama attempted to go well beyond binding the wounds, to deal with what he sees as a more profound sickness.

It was a subtly political speech, defying the expectation of those who those who thought he would remain aloof from the debate about the sometimes febrile and vitriolic nature of American politics.

When he said that this tragedy must not be an excuse for Americans to turn on one another for more point scoring and pettiness, Mr Obama appeared to rise above party and castigate both Republicans and Democrats.

But it is the right that has been revitalised by the Tea Party movement and its sometimes harsh language.'

So whilst Mark Mardell thinks that Barack Obama rose above party politics, something that I do not see, Mark Mardell sees no reason to do so; just look at the stark contrast in those last three lines again:

'Mr Obama appeared to rise above party and castigate both Republicans and Democrats.

But it is the right that has been revitalised by the Tea Party movement and its sometimes harsh language.'

The right has indeed been revitalised by the Tea Party movement and as a result made huge advances in Congress. As a result of this Barack Obama is having to appeal for bi-partisanship in politics, something that he was not interested in when the Democrats controlled Congress. Mark Mardell seems happy to ascribe 'harsh language' to the right, has he really never heard the language emanating from the left during the George W. Bush presidency and since?


A few days ago I blogged about 'hate' in US politics and included (point 5) this:

'Here's recent Democrat pollster and strategist Mark Penn in November 2010 saying that Barack Obama needs another Oklahoma City bombing to 'click' with the country as though that positive result would be worth the deaths...'

It looks as though the wishes of some on the left for deaths that Barack Obama could use to boost his popularity have come true, are they really happier now?

Mark Mardell seems to have missed the harsh language used by Barack Obama in recent years, let me help him out... As reported by The American Patriots Commission:

** Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
** Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
** Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
** Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
** Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
** Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
** Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
** Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”

Mark Mardell also seems to have forgotten the hatred expressed by so many of the left in recent years as they wished Dick Cheney would have more heart attacks, and some expressed the desire that Karl Rove be shot.

Mark Mardell once again shows why he is not an unbiased commenter on American politics  but a partisan supporter of Barack Obama. And the BBC show that they are institutionally biased in favour of the US Democratic party.

Moving from A to C without at any point reaching B

I see that BBC journalist Mark Mardell has managed the almost impossible. He has moved from stating that

"there is very little to suggest that he adhered to a hard-line interpretation of his religion or that he had political or religious motives."

to criticising the FBI and asking

"If a soldier, a Muslim unhappy about waging war on other Muslims, gets in touch with a man well-known for advocating terrorism, shouldn't that "raise a red flag"? What do you think?"

So the BBC's North America editor can move from cautioning against blaming the murdering Major's Muslim religion for the killings to blaming the FBI for not spotting that the murdering Muslim Major was a potential threat, all without accepting that the murdering Muslim Major's religious beliefs played a large (probably decisive) part in the attack. It must be comforting to be so secure in one's beliefs that facts can be safely ignored.

Meanwhile the facts about Major Hasan's religious beliefs and links to Islamic terror keep emerging, not that you would know it from the BBC's coverage. I see that Major Hasan's business card has been see and here it is...
In case you are wondering, "SoA" is not a medical or US military qualification, it stands for "Soldier of Allah". The "SWT" that follows "SoA" stand for the Arabic words "Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala," or "Glory to Him, the Exalted." Muslims use these or similar words to glorify God when mentioning His name.

So we have a US Army psychiatrist who calls himself a "Soldier of Allah", who belonged to a mosque run by the radical Muslim Brotherhood and to which some of the 9/11 hijacking murderers belonged, who has possible ties to Pakistan, who gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats, who apparently posted a defence of suicide bombing, who had a series of e-mail contacts with an imam who preaches violent jihad and has links to al-Qaeda - Anwar al-Awlaki and who shouted the Arabic phrase "Allahu Akbar!" [God is great] before opening fire. And yet the BBC still wont ascribe the word Jihad to the murders; why?



Meanwhile it saddened me to learn that US Army officials

"considered kicking Hasan out of the program but chose not to partly because firing a doctor is a "cumbersome and lengthy" process that involves hearings and potential legal conflict, sources told NPR.

Officials also believed they lacked solid evidence that Hasan was unstable and were concerned they could be accused of discriminating against him because of his Islamic identity or views."

Is political correctness that ingrained in the West that we cannot take defensive action for fear of being called a racist?

The Fort Hood multiple murder story and the BBC

Whoosh and it's all but gone. Today the Fort Hood murder story has almost disappeared from the BBC news front page, all that is left is Obama praises army base heroism. So we travel to World News where we find the Fort Hood murders are still the top story. So how are the BBC reporting the story, what are the prisms through which they see the horrific events? The top story is the aforementioned Obama reaction piece which tells us that "President Barack Obama praises the "valour" of those who responded to the deadly attacks at a US army base in Texas. " This piece like many others on the BBC news website then goes on to "investigate" the possible causes of the murderer: "Investigators are waiting for Maj Hasan to emerge from his coma but have examined his home and computer records to try to find any clue to the motive of his attack.

Reports suggested that he had been increasingly unhappy in the military and that his work at his previous post - Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington DC - had been the subject of concern.

His cousin told US media that Maj Hasan had been opposed to an imminent deployment overseas, describing it as his "worst nightmare".

He also said that Maj Hasan had been battling racial harassment because of his "Middle Eastern ethnicity."

The manager of his apartment complex told Associated Press news agency that Maj Hasan's car had been badly scratched recently by an army employee who had returned from Iraq and objected to Maj Hasan's faith.

AP also quoted a former classmate on a Maryland university course as saying that Maj Hasan was a "vociferous opponent" of America fighting conflicts in Muslim countries."
It's a mystery isn't it? He had become "increasingly unhappy in the military", a "vociferous opponent" of America fighting conflicts in Muslim countries", hmmm no I can't fathom it either. Further, much further down the article the BBC do finally report what may be a clue as to motive

"The commander of the base, Lt Gen Robert Cone, told NBC News that, according to eyewitnesses, Mr Hasan had shouted the Arabic phrase "Allahu Akbar!" [God is great] before opening fire."

Let's see: "increasingly unhappy in the military", a "vociferous opponent" of America fighting conflicts in Muslim countries" and shouted "the Arabic phrase "Allahu Akbar!" [God is great] before opening fire." Almost inexplicable isn't it?!


The next BBC "report" is the bizarrely entitled "Shooting raises fears for Muslims in US army " in which "The BBC's Penny Spiller considers how it may affect the thousands of Muslims in the US military?" Oddly enough bearing in mind that this is not the first incident, remember in 2003 when Sergeant Hasan Akbar threw hand grenades and opened fire on a tent full of sleeping soldiers in the early hours of the morning; he killed two officers and injured 14 other personnel. This was in Kuwait as his unit prepared to move into Iraq. Back then the murderer's family said he had been suffering religious and racial harassment from other soldiers, although no witnesses came forward to say this at his trial. The prosecution described him as a "hate-filled, ideologically driven murderer", which seems closer to the truth.

I may be wrong here but might the story be to ask how many other Muslims in the US military might take similar action against their fellow soldiers and how at risk normal members of the US military might be? Maybe the BBC will consider this angle elsewhere...


The next BBC piece is entitled "Coping with stressed soldiers" and repeats the mantra like claim "While it is still unclear what led a US army major to shoot dead 13 people on a Texas army base" before going on to consider the psychological stresses face by the military. It's a good piece on a worthwhile subject but I feel it is a diversion from the subject at hand.


The next BBC piece is by Mark Mardell and he gets right into the defensive speculation

"The truth is of course cloudy. The alleged murderer was clearly a Muslim, but there is very little to suggest that he adhered to a hard-line interpretation of his religion or that he had political or religious motives.

He may or may not have posted something on the internet defending suicide bombers. But he also appears to have been traumatised by the idea of being sent to a combat zone. "

What no mention of the shouted "Allahu Akbar!", no that can't be relevant.

"Still, people will speculate - as I am doing. Life may become more uncomfortable for his innocent co-religionists, a regrettable consequence of any such attack."

Again worries over what the 'backlash' might be rather than over whether another similar attack might take place.

"We search for certainty and for answers. Some will go down blind alleys: reports of his "religious attire", for example, may turn out to be a red herring."

Interesting how Mark Mardell states as fact that "Some will go down blind alleys" and links that to the factual "religious attire" of the murderer. Very neatly done.

Mark Mardell's piece, after he has excused Barack Obama from any responsibility - in the Mardell world praise for the Obvamamessiah is a key part of any article he writes - end thus

"Still, searching for patterns and for answers is part of what it is to be human. I loathe cliche, but perhaps, for once, this is a "senseless tragedy", devoid of deeper meaning."

"perhaps"? Perhaps not. Do take a read of the comments underneath Mark Mardell's piece; they split between the bleeding-heart liberals who have swallowed every piece of the multicultural phrasebook and can regurgitate it at will, the islamaphobes (although quite a few of their comments have likely fallen foul of "house rules") and the sorrowful realists who can see what happened because they allow themselves to look at the facts and are deeply worried about where we are heading.

Mark Mardell reveals his pro-EU bias

Mark Mardell is the BBC's Europe Editor and therefore someone that should be unbiased in his coverage, it will not surprise you to discover that he is not. In his biased reporting on the Irish NO vote in their referendum, you could almost hear the annoyance in his voice that his EU friends had suffered such a set-back, and this lead me to his blog where I found this piece from just before the referendum. In it he discusses what the effects of a NO vote would be and includes this comment (my emphasis):

"What there would be is a dissection of the corpse. Some major parts of both Lisbon and the constitution would be sadly discarded."

Nice unbiased reporting there Mr Mardell, just as I would expect from you.