Former radio talk show host and political activist Melanie Morgan is planning a protest outside the glitzy Jerry Brown fundraiser hosted by Jodie Evans, the cofounder of the anti-American group Code Pink this Saturday night. In her announcement of the protest, Morgan asked if Brown is a terrorist sympathizer, “Or is he just whoring himself out to people who fund thugs and rapists, support killers and send aid to people who murder U.S. servicemen?“, a reference to Jodie Evans’ well-documented history of working with terrorists and state sponsors of terrorist against the United States.

Sterling Clifford, a spokesman for Jerry Brown’s campaign, was quoted by the San Francisco Chronicle, dismissing the concerns.

“Jerry has always surrounded himself with politically active people and some of them continue to be politically active.

But the rhetoric that Melanie Morgan is using is counter-productive and insulting to voters,” Clifford said.

While a law student, Jodie Krajewski (as she was then known) Evans worked as Brown’s deputy finance director during his 1978 gubernatorial campaign, and following his election signed on as his director of administration in the Governor’s Office.

The seemingly indispensable Jodie Evans later served as Brown’s treasurer on his 1980 Presidential Campaign, finance director for his 1982 failed Senate campaign, executive director of his post Senate PAC, managed his 1992 Presidential Campaign, and addressed the 1992 Democrat National Convention.

Jodie Evans produced Brown’s “We The People” radio show, and later worked on Brown’s Mayoral Inaugural festivities after he was elected mayor of Oakland. She later contributed nearly $25,000 to his campaigns for California Attorney General and his latest attempt to return to the governor’s office.

Is Jerry Brown aware of what Jodie Evans has been doing for the last eight years? Does he know she’s been consorting with enemies of America? Does he agree with the Code Pink founder, terrorist supporter, and Democrat party activist?

Does Jerry Brown truly believe that it is “counter-productive and insulting to voters” to ask Brown why he is taking money from a woman who has the blood of American soldiers on her hands?

The following are questions that the news media should be asking.

Does Jerry Brown agree with Jodie Evans that Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a “man of peace and human rights?”

Is Jerry Brown comfortable with Jodie Evans acting as an agent of influence for the anti-American governments of Iran, Cuba and Venezuela, as well as Middle Eastern terrorists?

Does Jerry Brown agree with Jodie Evans that Osama bin Laden had “valid arguments” for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that murdered nearly 3000 Americans and foreign nationals?

Does Jerry Brown know and approve that in February 2003, Jodie Evans and Code Pink traveled to Baghdad as a guest of Saddam Hussein’s government where they lobbied the world to keep the state sponsor of terrorism in power?

Does Jerry Brown know and approve that after the liberation in the summer of 2003, Jodie Evans returned to Iraq where she set up Occupation Watch, an effort to smear the U.S. with ginned up charges of atrocities and to get troops in Iraq to quit the war?

Does Jerry Brown know and approve that Jodie Evans relayed terrorist propaganda to a communist newspaper, falsely accusing American soldiers of wantonly slaughtering Iraqi women and children?

Does Jerry Brown know and approve that Jodie Evans and Code Pink delivered over $600,000 in cash and humanitarian aid to what Code Pink called “the other side” in Fallujah as the U.S. was waging a hard-fought battle to clear the terrorist safe haven of al Qaeda in Iraq and other Sunni terrorists?

Does Jerry Brown know and approve that the delivery of aid to “the other side” in Fallujah was facilitated by Sen. Barbara Boxer and Reps. Henry Waxman, Dennis Kucinich and Raul Grijalva?

Does Jerry Brown know and approve that six months later, Jodie Evans proclaimed her support for the armed “resistance” in Iraq while attending the World Tribunal on Iraq?

Does Jerry Brown know and approve that just one year later, Jodie Evans and Code Pink met with pro-terrorist Iraqi parliamentarians in Jordan who urged them to seek recognition for the so-called Iraqi resistance?

Does Jerry Brown know and approve that Jodie Evans and Code Pink also made a mysterious stop in Damascus, Syria on that trip? Members of Code Pink, sans Jodie Evans, went from Syria to Lebanon to give propaganda support to Hezbollah in its war with Israel that summer.

Does Jerry Brown know that in 2006, Jodie Evans and Code Pink traveled to Venezuela and met with Hugo Chavez. Does Jerry Brown agree with Jodie Evans that Chavez is a “sweetheart?”

Does Jerry Brown know and approve that Jodie Evans traveled to Cuba in 2007 and worked with the Castro government to propagandize against the U.S.?

Does Jerry Brown know and approve that in September 2008, just a couple of weeks after meeting Obama at a big money Hollywood fundraiser at the historic Greystone mansion in Beverly Hills, Jodie Evans met with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in New York City? Does Jerry Brown agree with Jodie Evans that Ahmadinejad is “really about peace and human rights and respecting justice?”

Does Jerry Brown know and approve that in November 2008, weeks after Obama won the presidential election, Jodie Evans and Code Pink traveled to Iran at the personal invitation of Ahmadinejad? And that Jodie Evans had previously visited Iran in 2005?

Does Jerry Brown know and approve that top Obama donor and fundraiser Jodie Evans met with the Taliban in Afghanistan on a recent trip there? And that she lauded the Taliban in a wide-ranging interview released by MIPtalk, for bringing what she characterized as “peace and justice” to Afghanistan while accusing the U.S. of failing to deliver either?

Does Jerry Brown know and approve that Jodie Evans and Code Pink have organized pro-Hamas propaganda visits to Gaza? In June 2009, Code Pink hand-carried a letter out of Gaza written to Pres. Obama from Hamas leaders that equated Israel’s defensive actions to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Does Jerry Brown know and approve that Jodie Evans and her terrorist sympathizing group Code Pink provoked a violent crisis in Egypt over an attempt to deliver ‘humanitarian aid’ to Hamas-run Gaza to mark the one-year anniversary of Israel’s response to repeated provocations by Hamas terrorists? And that Evans was joined in Cairo by Obama pals Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dorhn, both former terrorists with the Weather Underground?

Does Jerry Brown know and approve that Jodie Evans and Code Pink ran banner ads on the English language version of the official Web site of a terrorist sympathizing group, the Muslim Brotherhood, one of which invited the Muslim Brotherhood to “join us in cleansing our country?”

Jerry Brown should be held to account for allying himself with Jodie Evans, even if, in the bizarro world of California politics, she is considered a respected power-player in the Democratic party.

After California voters become aware of Jodie Evans, perhaps it is they who will find Jerry Brown’s permissive attitude towards a terrorist supporter to be “counter-productive and insulting to voters.”

[Note: This is the latest segment in an ongoing series about Code Pink and its co-founder Jodie Evans. Click here to read earlier articles.]

This week, I’m happy to update this story with a positive development — Representative Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) introduced House Resolution 1371, “Condemning the selection of the Government of Iran to serve on the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women.”  The original Cosponsors of this measure represent a diverse, bipartisan group including Rep. Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Rep. Burton (R-IN), Rep. Campbell (R-CA), Rep. McCaul (R-TX), Rep. Inglis (R-SC), and Rep. Polis (D-CO).

On April 28, Iran was handed a seat on the UN Commission on the Status of Women despite efforts by Iranian “gender-equality activists” and supporters to block this appointment.  The US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, made no attempts to thwart Iran’s bid for a seat on this committee and on the day of the election, she did not even bother to show up for the meeting.  Despite public outcry, the Obama Administration still fails to publicly condemn the appointment of Iran to the UN Commission on the Status of Women.

Several members of Congress, however, have taken the lead in voicing the concerns of the American people.

House Resolution 1371 points out that “Iran’s Islamic civil and penal codes discriminate against women” and notes that “according to the Department of State’s 2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, Iranian women are only ‘nominally’ granted ‘equal protection under the law… in conformity with Islam.’”  The resolution also highlights some of the human rights violations against women including:

• “under Iranian law, spousal rape is legal”
• “Iranian penal code dictates a punishment of lashings or a fine if a woman appears in public without an appropriate hijab”
• “Iranian law permits men to have as many as four wives”
• “adultery is punishable by death by stoning, and a man who kills his wife…may easily escape punishment,”

The proposed resolution not only “condemns” this UN appointment, but also “calls on the Administration to denounce the selection of the Government of Iran to serve on the Commission” and “urges the President to direct the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States at the United Nations to advocate for the removal of the Government of Iran from the Commission.”

The Representatives who cosponsored Resolution 1371 have taken leadership in Congress by standing in opposition to Iran serving on the UN’s “global policy-making body” for women’s rights. Although the Obama Administration currently still refuses to condemn the appointment of Iran to the UN women’s rights commission, Congress members are taking initiative and expressing the concerns of the American people.  Voters who are interested in seeing this resolution passed should contact Congress and voice their support for House Resolution 1371.

The women’s rights movement in the Islamic Republic has been building momentum for decades and in recent years has served as inspiration for human rights activists around the world.

Last summer in particular, women took to the streets of Iran in record numbers to peacefully protest what is widely considered to be a fraudulent Presidential election.  Activists in Iran have capitalized on this momentum and they continue to protest peacefully — now in an attempt to reform their government’s violent and oppressive laws against women.

This revitalized civil rights movement comes at a time when Iran is attempting to position itself as the leader of the Islamic world.  Emboldened women who seek to shift the Republic away from its stringent adherence to Islamic Shariah law pose a huge threat to the existing power structure of the ruling government and an even greater threat to Iran’s credibility in the entire region.  It is not the vague prospect of possible UN sanctions which is worrisome to the Iranian government, it is the empowerment of its own citizens — especially the ones in headscarves.

The result is a governmental crackdown on activists along with stricter, harsher laws and propaganda aimed against all women. It is no coincidence that we are witnessing more odd/troubling news coming from Iran — a cleric blames women for earthquakes and then days later a fatwa is issued against women with suntans.  News like this makes for catchy sound bites and headlines, but mainstream sources often overlook the harsher reality — women in the Islamic Republic lack even the most basic rights to personal freedom.  They have no right to choose their own husbands, have no right to divorce, cannot travel without the permission of their husbands, and are even barred from singing and dancing in public.  Activists in Iran face unimaginable odds, yet they are still rising up in peaceful protest — by doing so, they face the possibility of arrest, detention, torture, rape, and even death.

Before  Iran was quietly handed a place on the UN Commission on the Status of Women, Iranian-based activists and supporters actually attempted to block Iran’s bid for this seat.  They even sent a letter imploring UN members to do everything possible to prevent this travesty from occurring.

How did our own representative at the UN respond?  On the day Iran was elected by acclamation to the women’s rights commission, Ambassador Rice did not bother even bother to attend the meeting. Aside from insulting women’s rights activists all over the world, this flagrant act of disregard highlights the arrogance of the Obama Administration and causes the US to appear weak on a global scale.  The continued silence of this Administration has prompted some women leaders to sign a petition urging Secretary Clinton to denounce the appointment of Iran to the UN women’s rights commission.

I have contacted the White House Press Office, the US Mission to the UN, the White House Council on Women and Girls, and the State Department, but have not received a single on-the-record comment. After Iran won the seat on the UN women’s rights commission, the state-controlled media was apparently happy to report that the efforts by “hostile groups” were “ignored” by members of the UN.  Within its borders, Iran will undoubtedly utilize this election as a propaganda tool in order to give validation to the regime’s horrific treatment of women.  As for the rest of the world, over the next four years while Iran holds this seat, members of the UN will pretend that Islamic Shariah law is somehow compatible with women’s rights.

While the Obama Administration is supposedly busy changing the UN “from within,” the US  is missing important opportunities to take leadership on the most basic of issues.  The silence of this Administration, however, does not mandate the silence of the America people — it is now time for Congress to take action by passing a resolution condemning the appointment of Iran to UN Commission on the Status of Women.

It’s probable that President Obama still has grand dreams of using his public speaking skills to change the policies of the existing Iranian government, but so far this “dialogue” concept has only succeeded in making this Administration look naive.  The Iranian regime is a threat to the world and to its own people — if the President is genuinely concerned about this threat, then at some point he will need to set aside his ego and reevaluate the policies of his Administration.

Meanwhile, in places like Iran, activists are waiting for the US President to utilize his skills in a more productive way — by speaking out for the women who would prefer to remove their state-mandated hijab, but face a punishment of 74 lashes for doing so.

In those days, there was a clock ticking in the background, but no one in Washington seemed to pay it any heed. Nancy Pelosi was in her counting house counting all the votes. Steny Hoyer was exploring whether one could somehow bend the rules so that his colleagues could pass a controversial bill while telling their constituents that they had nothing to do with it. Bart Stupak, caught between the dictates of religious faith and political allegiance, was pondering when and how to sacrifice the former to the latter. And President Barack Obama issued threats to members of his own party in the House of Representatives. All of this was done in pursuit of passing into law a profoundly unpopular bill that promised to bankrupt the country, drive prospective physicians out of the profession, deprive the elderly of Medicare benefits they had paid for long ago, and reduce the quality of medical care for all but those comfortably ensconced within what came to be called the American nomenklatura. There was also material for burlesque. After being accused of sexually harassing the fellows on his staff, one Democratic Congressman attacked the White House Chief of Staff, calling him a “son of the devil’s spawn” and describing in arresting terms the manner in which the man practiced in the shower the ballet steps learned in his days as a bagman for the Daley machine in Chicago. It would have all been quite comic had there not been that clock in the background steadily ticking . . . in a country far away of which the Americans knew little or nothing.

There were, to be sure, other events. In a coordinated effort directed by the President, Joe Biden picked a quarrel with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; Hillary Clinton vented her spleen against the Israeli government for announcing that it intended in a modest manner to increase the size of a long-established, already sizable, strategically located settlement on the outskirts of Jerusalem; Robert Gibbs snarled and sneered and ran his mouth on a subject about which he knew little or nothing and cared even less; and the President met with the Israeli Prime Minister in circumstances designed to broadcast his disdain to the Arab world. All of this was done with an eye to bringing down a democratically-elected Israeli government and setting the stage for a Middle East settlement between Israel and a Palestinian leader who lacked firm Palestinian support, who would have fallen from power when Hamas seized the Gaza strip had the Israelis not used their checkpoints on the West Bank to thwart Hamas’ operations there, and who was in no position to negotiate any sort of lasting agreement with anyone about anything at all. This, too, would have been a matter of comic relief had that infernal clock not gone on ticking . . . in distant Teheran.

Barack Obama appeared to think that he would be remembered and celebrated as the architect of an historic healthcare reform, and he seemed to have persuaded nearly everyone in his party that this was so. He seemed also to have entertained an expectation that it would fall to him to preside over a comprehensive Middle East settlement. Neither was destined to happen. By hook or by crook, the Democrats managed to shove the healthcare bill through the House, but it turned out to be nothing more than a last-ditch, suicide mission on the part of a Progressive coalition on its last legs. And the Obama administration’s inept maneuvers made the Middle East settlement that the Americans had long sought all the more elusive.

Most of what went on in those years in Washington – apart from the buffoonery – was unremarkable. If President Obama is remembered at all, it is because it was on his watch that the fascist dictatorship in Iran got nuclear weapons. In comparative perspective, nothing else that he did or did not do really mattered at all.

Such is the verdict that, I think, will be rendered – for our time resembles an earlier epoch about which a similar verdict has already been reached. Who remembers the social programs adopted in England and France between 1933 and 1936? It was with them, however, that Ramsay MacDonald, Stanley Baldwin, Pierre Laval, Leon Blum, and the like were largely preoccupied. It was as if, when the ship of state came within sight of a political iceberg, its officers and crew turned to rearranging the deck chairs on what was for them a functional equivalent of the Titanic.

In that earlier period, Europe was deep in the Great Depression; class strife loomed large; and the French, in particular, suffered from a stalemate between the right and the left. Almost no one had the stomach to contemplate a renewal of war. Their experience in the trenches during the First World War had encouraged the English and the French to embrace pacifism, and Ramsay MacDonald, prime minister of Britain in 1933, was not alone in hoping that Nazi Germany could be appeased.

Of course, attempts were made to contain Germany. Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Rumania negotiated the Little Entente Pact of Consolidation. Austria, Hungary, and Italy signed the Rome Protocols. The Soviet Union appointed a Jew as foreign minister, joined the League of Nations, and signed mutual assistance treaties with Czechoslovakia and France. The British, the French, and the Italians formed the Stresa Front.

These gestures were, however, all half-hearted. At no time did anyone make serious military preparations, and Adolf Hitler found it easy to pick apart these nascent alliances. Poland signed a non-aggression pact with Germany in January 1934; Britain signed the Anglo-German Naval Agreement in June, 1935, shortly after joining the Stresa Front; and Benito Mussolini, who had massed troops at the Brenner Pass after Hitler had engineered the assassination of the Austrian Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss on 25 July 1934, opted in the end to attempt to play the two sides against one another; and, when it became clear which was the stronger and the more resolute, he jettisoned the Rome Protocols and lined up with his fellow fascists. It was not hard for Il Duce, as he called himself, to read the handwriting on the wall – for when Germany’s like-named Fűhrer remilitarized the Rhineland in early March, 1936, the British and the French did nothing more than register pro-forma diplomatic protests.

The British and the French at that time had more excuse then than we can claim today. They felt only revulsion when they contemplated the carnage of World War I, and the former had long since become persuaded that Germany’s treatment in the Versailles Treaty was unjust. The combination of a sense of guilt with terror can all too easily paralyze a people. None of this, however, can justify their resolutely looking the other way when Hitler repudiated the central terms of the Locarno Pact, remilitarized the Rhineland, and laid the groundwork for a decisive shift in the balance of power on the continent of Europe. To anticipate what was to come, one had only to read Mein Kampf.

But, of course, no one at the time wanted to read Hitler’s magnum opus and think about the unthinkable. It was far less distressing to suppose that the German leader could not have really meant what he had written ten years before. In any case, we are in no position to level criticism today. We have not suffered carnage on the scale that the British and the French did in World War I. In the course of the Cold War, we hardly suffered at all. And there is no reason whatsoever for us to feel any guilt with regard to our conduct during or in the aftermath of that struggle. The Cold War was America’s finest hour. In human history, there has never been a sustained confrontation between two great hegemonic powers lasting half a century in which, relative to the size of the existing populations, there was less collateral damage inflicted by the victorious power.

Of course, when in a tizzy, one can always punt. That is what the Europeans did in the early 1930s, and that is what we with less justification have repeatedly done in the last few years. What other purpose does the United Nations these days serve? It is the perfect place in which to bury troublesome questions that one does not want to face. By referring matters of moment to it, as our European allies have so frequently shown, one can stake out the moral high ground and leave everyone with a comforting sense that something is being done without having to do anything substantive oneself. On the Iranian nuclear program, we have had report after report, and the Security Council has passed resolution after resolution. All that happens is that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad plays for time, alternately pretending to negotiate and then threatening his Arab neighbors, the state of Israel, Europe, and the United States – all the while thumbing his nose with aplomb at everyone concerned.

Some will say that Iran is not Germany, that it is in no way as formidable as German once was – and, of course, they are right. But this only makes our inaction less excusable – for if an Iran lacking nuclear weapons is not especially formidable, one cannot say the same about an Iran equipped with long-range missiles and brandishing nuclear weapons. One could, of course, point to the Iranian capacity to interfere with the transport of oil in the Persian Gulf; one could allude to the damage that Hezbollah could do; and one could refer to the capacity of the Iranian regime to unleash terrorist cells throughout the world. But if one were to lay emphasis on the Iranian capacity to project power and disrupt the world economy in the present circumstances, what would one be saying about Ahmadinejad’s ability to do both once his compatriots have equipped themselves with nuclear weapons and the systems necessary for their delivery?

There are two brute facts that are pertinent. First, like Hitler’s remilitarization of the Rhineland, Ahmadinejad’s acquisition of nuclear weapons and long-range missiles would profoundly alter the balance of power. Is there anyone who seriously thinks that, when it had a relatively free hand, the Islamic Republic of Iran would conduct its affairs in the manner of a saturated power? In assessing the significance of what is about to take place, one must keep in mind the strategic importance of the Persian Gulf and just how large a percentage of the oil that fuels the world economy is exported through that narrow body of water.

The second brute fact is no less easy to discern: In matters such as the one that concerns us here, diplomacy is bound to be ineffectual if it is not backed by a credible threat that, if one’s requests are refused, one will resort to force.

Think about what it means that, in circumstances as dire as those we now face, our leaders are devoting their energy to ramming a highly unpopular healthcare bill down our throats and to attacking a democratically elected government for announcing a modest increase in the size of a strategically located settlement. As Obama, Pelosi, Hoyer, Emanuel, Clinton, and Gibbs waste their energy on comparatively inconsequential matters, the clock in Teheran merrily ticks on – and for us time will soon, by all reports, be running out.

I cannot believe the impotent West allowed this to happen. Someone padlock the UN – what’s the point? Just to fleece us? There was supposed to be some benefit to our putting up with all the thieving and embezzling, not to mention the raping and human trafficking of the UN “peacekeepers.”

Imagine Islam with nuclear weapon in a post-American world. What a time for America to have such a weakling in the White House.

But his weakness is waking people up. Did you ever read the book (by Oliver Sacks) or see the movie, Awakenings? Sacks, played by Robin Williams and semi-fictionalized as Malcolm Sayer in the movie, discovers the amazing effects of the drug L-Dopa. It awakened people who had been catatonic for decades.

Watching the tea party convention, reviewing the latest polls, and being fortunate enough to have witnessed the Scott Brown win and the gubernatorial Democrat losses a couple of months back, it dawned on me that Obama is to American people what L-Dopa was to Oliver Sacks’ patients.

Obama, with all his jihad-enabling, is waking up the American people. President L-Dopa.

And so in response to the Iranian announcement, President L-Dopa announced that he was preparing “significant sanctions” against Iran. So now he admits that the sanctions that are already in place have been insignificant.

And on the same day that Amhadinejad made his announcement, the White House announced that Barack Obama would travel to Qatar with Secretary of State Clinton to address the seventh annual US-Islamic World Forum in Doha.

Obama is going to Qatar to “boost ties” with the Muslim world again. Why don’t the Muslims make any effort to boost ties with us? “Boost ties” as in apologize for centuries of jihadi wars, enslavements, exterminations, and Jew-hatred.

Why doesn’t the Muslim world take stock, and stop their relentless imperialism campaigns and their violence and murder of non-Muslims, and live side-by-side with non-Muslims? Because they can’t. It is forbidden in their religion. The world community needs to call upon Islamic leaders to expunge those vile texts from the Koran.

But instead, Obama is going on the charm offensive to Muslim states at a forum in Qatar. The AFP report on his visit complained: “A year into his administration, Obama has yet to achieve any significant momentum on stalled peace talks between the Palestinians and the Israelis, and Muslim audiences are now less receptive to his promise of a ‘new beginning’ with the Muslim world.” Ah, we knew that was coming. Islamic Jew-hatred must be slaked. In Qatar Obama will be pressed to squeeze the Israelis harder than he already has. And he is so desperate to make friends with Muslim countries, he will probably agree.

And there was more good news for the jihadis this week as well. The Washington Times reported that “two new documents laying out the Obama administration’s defense and homeland security strategy over the next four years describe the nation’s terrorist enemies in a number of ways, but fail to mention the words Islam, Islamic or Islamist.” Instead, the report focuses on the really big security threat: climate change!

Meanwhile there has been a sharp increase in jihad activity in the U.S. since Obama took office. This comes at a time when a soft sharia restriction has been imposed upon media and government agencies: talking about jihad and its root causes in Islam is forbidden. At the same time, there is a global effort at the UN and elsewhere to silence opponents of the jihad, and to criminalize discussion of the Islamic doctrines of jihad violence.

When reason, logic and objective reality become a relic of the past, then anything goes. No snow? It’s global warming! Too much snow? it’s global warming! Don’t want to talk about the jihad? Pretend that climate change is the real terror threat!

How many countries have to slide into the Islamic abyss? How many women have to be burned, sold, trafficked, shrouded? How many Christians, Jews, and non-believers have to be persecuted, murdered, humiliated? How many freedoms surrendered? How many 9/11s, 7/7s, 3/11s must there be before freedom-loving peoples push back, say no and back it up with action? It’s not Obama’s fault he’s president, it’s ours. This is how far we have fallen off the path of individual rights, capitalism, and constitutional rule.

But people are waking up now. Thanks to President L-Dopa.