Right-wing talk show host Dennis Prager raised a firestorm charging that Muslim Rep.-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN) must swear in using a Bible. He said that if Ellison swears in with a Koran, it would “undermin[e] American civilization” and be akin to swearing in with a copy of Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.”

In September, he was appointed by President Bush to a five-year term on the taxpayer-funded United States Holocaust Memorial Council.

Yesterday, the Executive Committee of the Holocaust Memorial Council adopted a resolution condemning Prager’s views as “antithetical to the mission of the Museum as an institution promoting tolerance.”

Resolution

WHEREAS, the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, the governing body of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, is charged with implementing the mission of the Museum as a living memorial to the victims of the Holocaust devoted to teaching the lessons of the Holocaust for the benefit of all mankind; and

WHEREAS, Dennis Prager, a member of the Council, has recently publicly expressed and disseminated certain statements which have been widely interpreted as being intolerant;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Executive Committee of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, while recognizing that Dennis Prager has the right to express his personal views freely, disassociates itself from Mr. Prager’s statements as being antithetical to the mission of the Museum as an institution promoting tolerance and respect for all peoples regardless of their race, religion or ethnicity.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations released a statement saying, “Now that the Holocaust Memorial Council has stated that Mr. Prager’s views are in direct opposition to the mission of that institution, we call on him to do the right thing and resign.”

Digg It!

Number of journalists who died in Iraq in 2006, “the deadliest year for the press in a single country that the Committee to Protect Journalists has ever recorded.”

Anti-Muslim Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) appeared on Fox News this afternoon to talk about his “fear” that “we will have many more Muslims in the United States.” Host David Asman twice asked Goode to say whether he believes “there are too many Middle Easterners here now.”

After trying to dodge the question once, Goode answered, after a long pause, “Uh, I’m not gonna say yes or no on that. I’d like to know the exact number. I don’t have the exact numbers.” Watch it:

Later, Goode said he did not believe Muslim Rep.-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN) should be prohibited from bringing a Koran to Congress “but I am for restricting immigration so that we don’t have a majority of Muslims elected to the United States House of Representatives.”

Full transcript: Read more

Last month, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) said he was “open” to increasing troop levels in Iraq, and a few weeks ago he wondered why Donald Rumsfeld had not included the possibility of escalation in his outgoing memo. Today, Lieberman voiced his strong support for pouring tens of thousands more U.S. troops into Iraq:

President Bush may not be certain he wants more troops in Iraq, but Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman is.

“After speaking with our military commanders on the ground,” he said Wednesday in an e-mail, “I strongly believe that additional U.S. troops must be deployed to Baghdad.”

In the American Prospect yesterday, Larry Korb and Max Bergmann from the Center for American Progress explained why “sinking U.S. forces deeper into Iraq based on a gamble we are sure to lose” is such a bad idea:

- “Ground forces have already been stretched to the breaking point. … Adding 50,000 troops would only exacerbate the situation.”

- “Our increased presence would result in an even greater level of violence, further fueling the insurgency and strengthening the militias.”

- “Additionally, this operation would severely undercut the Maliki government. Sending additional troops would be the equivalent of a no-confidence vote in that government and the Iraqi security forces, and could lead to the government’s collapse.”

The “least bad option” available to Bush is the strategic redeployment of our troops out of Iraq to countries like Afghanistan. “This, combined with regional diplomatic initiatives and an Iraqi peace conference,” they write, “could help stabilize Iraq and the region. More troops will not.”

Today, Saparmurat Niyazov, the dictator of Turkmenistan, died of heart disease. He was one of the most brutal and quixotic heads of state in the world:

Mr. Niyzazov forbade independent news media and opposition parties, jailed rivals or drove them to exile, and imposed his name, words and image on all manner of public discourse and life. His face appears on Turkmen currency. His name, given to streets and buildings, is in such abundant local use that it replaced the word January on the official Turkmen calendar.

His pronouncements, many of them disconnected from the normal affairs of state, were sometimes strange enough to assume an irreverent life on the Internet. He banned video games, gold teeth, opera and ballet, and once encouraged his people to chew on bones — good, he said, for their teeth.

For the National Review General blogger Mario Loyola, Niyazov’s death means a military strike on Iran is an even better idea:

It is possible that the incoming leadership (whenever it does finally settle down) will prove eagerly pro-American, going so far as to permit a U.S. base in the country. This would close the ring around Iran, and dramatically increase the tactical options (e.g., helicopter missions) for any future U.S. operations in the vicinity of Tehran, which is close to the Turkmeni border, and which includes several major nuclear installations.

According to a bi-partisan group of military experts — it doesn’t matter what direction you come from — there are no good military options in Iran.

“Stability in Iraq ultimately depends on spreading the message of Jesus Christ, the message of peace on earth, good will towards men. Everything depends on everyone learning about the birth of the Savior.” (Via Atrios)