How many studies linking abortion to breast cancer will it take before the corrupt American Pravda determines that it should look out for the welfare of women and disclose these ties?
Read from Breast Cancer Awareness News:
Six Breast Cancer Research Papers (Five Published in Year 2009 - 2010) Linking Abortion to Elevated Breast Cancer Risk
"On October 15, 2010, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced it had invited 15 individuals to serve on the Advisory Committee on Breast Cancer in Young Women, a federal advisory committee established by the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act charges CDC with the responsibility of developing initiatives to increase knowledge of breast health and breast cancer among women, particularly among those under the age of 40 and those at heightened risk for developing the disease.
Here is the link to Centers for Disease Control & Prevention announcing the new Advisory Committee:
http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/2010/r101015.html
Now here's something for you to chew on...........
There are five breast cancer research papers published very recently in year 2009 - 2010 which state in their findings that induced abortion is linked to elevated breast cancer risk. This blog focuses on the 6 most recent studies from 2009 - 2010 although in the past 5 decades, there have been approximately 28 studies linking abortion to breast cancer.
Unfortunately, the 'Advisory Committee on Breast Cancer in Young Women' consisting of external experts, who are suppose to assist CDC in increasing public understanding & awareness of breast cancer among young women, is under tremendous political pressure by pro-choice politicians to conceal the two largest risk factors for breast cancer in women under age 45: oral contraceptives & abortion. It has been estimated that 42% of women in the U.S. have had an abortion by age 45 and this has contributed to the increase in breast cancer in women under age 45 along with the popularity of the birth control pill. Incidentally, Dr. Thomas Frieden, Director of Centers for Disease Control & Prevention served as health advisor to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg - an enormous abortion enthusiast who mandated abortion training for all OBGYN resident doctors in New York. Dr. Frieden was appointed to his position as Director of Centers for Disease Control & Prevention by Obama who ardently favors taxpayer funded abortion. Hmmm.
Despite 5 new breast cancer research studies linking induced abortion to elevated breast cancer risk, the federally funded U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) has been slow to include this information on their website & only mentions discussions from a 7 year old NCI breast cancer workshop from 2003. U.S. National Cancer Institute is reluctant to include the new findings on their website due to political pressures by pro-choice politicians who fear the wide public broadcast of the new findings in the media will affect the legality of abortion. American Cancer Society was also pressured to remove induced abortion as a breast cancer risk factor from their website & their current website completely lacks information & even acknowledgment of the new year 2009 to 2010 breast cancer research linking abortion to breast cancer. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention's 'breast cancer prevention research & awareness activities for the public' is more of a smoke screen. Dr. Thomas Frieden is likely more interested in suppressing abortion-breast-cancer research than 'creating awareness that abortion is linked to elevated breast cancer risk.' Interestingly, some of the 15 individuals to serve on his new Advisory Committee have also been accused of being associated with groups trying to suppress abortion-breast-cancer links. I question the true motive of the new Advisory Committee on Breast Cancer in Young Women just created by the CDC.
(As a side note, it is interesting to mention that it took several decades for the National Cancer Institute - NCI to openly admit the link between smoking & lung cancer. Research emerged in the early 1900's that smoking was associated with elevated lung cancer risk. After the National Cancer Institute was founded in 1937, big tobacco companies started to donate 'research grants' to the NCI to 'further study the matter' as they feared the unfavorable research would adversely impact profits. Unsurprisingly, NCI started churning out denials of the smoking-lung-cancer link until the evidence became overwhelming irrefutable & due to litigation. Many people draw parallels to the abortion-breast-cancer link as the $1 billion a year U.S. abortion industry continually donates to U.S. politicians. Even Obama's Health Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, has openly admitted to receiving campaign donations from the abortion industry."
Go here for the six breast cancer research info.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
The Islamization of Paris
Wanna see the future of America?
From Israel Matzav:
How Muslims are taking over France
"Here's an amazing video that shows how Muslims are taking over France. This is amazing.
Let's go to the videotape.
From Israel Matzav:
How Muslims are taking over France
"Here's an amazing video that shows how Muslims are taking over France. This is amazing.
Let's go to the videotape.
Nobody Fears Obama
Teddy Roosevelt earned respect around the world thanks to his policy known as "speak softly and carry a big stick". President Obama's slogan should be "speak softly and carry a big feather".
No drama Obama is basically ignoring the Wikileaks documents release. Why is he not doing more to stop this atrocity? Why has he not disabled Wikileaks? Perhaps, he secretly is enjoying this attempt to cut America down to size.
We've got two major slime balls here who have blood on their hands: Manning, the soldier who leaked the classified documents, who by the way, should be put in front of a firing squad as a warning to any future traitors, and Julian Assange from Wikileaks. These two have already endangered our troops and leaked a multitude of names of Afghans who have worked against the Taliban. What's the likelihood anymore Afghans will rise up to help us in the future?
Read about our weak, ineffective president from Gateway Pundit:
Frustrated O’Reilly on Obama: “I Don’t Think There’s Anybody in the World Who Fears Obama. I Don’t Think Anybody Does!” (Video)
"Bill O’Reilly tonight discussed the Wikileaks fiasco with Brit Hume.
After reporting on Obama’s weak response, O’Reilly exclaimed, 'I don’t think there’s anybody in the world who fears Barack Obama. I don’t think anybody does!'"
From Weasel Zippers:
Ralph Peters: Obama Is “Gutless” For Not Taking Down Wikileaks…
"Lt. Col. Ralph Peters: 'This is an attack on the United States, on our security. We have the cyber capability to take down Wikileaks, could have done it before the first dump of information, could have destroyed their operating systems. President Obama decided not to do it because President Obama is a gutless wonder who cared more about his left-wing free-cyberspace base than he did about protecting the security of the United States……We have the capability to track cyber crime anywhere in the world, to go after it anywhere, take it on, and we’ve done nothing? And I’ll tell you, people are stewing about this because President Obama has overseen the gravest compromise — the greatest willful compromise because he did nothing — of our national security of any president in my lifetime.'"
From Joshua Pundit:
The Real Casualty of Wikileaks - Barack Obama's Presidency
"Most presidencies have a number of moments that define them, that reveal the essence of both the man and his administration.
Barack Hussein Obama has had a number of these moments already. But the current Wikileaks scandal has to be a true 'the emperor has no clothes' moment...a truly revealing portrait of a truly failed and impotent presidency.
Here we have the spectacle of a foreign organization not only openly publishing illegally obtained, highly classified documents that strain relations with our allies, compromise our diplomats and our intel and endanger our troops and operatives in the field but taunting us by giving us advance notice of their intent to do so.
Our response to what amounted to a threat to our national security? Did we get the CIA involved to take out the perpetrators? Did we even warn them that if they even thought about publishing this stuff and didn't return it immediately, there would be serious consequences?
No,we had our State Department's lawyer Howard Koh write a letter essentially saying 'this was really nasty of you, so please give us our stuff back, OK?'
And then President Obama went off to take care of some important things..play a little basketball and pardon a couple of turkeys.
The publishing of the Wikileaks documents does deep damage to American interests far beyond what was actually revealed. Our allies and US friendly assets among our enemies are going to think twice about cooperating with us, since the confidentiality of that cooperation is no longer guaranteed. Certainly no Arab government and possibly Israel are going to risk speaking openly and bluntly to us about security matters in the future. And our diplomats and agents abroad are also going to be more constrained about what they tell Washington, since it could come back to compromise their missions or even get them killed.
In view of that, President Obama's public statement on the matter is highly illuminating:
'President Obama supports responsible, accountable, and open government at home and around the world, but this reckless and dangerous action runs counter to that goal. By releasing stolen and classified documents, Wikileaks has put at risk not only the cause of human rights but also the lives and work of these individuals. We condemn in the strongest terms the unauthorized disclosure of classified documents and sensitive national security information.'
Well...that'll teach 'em, won't it? Although I have to chuckle a bit at the line about how the Obama Administration supports 'responsible, accountable, and open government'. The American people certainly haven't seen anything like that here.
Still, it's worth looking at how puerile and ineffectual the White House's response to this attack - and I can't really refer to it any other way. The two Wikileaks episodes have shown us to be a world power in name only, governed by an administration who won't even respond forcefully to our country's enemies.
That's evident not only from how we've handled the leaks themselves, but from the actual Wikileaks revelations, especially the ones dealing with our non-policy on Iran.
Are we to believe that the entire resources of the US government were unable to track down Julian Assange and the Wikileaks people, recover the data and arrest and prosecute them?
There are really only two possibilities, and neither of them is pleasant to contemplate. Either the Obama Administration really doesn't know quite how to handle this or deep down, the president actually approves of the US being taken down a peg and is making a kabuki protest. That certainly would jibe with a number of other things the Administration has done.
In either case, what we have is a sitting President of the United States of America who has allowed a major attack on US Security to go essentially unchallenged. And there will be consequences."
No drama Obama is basically ignoring the Wikileaks documents release. Why is he not doing more to stop this atrocity? Why has he not disabled Wikileaks? Perhaps, he secretly is enjoying this attempt to cut America down to size.
We've got two major slime balls here who have blood on their hands: Manning, the soldier who leaked the classified documents, who by the way, should be put in front of a firing squad as a warning to any future traitors, and Julian Assange from Wikileaks. These two have already endangered our troops and leaked a multitude of names of Afghans who have worked against the Taliban. What's the likelihood anymore Afghans will rise up to help us in the future?
Read about our weak, ineffective president from Gateway Pundit:
Frustrated O’Reilly on Obama: “I Don’t Think There’s Anybody in the World Who Fears Obama. I Don’t Think Anybody Does!” (Video)
"Bill O’Reilly tonight discussed the Wikileaks fiasco with Brit Hume.
After reporting on Obama’s weak response, O’Reilly exclaimed, 'I don’t think there’s anybody in the world who fears Barack Obama. I don’t think anybody does!'"
From Weasel Zippers:
Ralph Peters: Obama Is “Gutless” For Not Taking Down Wikileaks…
"Lt. Col. Ralph Peters: 'This is an attack on the United States, on our security. We have the cyber capability to take down Wikileaks, could have done it before the first dump of information, could have destroyed their operating systems. President Obama decided not to do it because President Obama is a gutless wonder who cared more about his left-wing free-cyberspace base than he did about protecting the security of the United States……We have the capability to track cyber crime anywhere in the world, to go after it anywhere, take it on, and we’ve done nothing? And I’ll tell you, people are stewing about this because President Obama has overseen the gravest compromise — the greatest willful compromise because he did nothing — of our national security of any president in my lifetime.'"
From Joshua Pundit:
The Real Casualty of Wikileaks - Barack Obama's Presidency
"Most presidencies have a number of moments that define them, that reveal the essence of both the man and his administration.
Barack Hussein Obama has had a number of these moments already. But the current Wikileaks scandal has to be a true 'the emperor has no clothes' moment...a truly revealing portrait of a truly failed and impotent presidency.
Here we have the spectacle of a foreign organization not only openly publishing illegally obtained, highly classified documents that strain relations with our allies, compromise our diplomats and our intel and endanger our troops and operatives in the field but taunting us by giving us advance notice of their intent to do so.
Our response to what amounted to a threat to our national security? Did we get the CIA involved to take out the perpetrators? Did we even warn them that if they even thought about publishing this stuff and didn't return it immediately, there would be serious consequences?
No,we had our State Department's lawyer Howard Koh write a letter essentially saying 'this was really nasty of you, so please give us our stuff back, OK?'
And then President Obama went off to take care of some important things..play a little basketball and pardon a couple of turkeys.
The publishing of the Wikileaks documents does deep damage to American interests far beyond what was actually revealed. Our allies and US friendly assets among our enemies are going to think twice about cooperating with us, since the confidentiality of that cooperation is no longer guaranteed. Certainly no Arab government and possibly Israel are going to risk speaking openly and bluntly to us about security matters in the future. And our diplomats and agents abroad are also going to be more constrained about what they tell Washington, since it could come back to compromise their missions or even get them killed.
In view of that, President Obama's public statement on the matter is highly illuminating:
'President Obama supports responsible, accountable, and open government at home and around the world, but this reckless and dangerous action runs counter to that goal. By releasing stolen and classified documents, Wikileaks has put at risk not only the cause of human rights but also the lives and work of these individuals. We condemn in the strongest terms the unauthorized disclosure of classified documents and sensitive national security information.'
Well...that'll teach 'em, won't it? Although I have to chuckle a bit at the line about how the Obama Administration supports 'responsible, accountable, and open government'. The American people certainly haven't seen anything like that here.
Still, it's worth looking at how puerile and ineffectual the White House's response to this attack - and I can't really refer to it any other way. The two Wikileaks episodes have shown us to be a world power in name only, governed by an administration who won't even respond forcefully to our country's enemies.
That's evident not only from how we've handled the leaks themselves, but from the actual Wikileaks revelations, especially the ones dealing with our non-policy on Iran.
Are we to believe that the entire resources of the US government were unable to track down Julian Assange and the Wikileaks people, recover the data and arrest and prosecute them?
There are really only two possibilities, and neither of them is pleasant to contemplate. Either the Obama Administration really doesn't know quite how to handle this or deep down, the president actually approves of the US being taken down a peg and is making a kabuki protest. That certainly would jibe with a number of other things the Administration has done.
In either case, what we have is a sitting President of the United States of America who has allowed a major attack on US Security to go essentially unchallenged. And there will be consequences."
Pakistani Court Overrules PM's Pardon
The Muslim world is bound and determined to execute the Pakistani Christian woman who dared to speak of her faith. They will not rest until this woman is dead. Now, a court has ruled on her fate.
Read from Reuters:
Pakistan PM barred from pardoning Christian woman
"A Pakistani court Monday barred President Asif Ali Zardari from pardoning a Christian woman sentenced to death on charges of insulting Islam, in a case that has sparked criticism over the country's blasphemy law.
Asia Bibi, a 45-year-old mother of four, requested a pardon from the president after a lower court sentenced her to death on Nov 8 in a case stemming from a village dispute.
The Lahore High Court barred Zardari from pardoning Bibi in a petition filed by Shahid Iqbal, a Pakistani citizen. Iqbal's lawyer Allah Bux Laghari told Reuters a pardon was illegal as the court was already hearing an appeal against her sentence.
'We believe it is the court's duty to evaluate the evidence against her, not individuals, and if she is found innocent, she should be freed,' he said.
Human rights groups have demanded the repeal of the law, which they say discriminates against religious minorities who make up roughly 4 percent of Pakistan's 170 million population.
Last week, a government minister said an initial inquiry into the case of the Christian mother said she had not committed blasphemy but was falsely accused after a quarrel.
Blasphemy convictions are common although the death sentence has never been carried out. Most convictions are thrown out on appeal, but angry mobs have killed many people accused of blasphemy."
Read from Reuters:
Pakistan PM barred from pardoning Christian woman
"A Pakistani court Monday barred President Asif Ali Zardari from pardoning a Christian woman sentenced to death on charges of insulting Islam, in a case that has sparked criticism over the country's blasphemy law.
Asia Bibi, a 45-year-old mother of four, requested a pardon from the president after a lower court sentenced her to death on Nov 8 in a case stemming from a village dispute.
The Lahore High Court barred Zardari from pardoning Bibi in a petition filed by Shahid Iqbal, a Pakistani citizen. Iqbal's lawyer Allah Bux Laghari told Reuters a pardon was illegal as the court was already hearing an appeal against her sentence.
'We believe it is the court's duty to evaluate the evidence against her, not individuals, and if she is found innocent, she should be freed,' he said.
Human rights groups have demanded the repeal of the law, which they say discriminates against religious minorities who make up roughly 4 percent of Pakistan's 170 million population.
Last week, a government minister said an initial inquiry into the case of the Christian mother said she had not committed blasphemy but was falsely accused after a quarrel.
Blasphemy convictions are common although the death sentence has never been carried out. Most convictions are thrown out on appeal, but angry mobs have killed many people accused of blasphemy."
Obama Campaigned for Anti-Gay Kenyan Politician--UPDATED TWICE
Anybody remember this dude? Raila Odinga, the prime minister of Kenya and friend of Obama who happens to support Sharia law.
I wonder what Obama's gay supporters would think if they knew that he campaigned for a man who has ordered the arrest of homosexuals. No need to worry though because with our corrupt American Pravda, how would they find out?
Read from Weasel Zippers:
Kenyan Prime Minister Obama Campaigned For Orders Police to Arrest All Homosexuals…
"Nice job, Barack…
NAIROBI, Kenya, Nov 28 – 'Prime Minister Raila Odinga has ordered a nationwide crackdown on homosexuals in Kenya.
Mr Odinga on Sunday said that police should arrest anyone found engaging in such behaviours and take appropriate legal action against them.
“We will not tolerate such behaviours in the country. The constitution is very clear on this issue and men or women found engaging in homosexuality will not be spared,” Mr Odinga said.
“Any man found engaging in sexual activities with another man should be arrested. Even women found engaging in sexual activities will be arrested,” the premier warned.
Speaking at a public rally at the Kamukunji grounds in his Nairobi’s Kibera constituency on Sunday afternoon, the Prime Minister cited the recent population census results which put the ratio of men to women equal and wondered why people should engage in homosexuality.
“This [homosexual] kind of behaviours will not be tolerated in this country. Men or women found engaging in those acts deserve to be arrested and will be arrested,” he told a hilarious crowd.'
Via I Hate The Media who adds:
'We’d be willing to bet that most Americans don’t know that Raila Odinga, Barack Obama’s cousin, is the new Prime Minister of Kenya. Nor that he’s an avowed socialist. Nor that Obama went to Kenya to campaign for him. Nor that he’s virulently anti-gay.'"
UPDATE: Admittedly, the Obama-Odinga family tie is questionable, but Obama did indeed appear with Odinga in August 2006. Why?
UPDATE: How innocent was the relationship between Obama and Odinga? Was it really as simple as Diogenes lets on? You be the judge.
Watch this video from Atlas Shrugs:
Monday, November 29, 2010
The Saudi King and His Big Demand
So, Mr. President, if you're going to kiss up to the Muslims, why are you not doing what they ask of you? The recent Wikileaks documents release reveals that the king of Saudi Arabia is not particularly concerned about solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which has been ongoing for decades.
What the king desperately desires is the halting of the Iranian nuclear program which is not only a major threat to Israel, America, and Europe, but also to neighboring Middle Eastern countries. And he expects us to take out the Iranian nukes. Interesting how America is supposed to do the dirty work and take all the risks that come with a military strike against Iran. How arrogant is that coming from the king?
While many live in fear of a nuclear Iran, President Obama is spending his time and energy bullying Israel to stop building in its own capital. Now, let's take a moment here and determine which country poses a greater threat, Israel or Iran. I think the answer is quite clear to anyone who is not a complete moron. So while Obama pressures Israel, the clock ticks and Iran moves closer and closer to its goal of nuclear capability.
Here's a little nugget for you, Mr. President. Peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians is impossible when one of the parties is not interested in laying down its arms. And guess what? The Arabs in the Middle East are not all that interested in a peace agreement either because the Palestinian situation is something that they have whined about for decades and they are not about to give up that complaint concerning America's foreign policy.
Read from Weasel Zippers:
Wikileak: Saudi King Abdullah Urged America to ‘Cut Off the Head of the Snake’…
"Snake fight…
The Guardian) — 'King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has repeatedly urged the United States to attack Iran to destroy its nuclear programme, according to leaked US diplomatic cables that describe how other Arab allies have secretly agitated for military action against Tehran.
The revelations, in secret memos from US embassies across the Middle East, expose behind-the-scenes pressures in the scramble to contain the Islamic Republic, which the US, Arab states and Israel suspect is close to acquiring nuclear weapons. Bombing Iranian nuclear facilities has hitherto been viewed as a desperate last resort that could ignite a far wider war.
The Saudi king was recorded as having “frequently exhorted the US to attack Iran to put an end to its nuclear weapons programme”, one cable stated. “He told you [Americans] to cut off the head of the snake,” the Saudi ambassador to Washington, Adel al-Jubeir said, according to a report on Abdullah’s meeting with the US general David Petraeus in April 2008.'"
As to the slime balls who leaked our secret documents, they should receive the harshest of all penalties.
What the king desperately desires is the halting of the Iranian nuclear program which is not only a major threat to Israel, America, and Europe, but also to neighboring Middle Eastern countries. And he expects us to take out the Iranian nukes. Interesting how America is supposed to do the dirty work and take all the risks that come with a military strike against Iran. How arrogant is that coming from the king?
While many live in fear of a nuclear Iran, President Obama is spending his time and energy bullying Israel to stop building in its own capital. Now, let's take a moment here and determine which country poses a greater threat, Israel or Iran. I think the answer is quite clear to anyone who is not a complete moron. So while Obama pressures Israel, the clock ticks and Iran moves closer and closer to its goal of nuclear capability.
Here's a little nugget for you, Mr. President. Peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians is impossible when one of the parties is not interested in laying down its arms. And guess what? The Arabs in the Middle East are not all that interested in a peace agreement either because the Palestinian situation is something that they have whined about for decades and they are not about to give up that complaint concerning America's foreign policy.
Read from Weasel Zippers:
Wikileak: Saudi King Abdullah Urged America to ‘Cut Off the Head of the Snake’…
"Snake fight…
The Guardian) — 'King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has repeatedly urged the United States to attack Iran to destroy its nuclear programme, according to leaked US diplomatic cables that describe how other Arab allies have secretly agitated for military action against Tehran.
The revelations, in secret memos from US embassies across the Middle East, expose behind-the-scenes pressures in the scramble to contain the Islamic Republic, which the US, Arab states and Israel suspect is close to acquiring nuclear weapons. Bombing Iranian nuclear facilities has hitherto been viewed as a desperate last resort that could ignite a far wider war.
The Saudi king was recorded as having “frequently exhorted the US to attack Iran to put an end to its nuclear weapons programme”, one cable stated. “He told you [Americans] to cut off the head of the snake,” the Saudi ambassador to Washington, Adel al-Jubeir said, according to a report on Abdullah’s meeting with the US general David Petraeus in April 2008.'"
As to the slime balls who leaked our secret documents, they should receive the harshest of all penalties.
100 Lashes for Unlawful Sex
Sharia law in all its glory for all to see, from the Korea Times, via John McTernan:
Terrible 100 lashes for unlawful sex in UAE
"A unmarried foreign couple have been ordered to receive 100 lashes by a sharia court for having sex in a Middle East country.
The man is believed to have already undergone his punishment in the United Arab Emirates(UAE), sustaining horrendous welts on his back and legs, a British newspaper said. It has attracted harsh criticism from throughout the world upon the spread of the photo of his back and legs swelled with welts.
The pair - a Filipina maid and her Bangladeshi boyfriend - were also ordered to be deported after the harsh punishment meted out just 20 miles from Dubai in Sharjah, the Daily Mail reported.
Police arrested the couple after a house owner reported how she saw the man leave the home.
Both the maid and her lover then admitted to unlawful sex and were handed the harsh punishment because they are both Muslims.
They admitted to having sex several times at the house owned by the maid's sponsor, the employer who previously backed her to stay in the country, according to the newspaper.
But the man's ordeal may not yet be over - it was reported that the man may face a year in prison for illegally entering the sponsor's home.
According to sharia law, if Muslims commit adultery they will be lashed and deported when they are expatriates
The case is reminiscent of that of two British people deported for having sex on a Dubai beach in 2008.
Vince Acors, from Bromley in Kent, travelled to Dubai for what was planned as a three-day business trip.
While there he joined a group of friends at one of the city's infamous all-you-can drink brunches.
Four hours of eating and drinking later, he moved on to a nightclub where he met fellow Briton Michelle Palmer who was working in Dubai as a publishing saleswoman.
Later the same evening the couple were arrested after being discovered semi-naked on a sun lounger on the city's Jumeirah beach, near to the iconic Burj Dubai hotel.
They were found guilty of having sex in public, acting indecently and being drunk in public, but an appeal court suspended their three-month prison sentence and instead ordered they be deported.
The UAE has attempted to establish itself as center for Western business with a supposedly liberal approach to foreigners, however, many still fall foul of strict sharia laws."
Terrible 100 lashes for unlawful sex in UAE
"A unmarried foreign couple have been ordered to receive 100 lashes by a sharia court for having sex in a Middle East country.
The man is believed to have already undergone his punishment in the United Arab Emirates(UAE), sustaining horrendous welts on his back and legs, a British newspaper said. It has attracted harsh criticism from throughout the world upon the spread of the photo of his back and legs swelled with welts.
The pair - a Filipina maid and her Bangladeshi boyfriend - were also ordered to be deported after the harsh punishment meted out just 20 miles from Dubai in Sharjah, the Daily Mail reported.
Police arrested the couple after a house owner reported how she saw the man leave the home.
Both the maid and her lover then admitted to unlawful sex and were handed the harsh punishment because they are both Muslims.
They admitted to having sex several times at the house owned by the maid's sponsor, the employer who previously backed her to stay in the country, according to the newspaper.
But the man's ordeal may not yet be over - it was reported that the man may face a year in prison for illegally entering the sponsor's home.
According to sharia law, if Muslims commit adultery they will be lashed and deported when they are expatriates
The case is reminiscent of that of two British people deported for having sex on a Dubai beach in 2008.
Vince Acors, from Bromley in Kent, travelled to Dubai for what was planned as a three-day business trip.
While there he joined a group of friends at one of the city's infamous all-you-can drink brunches.
Four hours of eating and drinking later, he moved on to a nightclub where he met fellow Briton Michelle Palmer who was working in Dubai as a publishing saleswoman.
Later the same evening the couple were arrested after being discovered semi-naked on a sun lounger on the city's Jumeirah beach, near to the iconic Burj Dubai hotel.
They were found guilty of having sex in public, acting indecently and being drunk in public, but an appeal court suspended their three-month prison sentence and instead ordered they be deported.
The UAE has attempted to establish itself as center for Western business with a supposedly liberal approach to foreigners, however, many still fall foul of strict sharia laws."
It's Islam Pure and Simple
More insanity from the American Pravda. Do they really expect us to believe that the jihadist caught trying to bomb a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon, became radicalized because his parents got divorced? Half of all marriages end in divorce, and children do not respond to a divorce by bombing innocent people. How stupid do they think we are?
Read from Jihad Watch:
Divorce causes jihad: Oregon jihadist 'embraced militant Islam not long after his parents split up'
"The search for some explanation, any explanation, for Mohamed Mohamud's attempted jihad mass-murder other than the texts and teachings of Islam has now begun in earnest. The first entry: Mohamud became 'radicalized' after his parents split.
And it's true: the divorce of parents has driven many an unhappy child to try to set off a bomb in a crowded place and murder hundreds, if not thousands, of people, hasn't it?
Of course, many more terrorist attacks have been committed by Islamic jihadists who read and took seriously the Qur'an's commands to wage war against infidels than by children traumatized by their parents' divorce, but never mind: when it comes to exonerating Islam of any responsibility for motivating violent jihadists, government, law enforcement and media officials join Islamic spokesmen in grabbing hold of any alternative explanation, no matter how implausible.
'Neighbors say wannabe Christmas bomber Mohamed Mohamud embraced extremism after parents split,' by Lukas I. Alpert for the New York Daily News, November 28:
[...] 'Neighbors say Mohamud was doted on by his family but embraced militant Islam not long after his parents split up.
"He was a quiet kid, but with his folks splitting up, who knows?" Adam Napier, who lived next door to Mohamed Osman Mohamud for years told the newspaper.
Mohamud's family moved to the U.S. when he was just 5 and were described as friendly and modern.
Mariam Barre did not wear a hijab and her husband, Osman Barre, reportedly worked as an engineer for Intel. Mohamud appeared to be particularly close to his mother, neighbors said.
"She always talked so good about him. He was just a good kid," said Adam Napier's mother, Stephanie.
In 2009, Mohamud parents split up, not long after he turned 18, the paper said.
Omar Jamal, first secretary to the Somali Mission to the United Nations, told KPTV that Mohamud's father had remarried a woman in Minneapolis, which has a large Somali population and has been a hotbed for jihadist recruitment.
Later in 2009, Mohamud began communicating with jihadists abroad, and wrote articles for a website called "Jihad Recollections," authorities said....'"
Read from Jihad Watch:
Divorce causes jihad: Oregon jihadist 'embraced militant Islam not long after his parents split up'
"The search for some explanation, any explanation, for Mohamed Mohamud's attempted jihad mass-murder other than the texts and teachings of Islam has now begun in earnest. The first entry: Mohamud became 'radicalized' after his parents split.
And it's true: the divorce of parents has driven many an unhappy child to try to set off a bomb in a crowded place and murder hundreds, if not thousands, of people, hasn't it?
Of course, many more terrorist attacks have been committed by Islamic jihadists who read and took seriously the Qur'an's commands to wage war against infidels than by children traumatized by their parents' divorce, but never mind: when it comes to exonerating Islam of any responsibility for motivating violent jihadists, government, law enforcement and media officials join Islamic spokesmen in grabbing hold of any alternative explanation, no matter how implausible.
'Neighbors say wannabe Christmas bomber Mohamed Mohamud embraced extremism after parents split,' by Lukas I. Alpert for the New York Daily News, November 28:
[...] 'Neighbors say Mohamud was doted on by his family but embraced militant Islam not long after his parents split up.
"He was a quiet kid, but with his folks splitting up, who knows?" Adam Napier, who lived next door to Mohamed Osman Mohamud for years told the newspaper.
Mohamud's family moved to the U.S. when he was just 5 and were described as friendly and modern.
Mariam Barre did not wear a hijab and her husband, Osman Barre, reportedly worked as an engineer for Intel. Mohamud appeared to be particularly close to his mother, neighbors said.
"She always talked so good about him. He was just a good kid," said Adam Napier's mother, Stephanie.
In 2009, Mohamud parents split up, not long after he turned 18, the paper said.
Omar Jamal, first secretary to the Somali Mission to the United Nations, told KPTV that Mohamud's father had remarried a woman in Minneapolis, which has a large Somali population and has been a hotbed for jihadist recruitment.
Later in 2009, Mohamud began communicating with jihadists abroad, and wrote articles for a website called "Jihad Recollections," authorities said....'"
Update on Asia Bibi
Where is the outrage over the death sentence for Pakistani Christian, Asia Bibi, for daring to speak of her faith? Oh, that's right, there is no outrage.
And where is the American Pravda on this story? When a few Americans were threatening to burn Korans, our agenda-driven press went berserk. But, when a poor Christian woman's life is in danger because Islamists are threatening to kill her, they do nothing more than yawn. No surprise, the hard Left, which includes the media, despises the God of the Bible, while embracing Islam.
Read about how Italy is stepping up to the plate on behalf of Asia Bibi, via Weasel Zippers:
Italy Offers Asylum and Job to Pakistani Christian Woman Sentenced to Death For Blasphemy…
"Thank you, Italy…
(ANSA) – 'Italy is ready to offer asylum and a job to a Christian woman sentenced to death in Pakistan for derogatory remarks about the Prophet Mohammed, Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said Thursday.
“If she were freed, and we hope so, Italy is ready to offer her a job (here),” Frattini said.
Asia Bibi, a 45-year-old mother of five, was sentenced to death by hanging on November 8 under Pakistan’s blasphemy laws but her supporters are hopeful President Asif Ali Zardari will grant her clemency.
Earlier this month, during a visit to Islamabad, Frattini pressed for Bibi’s case to be reopened during talks on alleged discrimination against Pakistan’s four million Christians.
Frattini said afterwards: “Perhaps we have saved her”. Frattini added that he had received a “commitment” from Pakistan Prime Minister Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani to have the country’s blasphemy laws changed.
Bibi is the first woman to get the death penalty in Pakistan for blasphemy.
In July two Christian brothers were shot under the blasphemy laws.'"
And where is the American Pravda on this story? When a few Americans were threatening to burn Korans, our agenda-driven press went berserk. But, when a poor Christian woman's life is in danger because Islamists are threatening to kill her, they do nothing more than yawn. No surprise, the hard Left, which includes the media, despises the God of the Bible, while embracing Islam.
Read about how Italy is stepping up to the plate on behalf of Asia Bibi, via Weasel Zippers:
Italy Offers Asylum and Job to Pakistani Christian Woman Sentenced to Death For Blasphemy…
"Thank you, Italy…
(ANSA) – 'Italy is ready to offer asylum and a job to a Christian woman sentenced to death in Pakistan for derogatory remarks about the Prophet Mohammed, Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said Thursday.
“If she were freed, and we hope so, Italy is ready to offer her a job (here),” Frattini said.
Asia Bibi, a 45-year-old mother of five, was sentenced to death by hanging on November 8 under Pakistan’s blasphemy laws but her supporters are hopeful President Asif Ali Zardari will grant her clemency.
Earlier this month, during a visit to Islamabad, Frattini pressed for Bibi’s case to be reopened during talks on alleged discrimination against Pakistan’s four million Christians.
Frattini said afterwards: “Perhaps we have saved her”. Frattini added that he had received a “commitment” from Pakistan Prime Minister Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani to have the country’s blasphemy laws changed.
Bibi is the first woman to get the death penalty in Pakistan for blasphemy.
In July two Christian brothers were shot under the blasphemy laws.'"
Hamas Executions
Are the Palestinians worthy of their own state? Watch this video and see how the savages treat their own.
From Israel Matzav:
The mass execution in Gaza that you never saw
"Doug Ross has pictures and a narrative of a mass execution in Gaza that the mainstream media never covered because - you guessed it - it was 'Palestinians' murdering 'Palestinians.'
You can see Doug's photos here.
For those of you who aren't squeemish, let's go to the videotape. (For those who are squeemish, please skip the videotape). (Hat Tip: Gary Rumain).
Such nice people. Let's give them a state."
And to think that the Israelis are the ones accused of genocide.
From Israel Matzav:
The mass execution in Gaza that you never saw
"Doug Ross has pictures and a narrative of a mass execution in Gaza that the mainstream media never covered because - you guessed it - it was 'Palestinians' murdering 'Palestinians.'
You can see Doug's photos here.
For those of you who aren't squeemish, let's go to the videotape. (For those who are squeemish, please skip the videotape). (Hat Tip: Gary Rumain).
Such nice people. Let's give them a state."
And to think that the Israelis are the ones accused of genocide.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Will He Win in 2012?
Will President Obama pull it out like Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan did, after having low approval ratings during their mid-term elections, yet coming back and winning re-election? It certainly is possible, but in the case of Reagan, he had a clear advantage over Obama. His policies to turn around a sick economy were effective ones, whereas Obama's are ass-backwards.
Clinton, on the other hand, had the help of a Republican Congress which got government spending under control. Then Slick Willie took the credit for their leadership and won a second term. Obama could do the same with a conservative House.
Anything is possible. Two years is a very long time in politics. Wasn't it just two years ago that we were told conservatism is dead? Now, thanks to Barack Obama, conservatism is alive and thriving.
One thing is for certain: Obama is one fine salesman, and America is full of a whole lot of gullible people. But, have they learned their lesson and recognized that they elected a snake oil salesman? Only time will tell.
Byron York analyzes Obama's chances for victory in 2012. Read from the Washington Examiner:
Obama's poll numbers point to his defeat in 2012
By Byron York
"We're fast approaching the halfway point in Barack Obama's term. With Nov. 2 behind him, everything the president does will be calculated to boost, or at least not harm, his chances of re-election in 2012. What's not clear is whether he fully appreciates how badly the coalition he led to victory in 2008 has frayed in just two years. A look inside his poll numbers suggests that if he cannot turn around some key trends, he'll be a one-term president.
Just look at the exit polls from 2008, which reveal the demographic contours of Obama's support. Compare those with Gallup's weekly analysis of the president's approval rating, drawn from multiple polls broken down by age, gender, political philosophy, and the like. Throw in some insights from the midterm elections, and the mix shows a dramatic deterioration in Obama's 2008 support. 'His majority coalition is not there,' says Republican pollster David Winston. 'What he put together, at least in the way he put it together, just isn't there.'
Start with voters who call themselves independents. Obama won 52 percent of them in 2008; now, according to Gallup, he is at 42 percent. Obama's party as a whole fared even worse among independents in the midterms, losing them to Republicans by 19 points. If Obama does anywhere near that badly in 2012, he'll lose.
Next, women. In 2008, Obama won 56 percent of female voters. Today, he's at 49 percent. If that number doesn't improve, he'll be in deep trouble. (Obama is also down with men, from 49 percent in 2008 to 44 percent now.)
Even younger voters, a key part of Obama's coalition, are peeling away. In '08, Obama won 66 percent of voters 18-29 years of age. Now, he's at 58 percent. That might seem pretty good, but not when you consider his deterioration among other age groups. Obama has dropped 5 percentage points among voters in and around middle age, and 8 percent with voters above 65. If those trends continue, he'll lose.
Then there are white voters. In '08, Obama won 43 percent of whites. Now, he's at 37 percent -- a dangerously low number for his re-election hopes. He won 67 percent of Hispanic voters in 2008; now, he's at 58 percent. Even support among black voters, a bedrock for Obama, has ticked downward; after winning 95 percent of blacks in '08, he's now at 89 percent.
Just one group has stuck with Obama through it all. In '08, he won 58 percent of people with graduate degrees. Now, he's at 59 percent. It appears that academic types will be with Obama always, but they're not enough.
Everyone expects some of Obama's lost voters to come back in 2012. 'Presidential elections are different from midterms,' says David Winston. 'You'll see a slightly larger turnout among younger voters, a slightly larger turnout among African-Americans, making the electorate a little more liberal. But everybody across the board turns out at higher rates.'
And that includes conservatives, of whom there are more every day. Gallup has found that the number of people who call themselves conservative has gone up sharply since 2008, 'fueled by heightened conservatism among independents.'
'He's got to realize the reason he lost independents,' says Winston of the president. 'He thinks it was about communications. It wasn't. It was about substance and policy.' Whether Obama can gracefully back away from the policies that got him in trouble -- federal spending, Obamacare -- is simply not clear.
Obama supporters point to the example of Bill Clinton, whose approval dipped to 40 percent after losing Congress in 1994, only to climb to 54 percent before winning easy re-election in 1996. Maybe that will happen again.
But Clinton's former pollster, Doug Schoen, doesn't see it that way. Schoen recently did a survey asking voters whether Obama deserves to be re-elected and found that 56 percent believe the president doesn't deserve another term, while just 38 percent believe he does.
Despite his problems, there are still ways Obama can win. His greatest hope, as always in politics, is that the other side will screw up. Maybe the newly empowered House Republicans will do a terrible job, or the GOP will nominate an awful presidential candidate. But that just underscores a stark reality. At this point, it will be hard for Obama to save himself. He'll need a lot of help to win a second term in the White House."
Clinton, on the other hand, had the help of a Republican Congress which got government spending under control. Then Slick Willie took the credit for their leadership and won a second term. Obama could do the same with a conservative House.
Anything is possible. Two years is a very long time in politics. Wasn't it just two years ago that we were told conservatism is dead? Now, thanks to Barack Obama, conservatism is alive and thriving.
One thing is for certain: Obama is one fine salesman, and America is full of a whole lot of gullible people. But, have they learned their lesson and recognized that they elected a snake oil salesman? Only time will tell.
Byron York analyzes Obama's chances for victory in 2012. Read from the Washington Examiner:
Obama's poll numbers point to his defeat in 2012
By Byron York
"We're fast approaching the halfway point in Barack Obama's term. With Nov. 2 behind him, everything the president does will be calculated to boost, or at least not harm, his chances of re-election in 2012. What's not clear is whether he fully appreciates how badly the coalition he led to victory in 2008 has frayed in just two years. A look inside his poll numbers suggests that if he cannot turn around some key trends, he'll be a one-term president.
Just look at the exit polls from 2008, which reveal the demographic contours of Obama's support. Compare those with Gallup's weekly analysis of the president's approval rating, drawn from multiple polls broken down by age, gender, political philosophy, and the like. Throw in some insights from the midterm elections, and the mix shows a dramatic deterioration in Obama's 2008 support. 'His majority coalition is not there,' says Republican pollster David Winston. 'What he put together, at least in the way he put it together, just isn't there.'
Start with voters who call themselves independents. Obama won 52 percent of them in 2008; now, according to Gallup, he is at 42 percent. Obama's party as a whole fared even worse among independents in the midterms, losing them to Republicans by 19 points. If Obama does anywhere near that badly in 2012, he'll lose.
Next, women. In 2008, Obama won 56 percent of female voters. Today, he's at 49 percent. If that number doesn't improve, he'll be in deep trouble. (Obama is also down with men, from 49 percent in 2008 to 44 percent now.)
Even younger voters, a key part of Obama's coalition, are peeling away. In '08, Obama won 66 percent of voters 18-29 years of age. Now, he's at 58 percent. That might seem pretty good, but not when you consider his deterioration among other age groups. Obama has dropped 5 percentage points among voters in and around middle age, and 8 percent with voters above 65. If those trends continue, he'll lose.
Then there are white voters. In '08, Obama won 43 percent of whites. Now, he's at 37 percent -- a dangerously low number for his re-election hopes. He won 67 percent of Hispanic voters in 2008; now, he's at 58 percent. Even support among black voters, a bedrock for Obama, has ticked downward; after winning 95 percent of blacks in '08, he's now at 89 percent.
Just one group has stuck with Obama through it all. In '08, he won 58 percent of people with graduate degrees. Now, he's at 59 percent. It appears that academic types will be with Obama always, but they're not enough.
Everyone expects some of Obama's lost voters to come back in 2012. 'Presidential elections are different from midterms,' says David Winston. 'You'll see a slightly larger turnout among younger voters, a slightly larger turnout among African-Americans, making the electorate a little more liberal. But everybody across the board turns out at higher rates.'
And that includes conservatives, of whom there are more every day. Gallup has found that the number of people who call themselves conservative has gone up sharply since 2008, 'fueled by heightened conservatism among independents.'
'He's got to realize the reason he lost independents,' says Winston of the president. 'He thinks it was about communications. It wasn't. It was about substance and policy.' Whether Obama can gracefully back away from the policies that got him in trouble -- federal spending, Obamacare -- is simply not clear.
Obama supporters point to the example of Bill Clinton, whose approval dipped to 40 percent after losing Congress in 1994, only to climb to 54 percent before winning easy re-election in 1996. Maybe that will happen again.
But Clinton's former pollster, Doug Schoen, doesn't see it that way. Schoen recently did a survey asking voters whether Obama deserves to be re-elected and found that 56 percent believe the president doesn't deserve another term, while just 38 percent believe he does.
Despite his problems, there are still ways Obama can win. His greatest hope, as always in politics, is that the other side will screw up. Maybe the newly empowered House Republicans will do a terrible job, or the GOP will nominate an awful presidential candidate. But that just underscores a stark reality. At this point, it will be hard for Obama to save himself. He'll need a lot of help to win a second term in the White House."
Was a Muslim Businessman Attempting to Harm Our Troops?
Sounds like jihad to me. You make the call. Is this a story of greed or an act of terror directed against American troops serving in Iraq or perhaps both? In this age of terror, this case deserves a deeper investigation.
Read from Jihad Watch:
Muslim businessman in Texas sells $36 million worth of mislabeled and potentially dangerous food to U.S. military
"He knew what he was doing: 'American Grocers shipped so much stale merchandise that the company bought paint solvent by the barrel and set up assembly lines to wipe out the old labels to make room for the phony dates.' So what was his intent? Just to make a profit? Or to cripple the military in Iraq as well? Does anyone know? Does anyone care? After all, we have seen cases like this before, although details remain elusive.
'Texas businessman settles military food mislabeling case for $15 million,' by P.J. Huffstutter and Andrew Blankstein for the Los Angeles Times, November 20 (thanks to Creeping Sharia):
'A Texas businessman has agreed to pay $15 million to settle federal allegations that he and his company cheated the government by selling old and potentially dangerous food to the U.S. military to supply combat troops serving in Iraq and elsewhere.
Prosecutors had alleged that Samir Mahmoud Itani and his company American Grocers Ltd. profited from the Middle East conflict by ripping off taxpayers and shortchanging U.S. soldiers in the mess hall. According to the government, Itani's firm bought deeply discounted products whose freshness dates had expired or were nearing expiration. His workers then altered those dates and resold those supplies to the government for hefty markups, prosecutors alleged.
On Friday, Department of Justice officials announced that Itani, his wife, Suzanne, his brother Ziad and the company agreed to pay the penalty to settle the false-claim charges in this federal whistle-blower case.
Suzanne Itani, chief executive of American Grocers, said in a statement that the company denied any wrongdoing and that the settlement was a way to avoid lengthy litigation. She said that the company was "proud of the service and products it delivers to its customers" and that company officials "look forward to returning our full attention to serving our many loyal customers throughout the world."
Samir Itani could not be reached for comment. According to property records, he owns a $2.2-million, 9,931-square-foot mansion with two elevators in an upscale Houston neighborhood.
Prosecutors said that Samir Itani, 51, and a tightknit group of family and business acquaintances sold at least $36 million worth of mislabeled food products to the government. [...]
As the U.S. military presence grew in the Middle East, Itani's business boomed. American Grocers shipped so much stale merchandise that the company bought paint solvent by the barrel and set up assembly lines to wipe out the old labels to make room for the phony dates, according to the complaint.
The Justice Department did not say whether any troops were sickened by the food supplied by American Grocers, or whether any of the food companies that sold items to Itani knew of any wrongdoing.'"
Read from Jihad Watch:
Muslim businessman in Texas sells $36 million worth of mislabeled and potentially dangerous food to U.S. military
"He knew what he was doing: 'American Grocers shipped so much stale merchandise that the company bought paint solvent by the barrel and set up assembly lines to wipe out the old labels to make room for the phony dates.' So what was his intent? Just to make a profit? Or to cripple the military in Iraq as well? Does anyone know? Does anyone care? After all, we have seen cases like this before, although details remain elusive.
'Texas businessman settles military food mislabeling case for $15 million,' by P.J. Huffstutter and Andrew Blankstein for the Los Angeles Times, November 20 (thanks to Creeping Sharia):
'A Texas businessman has agreed to pay $15 million to settle federal allegations that he and his company cheated the government by selling old and potentially dangerous food to the U.S. military to supply combat troops serving in Iraq and elsewhere.
Prosecutors had alleged that Samir Mahmoud Itani and his company American Grocers Ltd. profited from the Middle East conflict by ripping off taxpayers and shortchanging U.S. soldiers in the mess hall. According to the government, Itani's firm bought deeply discounted products whose freshness dates had expired or were nearing expiration. His workers then altered those dates and resold those supplies to the government for hefty markups, prosecutors alleged.
On Friday, Department of Justice officials announced that Itani, his wife, Suzanne, his brother Ziad and the company agreed to pay the penalty to settle the false-claim charges in this federal whistle-blower case.
Suzanne Itani, chief executive of American Grocers, said in a statement that the company denied any wrongdoing and that the settlement was a way to avoid lengthy litigation. She said that the company was "proud of the service and products it delivers to its customers" and that company officials "look forward to returning our full attention to serving our many loyal customers throughout the world."
Samir Itani could not be reached for comment. According to property records, he owns a $2.2-million, 9,931-square-foot mansion with two elevators in an upscale Houston neighborhood.
Prosecutors said that Samir Itani, 51, and a tightknit group of family and business acquaintances sold at least $36 million worth of mislabeled food products to the government. [...]
As the U.S. military presence grew in the Middle East, Itani's business boomed. American Grocers shipped so much stale merchandise that the company bought paint solvent by the barrel and set up assembly lines to wipe out the old labels to make room for the phony dates, according to the complaint.
The Justice Department did not say whether any troops were sickened by the food supplied by American Grocers, or whether any of the food companies that sold items to Itani knew of any wrongdoing.'"
Protests Against Pardoning Asia Bibi
These people really are over the top. Religion of peace? I don't think so. More like the religion of insanity and hatred of anything not Islamic.
Read about how the savages in Pakistan are reacting to a possible presidential pardon for Pakistani Christian Asia Bibi, via Weasel Zippers:
Pakistan: Hundreds of Muslims Protesters Threaten “Jihad” if Christian Woman Isn’t Executed for Blasphemy…
"Quick, someone organize an interfaith conference!…
LAHORE, Pakistan — 'Pakistani Muslims threatened protests and anarchy if the government pardons a Christian mother sentenced to death for blasphemy, calling hundreds of demonstrators onto the streets on Friday.
Demonstrators marched in the eastern city of Lahore after the most influential Sunni Muslim alliance in Pakistan urged the government not to grant mother-of-five Aasia Bibi clemency.
A crowd of several hundred called for “Jihad” and pledged to sacrifice their lives to protect the honour of the Prophet Mohammad, an AFP reporter said.
“The pardon would lead to anarchy in the country,” the head of the Sunn Ittehad Council, Sahibzada.
Fazal Kareem, told AFP “Our stand is very clear that this punishment cannot be waived.”'"
More from Weasel Zippers:
Pakistani Christian Family Goes Into Hiding Over Death Threats From Islamic Clerics…
"Keep them in your prayers…
(AFP)- 'A Pakistani Christian family whose mother has been sentenced to death for insulting Islam has gone into hiding because of death threats, they said Wednesday.
Politicians and conservative clerics are at loggerheads on whether President Asif Ali Zardari should pardon Asia Bibi, a mother of five sentenced to hang for defaming the Prophet Mohammed under controversial blasphemy laws.
Pakistan’s minister for minority affairs, Shahbaz Bhatti, who is himself a Christian, told reporters that Asia’s family had been forced to flee their home but declined to say where they were staying because of security fears.
Asia’s husband, Ashiq Masih, who works in a brick factory in the Shekhupura district near Lahore, said he and his children aged nine to 20 had left home because of death threats, but declined to say where they were now living.
“We are frightened. We are receiving threats, especially from clerics. They started demonstrations in the area,” he told reporters in Bhatti’s Islamabad office, accompanied by daughters Eesham, nine, and Sidra, 18.
“Yesterday there was a protest in Shekhupura. They said they will not leave Asia Bibi alive if she is pardoned.”'"
Trust me, the false prophet Muhammed is not worth all this outrage.
Read about how the savages in Pakistan are reacting to a possible presidential pardon for Pakistani Christian Asia Bibi, via Weasel Zippers:
Pakistan: Hundreds of Muslims Protesters Threaten “Jihad” if Christian Woman Isn’t Executed for Blasphemy…
"Quick, someone organize an interfaith conference!…
LAHORE, Pakistan — 'Pakistani Muslims threatened protests and anarchy if the government pardons a Christian mother sentenced to death for blasphemy, calling hundreds of demonstrators onto the streets on Friday.
Demonstrators marched in the eastern city of Lahore after the most influential Sunni Muslim alliance in Pakistan urged the government not to grant mother-of-five Aasia Bibi clemency.
A crowd of several hundred called for “Jihad” and pledged to sacrifice their lives to protect the honour of the Prophet Mohammad, an AFP reporter said.
“The pardon would lead to anarchy in the country,” the head of the Sunn Ittehad Council, Sahibzada.
Fazal Kareem, told AFP “Our stand is very clear that this punishment cannot be waived.”'"
More from Weasel Zippers:
Pakistani Christian Family Goes Into Hiding Over Death Threats From Islamic Clerics…
"Keep them in your prayers…
(AFP)- 'A Pakistani Christian family whose mother has been sentenced to death for insulting Islam has gone into hiding because of death threats, they said Wednesday.
Politicians and conservative clerics are at loggerheads on whether President Asif Ali Zardari should pardon Asia Bibi, a mother of five sentenced to hang for defaming the Prophet Mohammed under controversial blasphemy laws.
Pakistan’s minister for minority affairs, Shahbaz Bhatti, who is himself a Christian, told reporters that Asia’s family had been forced to flee their home but declined to say where they were staying because of security fears.
Asia’s husband, Ashiq Masih, who works in a brick factory in the Shekhupura district near Lahore, said he and his children aged nine to 20 had left home because of death threats, but declined to say where they were now living.
“We are frightened. We are receiving threats, especially from clerics. They started demonstrations in the area,” he told reporters in Bhatti’s Islamabad office, accompanied by daughters Eesham, nine, and Sidra, 18.
“Yesterday there was a protest in Shekhupura. They said they will not leave Asia Bibi alive if she is pardoned.”'"
Trust me, the false prophet Muhammed is not worth all this outrage.
Friday, November 26, 2010
God Bless Canada
More blessings from on high to our northern neighbor. Canada steps up to the plate once again in defense of Israel while the anti-Semite in the White House remains silent. Gotta keep appeasing Islam, huh, Mr. President?
Read from Atlas Shrugs:
Canada Takes the Lead of the Free World in Global Paradigm Shift:
Boycotts Durban III in NYC
"Once again we look north for leadership with a moral compass. Gd bless Canada. Obama, you shame us, yet again. Canada will boycott a planned antisemitic UN conference on racism in New York in September because it promises to be nothing more than a 'hatefest,' directed largely at Israel.
'Like the Ground Zero mosque architects, the UN has decided to pour salt in the wounds of still grieving Americans. The crowds at Durban I held high their signs reading: “For the liberation of Quds, machine-guns based upon faith and Islam must be used,” and “The martyr’s blood irrigates the tree of revolution in Palestine.”' (more here)
The US should have been the first to take a stand against genocide and apartheid. But Obama won't; he'll be there and drag the US down even further. At some point we all will have to go on a massive apology tour to the free world for Obama. He is a curse on this nation and all lovers of freedom.
UN racist Hatefest, Durban III, is coming to NYC on 10th Anniversary of 911: FDI/SIOA Mega Protest Against Durban Hate
We will be there with thousands of defenders of freedom and Western values, and those who refuse to allow a second holocaust. Evil will not win this time. Six million Jews will not be sacrificed to Islam. Plan your vacation, time off, sick leave for September -- stand with us against Islamic supremacism.
CANADA OPTS OUT OF DURBAN HATEFEST National Post
OTTAWA — 'Canada has lost faith in a “tainted” UN process that was supposed to combat racism — but not in the United Nations as an institution, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said Thursday.
Mr. Kenney said the federal government would boycott a planned UN conference on racism in New York in September because it promises to be nothing more than a “hatefest,” directed largely at Israel.
“We obviously continue to believe in the United Nations as an important multilateral forum,” he said. “But we are able to make basic distinctions between good and bad.”
Mr. Kenney said Canada would have nothing to do with the planning of the September conference, which is being held to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the first conference on racism, held in Durban, South Africa, in 2001.
“Our government has lost faith in the entire tainted Durban process,” Mr. Kenney said. “Canada will not participate in this charade any longer. We will not lend our country’s good name to a commemoration of what has widely been characterized — indeed across party lines here — as a hatefest.”
He also said the government would not help finance Canadian NGOs to attend the meeting.
The Canadian Jewish Congress said the government made the right call.
“Both Durban I and II, ostensibly aimed at fighting racism, turned out to be little more than concerted anti-Semitic charades that set back the real fight against racism and discrimination by decades,” said Mark J. Freiman, president of the congress, in a statement. “This UN process is fundamentally flawed and by now beyond repair.”'"
Read from Atlas Shrugs:
Canada Takes the Lead of the Free World in Global Paradigm Shift:
Boycotts Durban III in NYC
"Once again we look north for leadership with a moral compass. Gd bless Canada. Obama, you shame us, yet again. Canada will boycott a planned antisemitic UN conference on racism in New York in September because it promises to be nothing more than a 'hatefest,' directed largely at Israel.
'Like the Ground Zero mosque architects, the UN has decided to pour salt in the wounds of still grieving Americans. The crowds at Durban I held high their signs reading: “For the liberation of Quds, machine-guns based upon faith and Islam must be used,” and “The martyr’s blood irrigates the tree of revolution in Palestine.”' (more here)
The US should have been the first to take a stand against genocide and apartheid. But Obama won't; he'll be there and drag the US down even further. At some point we all will have to go on a massive apology tour to the free world for Obama. He is a curse on this nation and all lovers of freedom.
UN racist Hatefest, Durban III, is coming to NYC on 10th Anniversary of 911: FDI/SIOA Mega Protest Against Durban Hate
We will be there with thousands of defenders of freedom and Western values, and those who refuse to allow a second holocaust. Evil will not win this time. Six million Jews will not be sacrificed to Islam. Plan your vacation, time off, sick leave for September -- stand with us against Islamic supremacism.
CANADA OPTS OUT OF DURBAN HATEFEST National Post
OTTAWA — 'Canada has lost faith in a “tainted” UN process that was supposed to combat racism — but not in the United Nations as an institution, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said Thursday.
Mr. Kenney said the federal government would boycott a planned UN conference on racism in New York in September because it promises to be nothing more than a “hatefest,” directed largely at Israel.
“We obviously continue to believe in the United Nations as an important multilateral forum,” he said. “But we are able to make basic distinctions between good and bad.”
Mr. Kenney said Canada would have nothing to do with the planning of the September conference, which is being held to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the first conference on racism, held in Durban, South Africa, in 2001.
“Our government has lost faith in the entire tainted Durban process,” Mr. Kenney said. “Canada will not participate in this charade any longer. We will not lend our country’s good name to a commemoration of what has widely been characterized — indeed across party lines here — as a hatefest.”
He also said the government would not help finance Canadian NGOs to attend the meeting.
The Canadian Jewish Congress said the government made the right call.
“Both Durban I and II, ostensibly aimed at fighting racism, turned out to be little more than concerted anti-Semitic charades that set back the real fight against racism and discrimination by decades,” said Mark J. Freiman, president of the congress, in a statement. “This UN process is fundamentally flawed and by now beyond repair.”'"
Obama Uses the IRS to Punish Israel
If only President Obama would work so feverishly to restore our economy and put Americans back to work. Unfortunately, he can't, because he is extending all his energy toward punishing Israel. Read about the latest move by the most anti-Semitic president in the history of our nation, via Gateway Pundit:
It Begins… IRS Targets Jewish Groups That Support Existence of Israel
"Do you remember when Jesse Jackson said that under Obama Jews would lose all of their clout?…
He was right.
The IRS is now asking Jewish organizations if they support the existence of Israel.
(Politico Document)
Unbelievable.
The IRS is targeting American Jewish groups that support the existence of Israel.
Ben Smith at The Politico reported:
'A Pennsylvania Jewish group that has claimed the Internal Revenue Service is targeting pro-Israel groups introduced in federal court today a letter from an IRS agent to another, unnamed organization that tax experts said was likely outside the usual or appropriate scope of an IRS inquiry.
“Does your organization support the existence of the land of Israel?” IRS agent Tracy Dornette wrote the organization, according to this week’s court filing, as part of its consideration of the organizations application for tax exempt status. “Describe your organization’s religious belief sytem toward the land of Israel.”
The document emerged in the course of a lawsuit filed in August by Z Street, a hawkish group that casts itself as the Zionist answer to the liberal J Street. Z Street claims that a different IRS agent reviewing its application for tax exempt status said the agency is “carefully scrutinizing organizations that are in any way connected with Israel” and that “a special unit” is determining whether its activities “contradict the Administration’s public policies.’”
The IRS can deny tax exempt status to groups that work against “established public policy,” a precedent established in its denial of a tax exemption to Bob Jones University over racial discrimination, and Z Street is suggesting that the IRS has begun applying some such policy to pro-Israel groups.'"
You can bet your bottom dollar Obama isn't hassling CAIR.
It Begins… IRS Targets Jewish Groups That Support Existence of Israel
"Do you remember when Jesse Jackson said that under Obama Jews would lose all of their clout?…
He was right.
The IRS is now asking Jewish organizations if they support the existence of Israel.
(Politico Document)
Unbelievable.
The IRS is targeting American Jewish groups that support the existence of Israel.
Ben Smith at The Politico reported:
'A Pennsylvania Jewish group that has claimed the Internal Revenue Service is targeting pro-Israel groups introduced in federal court today a letter from an IRS agent to another, unnamed organization that tax experts said was likely outside the usual or appropriate scope of an IRS inquiry.
“Does your organization support the existence of the land of Israel?” IRS agent Tracy Dornette wrote the organization, according to this week’s court filing, as part of its consideration of the organizations application for tax exempt status. “Describe your organization’s religious belief sytem toward the land of Israel.”
The document emerged in the course of a lawsuit filed in August by Z Street, a hawkish group that casts itself as the Zionist answer to the liberal J Street. Z Street claims that a different IRS agent reviewing its application for tax exempt status said the agency is “carefully scrutinizing organizations that are in any way connected with Israel” and that “a special unit” is determining whether its activities “contradict the Administration’s public policies.’”
The IRS can deny tax exempt status to groups that work against “established public policy,” a precedent established in its denial of a tax exemption to Bob Jones University over racial discrimination, and Z Street is suggesting that the IRS has begun applying some such policy to pro-Israel groups.'"
You can bet your bottom dollar Obama isn't hassling CAIR.
Sarah Fires Back!
For all you liberals who are mocking Sarah Palin for her comment mixing up North and South Korea, you really need to hear what she said just moments prior to her verbal slip:
'"We're not having a lot of faith that the White House is going to come out with a strong enough policy to sanction what it is that North Korea is going to do", she said on the Fox News presenter’s nationally syndicated radio show.
"So this speaks to a bigger picture here that certainly scares me in terms of our national security policies.
"But obviously we gotta stand with our North Korean allies."'
Now, that we have the full context of the conversation, it obviously was just a slip of the tongue. She clearly is aware of which nation is a threat, just as Obama is certainly aware that there are 50 U.S. states, even though he mentioned visiting 57 states while campaigning for the presidential election. Of course, the corrupt American Pravda neglected to share his gaffe with the public because they have a liberal agenda to fulfill.
Unlike George W. Bush, who refused to stick up for himself against an avalanche of media attacks, Sarah Palin does an awesome job of firing back and reminding us all of the lengthy list of Obama's gaffes, many of which I've never heard before, and I make it a point of staying well-informed, which means that the average American has likely never heard any of these comments.
Read from Weasel Zippers:
Sarah Palin: A Thanksgiving Message to All 57 States…
"Fight the Leftist smears…
(Facebook) — 'My fellow Americans in all 57 states, As the time has changed for come.
With our country founded more than 20 centuries ago, we have much to celebrate – from the FBI’s 100 days to the reforms that bring greater inefficiencies to our health care system. We know that countries like Europe are willing to stand with us in our fight to halt the rise of privacy, and Israel is a strong friend of Israel’s. And let’s face it, everybody knows that it makes no sense that you send a kid to the emergency room for a treatable illness like asthma and they end up taking up a hospital bed. It costs, when, if you, they just gave, you gave them treatment early, and they got some treatment, and ah, a breathalyzer, or an inhalator. I mean, not a breathalyzer, ah, I don’t know what the term is in Austrian for that…
Of course, the paragraph above is based on a series of misstatements and verbal gaffes made by Barack Obama (I didn’t have enough time to do one for Joe Biden).
YouTube links are provided just in case you doubt the accuracy of these all too human slips-of-the-tongue. If you can’t remember hearing about them, that’s because for the most part the media didn’t consider them newsworthy. I have no complaint about that. Everybody makes the occasional verbal gaffe – even news anchors.
Obviously, I would have been even more impressed if the media showed some consistency on this issue. Unfortunately, it seems they couldn’t resist the temptation to turn a simple one word slip-of-the-tongue of mine into a major political headline. The one word slip occurred yesterday during one of my seven back-to-back interviews wherein I was privileged to speak to the American public about the important, world-changing issues before us.
If the media had bothered to actually listen to all of my remarks on Glenn Beck’s radio show, they would have noticed that I refer to South Korea as our ally throughout, that I corrected myself seconds after my slip-of-the-tongue, and that I made it abundantly clear that pressure should be put on China to restrict energy exports to the North Korean regime.
The media could even have done due diligence and checked my previous statements on the subject, which have always been consistent, and in fact even ahead of the curve.'"
The American Pravda can portray Palin as a stupid dolt all they like, but when it comes to the issues, she is on the right side at least 95+% of the time, versus Obama's 2% of the time.
BTW, Diogenes, Sarah Palin is my sister in the Lord because she and I share the same Lord and Savior. She's no sister to you, a CINO who has no fear of God and who twists and distorts the Bible to support an ungodly agenda which is an abomination in the eyes of a holy God.
'"We're not having a lot of faith that the White House is going to come out with a strong enough policy to sanction what it is that North Korea is going to do", she said on the Fox News presenter’s nationally syndicated radio show.
"So this speaks to a bigger picture here that certainly scares me in terms of our national security policies.
"But obviously we gotta stand with our North Korean allies."'
Now, that we have the full context of the conversation, it obviously was just a slip of the tongue. She clearly is aware of which nation is a threat, just as Obama is certainly aware that there are 50 U.S. states, even though he mentioned visiting 57 states while campaigning for the presidential election. Of course, the corrupt American Pravda neglected to share his gaffe with the public because they have a liberal agenda to fulfill.
Unlike George W. Bush, who refused to stick up for himself against an avalanche of media attacks, Sarah Palin does an awesome job of firing back and reminding us all of the lengthy list of Obama's gaffes, many of which I've never heard before, and I make it a point of staying well-informed, which means that the average American has likely never heard any of these comments.
Read from Weasel Zippers:
Sarah Palin: A Thanksgiving Message to All 57 States…
"Fight the Leftist smears…
(Facebook) — 'My fellow Americans in all 57 states, As the time has changed for come.
With our country founded more than 20 centuries ago, we have much to celebrate – from the FBI’s 100 days to the reforms that bring greater inefficiencies to our health care system. We know that countries like Europe are willing to stand with us in our fight to halt the rise of privacy, and Israel is a strong friend of Israel’s. And let’s face it, everybody knows that it makes no sense that you send a kid to the emergency room for a treatable illness like asthma and they end up taking up a hospital bed. It costs, when, if you, they just gave, you gave them treatment early, and they got some treatment, and ah, a breathalyzer, or an inhalator. I mean, not a breathalyzer, ah, I don’t know what the term is in Austrian for that…
Of course, the paragraph above is based on a series of misstatements and verbal gaffes made by Barack Obama (I didn’t have enough time to do one for Joe Biden).
YouTube links are provided just in case you doubt the accuracy of these all too human slips-of-the-tongue. If you can’t remember hearing about them, that’s because for the most part the media didn’t consider them newsworthy. I have no complaint about that. Everybody makes the occasional verbal gaffe – even news anchors.
Obviously, I would have been even more impressed if the media showed some consistency on this issue. Unfortunately, it seems they couldn’t resist the temptation to turn a simple one word slip-of-the-tongue of mine into a major political headline. The one word slip occurred yesterday during one of my seven back-to-back interviews wherein I was privileged to speak to the American public about the important, world-changing issues before us.
If the media had bothered to actually listen to all of my remarks on Glenn Beck’s radio show, they would have noticed that I refer to South Korea as our ally throughout, that I corrected myself seconds after my slip-of-the-tongue, and that I made it abundantly clear that pressure should be put on China to restrict energy exports to the North Korean regime.
The media could even have done due diligence and checked my previous statements on the subject, which have always been consistent, and in fact even ahead of the curve.'"
The American Pravda can portray Palin as a stupid dolt all they like, but when it comes to the issues, she is on the right side at least 95+% of the time, versus Obama's 2% of the time.
BTW, Diogenes, Sarah Palin is my sister in the Lord because she and I share the same Lord and Savior. She's no sister to you, a CINO who has no fear of God and who twists and distorts the Bible to support an ungodly agenda which is an abomination in the eyes of a holy God.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
"An Admission of Ignorance That Was Truly Staggering"
When it comes to the dynamic duo on "The View", Whoppi Goldberg and Joy Behar, Whoppi is by far the more agreeable of the two. Though she is a die-hard liberal, she does not come across as obnoxious as the witch-like Joy.
That being said, Whoppi is quick to defend Islam when she is clueless as to what it teaches. The ill-informed Whoppi had never even heard of a madrassah, yet she feels qualified to defend the Islamic faith. Wake up, Whoppi, you really have no idea what you are talking about.
Read from the American Thinker:
Whoopi Goldberg's Ignorance
Selwyn Duke
"Since I'm well aware of how leftists' claims of erudition are as empty as their ideology, not many of their failures surprise me. But an exception came last night when Whoopi Goldberg was interviewed by Bill O'Reilly. The two were discussing their differing views on the nature of the Islamic threat, with O'Reilly maintaining that we have a 'Muslim problem' and Goldberg insisting that, no, we have a 'terrorist problem.' In typical leftist style, she even went so far as to rationalize away the threat, implying at one point that terrorists were as likely to be white guys as anyone else. But as ridiculous as this denial of reality is, it was followed by an admission of ignorance that was truly staggering. It occurred during the following exchange:
'O'Reilly: Do you know what a madrassah is?
Goldberg: No, I don't.
O'Reilly: Okay, a madrassah is a school that teaches Islamic jihad, and there are madrassahs all over the Muslim world. They teach four and five-year-old kids to hate people.
Goldberg: Bill, Bill, that may be true.
O'Reilly: It is true!
Goldberg: It may be true; I can't prove it. You've...you've clearly been to them, and I'll take your word for it.'
Goldberg had no idea what a madrassah was. Wow. Just wow. Could you imagine if Sarah Palin exhibited such a striking lack of knowledge?
Now, if some readers didn't know what a madrassah was, while I would recommend boning up on the subject, it's a different matter: They're not professional commentators (plainly, Goldberg isn't, either). But this is a woman who obviously feels qualified to render opinion publicly on the Muslim threat, and she knows nothing about entities that serve as perhaps the main transmitters of jihadist propaganda to Muslim youth (there are 10,000 madrassahs across Pakistan alone).
And, of course, this has to reflect her knowledge base in general. If she didn't even know about madrassahs' existence, how much has she actually read about the Muslim threat? It's fair to assume that she knows nothing of the history of Islam. Could she possibly be acquainted with the Islamic conquests, from 632 A.D. onwards, of the old Middle Eastern Christian lands? Could she know about how the Muslim hordes then swept across North Africa (also Christian at the time), invaded Spain and Portugal (then Iberia), crossed the Pyrenees Mountains into France (then Gaul), and got within 130 miles of Paris before being stopped by Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours in 732? And could she have any idea that these continued conquests were what inspired the launch of the Crusades in 1095? No, she probably believes that those defensive campaigns were animated by rapacious, imperialistic Europeans who suddenly got in into their heads that they wanted to convert those practitioners of the religion of peace. (Note: Earlier this year, I addressed this in a magazine essay titled 'The Crusades: When Christendom Pushed Back.')
It's also hard to imagine that Goldberg could know anything about the Islamic canon's eternal prescriptions for jihad, how Muslim thought involves Sharia law, or how dhimmitude is the inevitable lot of 'infidels' in Dar al-Islam. In fact, after the O'Reilly interview, I very much doubt she knows what dhimmitude is.
Now, Goldberg was very pleasant in the interview; she's not a person of ill will. But while she did seem willing to listen to what O'Reilly had to say - she obviously wanted to make amends for an earlier blow-up during O'Reilly's last appearance on The View - there is a difference between listening and trying to comprehend. It's clear that, like all leftists, Goldberg subordinates Truth to her ideology; thus, when the two conflict, instead of amending her ideology, she rationalizes away the Truth. Put more simply, this is when something goes in one ear and out the other.
The ancient Chinese sage Confucius once said, 'Wisdom is, when you know something, knowing that you know it; and when you do not know something, knowing that you do not know it.' Sadly, Goldberg is ignorant of her ignorance. What's even sadder, though, is that such people can find a place in today's media."
That being said, Whoppi is quick to defend Islam when she is clueless as to what it teaches. The ill-informed Whoppi had never even heard of a madrassah, yet she feels qualified to defend the Islamic faith. Wake up, Whoppi, you really have no idea what you are talking about.
Read from the American Thinker:
Whoopi Goldberg's Ignorance
Selwyn Duke
"Since I'm well aware of how leftists' claims of erudition are as empty as their ideology, not many of their failures surprise me. But an exception came last night when Whoopi Goldberg was interviewed by Bill O'Reilly. The two were discussing their differing views on the nature of the Islamic threat, with O'Reilly maintaining that we have a 'Muslim problem' and Goldberg insisting that, no, we have a 'terrorist problem.' In typical leftist style, she even went so far as to rationalize away the threat, implying at one point that terrorists were as likely to be white guys as anyone else. But as ridiculous as this denial of reality is, it was followed by an admission of ignorance that was truly staggering. It occurred during the following exchange:
'O'Reilly: Do you know what a madrassah is?
Goldberg: No, I don't.
O'Reilly: Okay, a madrassah is a school that teaches Islamic jihad, and there are madrassahs all over the Muslim world. They teach four and five-year-old kids to hate people.
Goldberg: Bill, Bill, that may be true.
O'Reilly: It is true!
Goldberg: It may be true; I can't prove it. You've...you've clearly been to them, and I'll take your word for it.'
Goldberg had no idea what a madrassah was. Wow. Just wow. Could you imagine if Sarah Palin exhibited such a striking lack of knowledge?
Now, if some readers didn't know what a madrassah was, while I would recommend boning up on the subject, it's a different matter: They're not professional commentators (plainly, Goldberg isn't, either). But this is a woman who obviously feels qualified to render opinion publicly on the Muslim threat, and she knows nothing about entities that serve as perhaps the main transmitters of jihadist propaganda to Muslim youth (there are 10,000 madrassahs across Pakistan alone).
And, of course, this has to reflect her knowledge base in general. If she didn't even know about madrassahs' existence, how much has she actually read about the Muslim threat? It's fair to assume that she knows nothing of the history of Islam. Could she possibly be acquainted with the Islamic conquests, from 632 A.D. onwards, of the old Middle Eastern Christian lands? Could she know about how the Muslim hordes then swept across North Africa (also Christian at the time), invaded Spain and Portugal (then Iberia), crossed the Pyrenees Mountains into France (then Gaul), and got within 130 miles of Paris before being stopped by Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours in 732? And could she have any idea that these continued conquests were what inspired the launch of the Crusades in 1095? No, she probably believes that those defensive campaigns were animated by rapacious, imperialistic Europeans who suddenly got in into their heads that they wanted to convert those practitioners of the religion of peace. (Note: Earlier this year, I addressed this in a magazine essay titled 'The Crusades: When Christendom Pushed Back.')
It's also hard to imagine that Goldberg could know anything about the Islamic canon's eternal prescriptions for jihad, how Muslim thought involves Sharia law, or how dhimmitude is the inevitable lot of 'infidels' in Dar al-Islam. In fact, after the O'Reilly interview, I very much doubt she knows what dhimmitude is.
Now, Goldberg was very pleasant in the interview; she's not a person of ill will. But while she did seem willing to listen to what O'Reilly had to say - she obviously wanted to make amends for an earlier blow-up during O'Reilly's last appearance on The View - there is a difference between listening and trying to comprehend. It's clear that, like all leftists, Goldberg subordinates Truth to her ideology; thus, when the two conflict, instead of amending her ideology, she rationalizes away the Truth. Put more simply, this is when something goes in one ear and out the other.
The ancient Chinese sage Confucius once said, 'Wisdom is, when you know something, knowing that you know it; and when you do not know something, knowing that you do not know it.' Sadly, Goldberg is ignorant of her ignorance. What's even sadder, though, is that such people can find a place in today's media."
"Hamas: Front Group Skilled in Media Manipulation"
Wow! A federal judge confirms what many of us knew all along: CAIR = Hamas. What a stroke of genius. Now that we have established that fact, how about the American Pravda stop giving this terrorist-supporting Muslim group the media outreach they so richly do not deserve to have?
From WND:
Federal judge confirms CAIR is Hamas
Unsealed ruling reveals 'ample evidence' tying group to terror
"A federal judge has determined that the Justice Department provided 'ample evidence' to designate the most prominent Muslim group in America as an unindicted terrorist co-conspirator.
According to a federal court ruling unsealed Friday, the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations has been involved in 'a conspiracy to support Hamas,' a federally designated terrorist group that has murdered at least 17 Americans and injured more than 100 U.S. citizens.
The 20-page order, signed by U.S. District Judge Jorge A. Solis, cites 'ample evidence' that CAIR participated in a 'criminal conspiracy' led by the Holy Land Foundation, Hamas's main fundraising arm in the U.S. As a result, the judge refused CAIR's request to strike its name from documents listing it as an unindicted co-conspirator in the case.
'The four pieces of evidence the government relies on do create at least a prima facie case as to CAIR's involvement in a conspiracy to support Hamas,' Solis wrote in his July 2009 ruling.
The evidence includes documents introduced by the government showing CAIR and its founding chairman Omar Ahmad have operated as key members of Hamas' U.S. wing, known as the 'Palestine Committee.' In addition, FBI wiretaps and agent testimony have placed both Ahmad and CAIR's acting executive director – Nihad Awad – at a secret meeting last decade with Hamas leaders in Philadelphia. Meeting in a hotel room, participants hatched a scheme to disguise payments to Hamas suicide bombers and their families as charity.
'The attendees agreed not to mention the word Hamas but to refer to Hamas as 'Samah,' which is Hamas spelled backwards,' Solis said. 'The Philadelphia conference essentially laid out the path that the Palestine Committee would take to accomplish its goal of supporting Hamas in the future.'
During the meeting – which was organized and led by CAIR founder Ahmad – the Hamas operatives agreed to form CAIR as an outwardly benign front group skilled in media manipulation. 'They did not want to be viewed as being aligned with terrorist groups,' he said.
The judge did not dispute 'press accounts and blog entries' that 'CAIR is a criminal organization that supports terrorism,' according to the ruling.
The government's evidence undermines CAIR's public face as a 'civil-rights advocacy organization,' while corroborating the findings of the bestselling book, 'Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America.' The book chronicles the undercover investigation of P. David Gaubatz and his son, who interned at CAIR's national headquarters.
CAIR has sued the Gaubatzes for trespassing, but has not denied any of the book's explosive findings tying CAIR closer to terrorism.
According to Politico.com, a federal grand jury in Washington is actively hearing evidence against CAIR emerging from the Holy Land trial, while also reviewing the thousands of pages of evidence gathered in the 'Muslim Mafia' investigation. Prosecutors subpoenaed the evidence shortly after the book was published last fall.
CAIR, which has not been charged with a crime, denies allegations it works for Hamas – even as it refuses to condemn the terrorist group by name.
'CAIR is not a front group for Hamas,' insisted CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper, 'or any of the other false and misleading associations our detractors seek to smear us with.'
CAIR maintains it is simply a Muslim-rights group, but the Justice Department says it is a front group not only for Hamas, but for its parent the radical Muslim Brotherhood – a worldwide jihadist movement that prosecutors say has a secret plan to impose Shariah law on the U.S.
'From its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists,' said assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Kromberg in a separate court filing.
In 2007, U.S. prosecutors first named CAIR an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal scheme led by the Holy Land Foundation to funnel more than $12 million to Hamas suicide bombers and their families. A jury in 2008 convicted the charity and its leaders on all 108 felony counts.
'CAIR has been identified by the government at trial as a participant in an ongoing and ultimately unlawful conspiracy to support a designated terrorist organization – a conspiracy from which CAIR never withdrew,' said assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Jacks, who recently won an award from Attorney General Eric Holder for convicting the Holy Land terrorists.
The Holy Land revelations prompted the FBI to sever ties with CAIR until it can demonstrate it is not a terror front.
'Until we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and Hamas, the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner,' advised assistant FBI Director Richard Powers in a 2009 letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Media outlets – including Fox News, which is financed by the same Saudi prince funding CAIR – continue to invite Awad and other CAIR leaders on the air to argue against airport profiling and other issues on CAIR's agenda. Fox has offered CAIR guests full segments unopposed by critics and without viewer caveats regarding CAIR's court-documented terror connections."
From WND:
Federal judge confirms CAIR is Hamas
Unsealed ruling reveals 'ample evidence' tying group to terror
"A federal judge has determined that the Justice Department provided 'ample evidence' to designate the most prominent Muslim group in America as an unindicted terrorist co-conspirator.
According to a federal court ruling unsealed Friday, the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations has been involved in 'a conspiracy to support Hamas,' a federally designated terrorist group that has murdered at least 17 Americans and injured more than 100 U.S. citizens.
The 20-page order, signed by U.S. District Judge Jorge A. Solis, cites 'ample evidence' that CAIR participated in a 'criminal conspiracy' led by the Holy Land Foundation, Hamas's main fundraising arm in the U.S. As a result, the judge refused CAIR's request to strike its name from documents listing it as an unindicted co-conspirator in the case.
'The four pieces of evidence the government relies on do create at least a prima facie case as to CAIR's involvement in a conspiracy to support Hamas,' Solis wrote in his July 2009 ruling.
The evidence includes documents introduced by the government showing CAIR and its founding chairman Omar Ahmad have operated as key members of Hamas' U.S. wing, known as the 'Palestine Committee.' In addition, FBI wiretaps and agent testimony have placed both Ahmad and CAIR's acting executive director – Nihad Awad – at a secret meeting last decade with Hamas leaders in Philadelphia. Meeting in a hotel room, participants hatched a scheme to disguise payments to Hamas suicide bombers and their families as charity.
'The attendees agreed not to mention the word Hamas but to refer to Hamas as 'Samah,' which is Hamas spelled backwards,' Solis said. 'The Philadelphia conference essentially laid out the path that the Palestine Committee would take to accomplish its goal of supporting Hamas in the future.'
During the meeting – which was organized and led by CAIR founder Ahmad – the Hamas operatives agreed to form CAIR as an outwardly benign front group skilled in media manipulation. 'They did not want to be viewed as being aligned with terrorist groups,' he said.
The judge did not dispute 'press accounts and blog entries' that 'CAIR is a criminal organization that supports terrorism,' according to the ruling.
The government's evidence undermines CAIR's public face as a 'civil-rights advocacy organization,' while corroborating the findings of the bestselling book, 'Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America.' The book chronicles the undercover investigation of P. David Gaubatz and his son, who interned at CAIR's national headquarters.
CAIR has sued the Gaubatzes for trespassing, but has not denied any of the book's explosive findings tying CAIR closer to terrorism.
According to Politico.com, a federal grand jury in Washington is actively hearing evidence against CAIR emerging from the Holy Land trial, while also reviewing the thousands of pages of evidence gathered in the 'Muslim Mafia' investigation. Prosecutors subpoenaed the evidence shortly after the book was published last fall.
CAIR, which has not been charged with a crime, denies allegations it works for Hamas – even as it refuses to condemn the terrorist group by name.
'CAIR is not a front group for Hamas,' insisted CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper, 'or any of the other false and misleading associations our detractors seek to smear us with.'
CAIR maintains it is simply a Muslim-rights group, but the Justice Department says it is a front group not only for Hamas, but for its parent the radical Muslim Brotherhood – a worldwide jihadist movement that prosecutors say has a secret plan to impose Shariah law on the U.S.
'From its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists,' said assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Kromberg in a separate court filing.
In 2007, U.S. prosecutors first named CAIR an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal scheme led by the Holy Land Foundation to funnel more than $12 million to Hamas suicide bombers and their families. A jury in 2008 convicted the charity and its leaders on all 108 felony counts.
'CAIR has been identified by the government at trial as a participant in an ongoing and ultimately unlawful conspiracy to support a designated terrorist organization – a conspiracy from which CAIR never withdrew,' said assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Jacks, who recently won an award from Attorney General Eric Holder for convicting the Holy Land terrorists.
The Holy Land revelations prompted the FBI to sever ties with CAIR until it can demonstrate it is not a terror front.
'Until we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and Hamas, the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner,' advised assistant FBI Director Richard Powers in a 2009 letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Media outlets – including Fox News, which is financed by the same Saudi prince funding CAIR – continue to invite Awad and other CAIR leaders on the air to argue against airport profiling and other issues on CAIR's agenda. Fox has offered CAIR guests full segments unopposed by critics and without viewer caveats regarding CAIR's court-documented terror connections."
A Thanksgiving Lesson
What does socialism have to do with Thanksgiving?
John Stossel explains how socialist principles destroyed the incentive for the Pilgrims, via The Blaze:
John Stossel: Socialism Almost Ruined Thanksgiving
John Stossel explains how socialist principles destroyed the incentive for the Pilgrims, via The Blaze:
John Stossel: Socialism Almost Ruined Thanksgiving
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
"The Fruit of Bullying Israel"
God's Word makes it clear about how nations are to treat Israel. "You will arise and have compassion on Zion, for it is time to show favor to her; the appointed time has come." (Psalm 102:13)
"The day of the Lord is near for all nations. As you have done, it will be done to you; your deeds will return upon your own head." (Obadiah 15)
We are seeing the second Scripture carried out before our very eyes. Anti-Semite President Barack Hussein Obama is pressuring Israel to stop settlements in East Jerusalem.
From Haaretz, via John McTernan Insights:
Netanyahu has no choice but to freeze East Jerusalem building
"'There is no way we will give Bibi [Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] a license to build in East Jerusalem,' the American official said with unconcealed anger. 'Our letter will not mention, or even hint at, the explicit word "Jerusalem."'
The establishment of a Jewish compound near the Old City is upsetting the Arabs (not only the Palestinians ), and therefore the Americans, far more than the addition of a few apartments in a settlement on the outskirts of Ramallah. But U.S. President Barack Obama has come to realize that there is no chance Netanyahu will officially agree to a moratorium on construction in East Jerusalem for even a single hour."
Read the rest.
Here is where the reaping what we've sown comes in to play. From Fox Business, via John McTernan:
New Home Sales Drop to 7-Year Low
"New U.S. single-family home sales fell unexpectedly in October and prices dropped to a seven-year low, a government report showed on Wednesday, pointing sustained weakness in the housing market following the end of a home-buyer tax credit."
More here.
McTernan made the following astute comment:
"I have been reporting on this as Obama has pressured Israel to freeze building on God's covenant land, the building industry collapsed in America! This is the fruit to bullying Israel."
Diogenes can spin God's Word all he likes, with the help of his false prophets, but God's Word always proves to be true in the end. Just watch and see. In the meantime, get your finances in order because until America throws the anti-Semite out of the White House, we are in for some tough times.
Truly, there are strong consequences for elections. Americans are learning this the hard way. It's a shame those of us who saw the light before the 2008 election have to go along for the ride.
"The day of the Lord is near for all nations. As you have done, it will be done to you; your deeds will return upon your own head." (Obadiah 15)
We are seeing the second Scripture carried out before our very eyes. Anti-Semite President Barack Hussein Obama is pressuring Israel to stop settlements in East Jerusalem.
From Haaretz, via John McTernan Insights:
Netanyahu has no choice but to freeze East Jerusalem building
"'There is no way we will give Bibi [Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] a license to build in East Jerusalem,' the American official said with unconcealed anger. 'Our letter will not mention, or even hint at, the explicit word "Jerusalem."'
The establishment of a Jewish compound near the Old City is upsetting the Arabs (not only the Palestinians ), and therefore the Americans, far more than the addition of a few apartments in a settlement on the outskirts of Ramallah. But U.S. President Barack Obama has come to realize that there is no chance Netanyahu will officially agree to a moratorium on construction in East Jerusalem for even a single hour."
Read the rest.
Here is where the reaping what we've sown comes in to play. From Fox Business, via John McTernan:
New Home Sales Drop to 7-Year Low
"New U.S. single-family home sales fell unexpectedly in October and prices dropped to a seven-year low, a government report showed on Wednesday, pointing sustained weakness in the housing market following the end of a home-buyer tax credit."
More here.
McTernan made the following astute comment:
"I have been reporting on this as Obama has pressured Israel to freeze building on God's covenant land, the building industry collapsed in America! This is the fruit to bullying Israel."
Diogenes can spin God's Word all he likes, with the help of his false prophets, but God's Word always proves to be true in the end. Just watch and see. In the meantime, get your finances in order because until America throws the anti-Semite out of the White House, we are in for some tough times.
Truly, there are strong consequences for elections. Americans are learning this the hard way. It's a shame those of us who saw the light before the 2008 election have to go along for the ride.
Happy Thanksgiving
I'm not so crazy about Newt Gingrich because of all his personal baggage, but he sure is a great historian. Read the historical account of the origins of Thanksgiving, via Human Events:
A Grateful Nation
by Newt & Callista Gingrich
"The very first 'thanksgiving' was celebrated in 1619, one year before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth by another group of English settlers. The event was held on the banks of the James River at what is now Berkeley Plantation, the birthplace of Benjamin Harrison, signer of the Declaration of Independence and father of the ninth President of the United States, William Henry.
Most Americans, however, remember that the Thanksgiving Day tradition was modeled after the 1621 event in Plymouth, Massachusetts where fifty Pilgrims and ninety Wampanoag Indians feasted for three days. The Pilgrims were indeed thankful for friendship and a bountiful harvest. In the previous year, half of the Pilgrims had starved to death. A Patuxet Indian named Squanto came to their rescue helping them to survive in the New World.
Throughout our history, Americans were called hundreds of times by their leaders to days of fasting and prayer and subsequent days of thanksgiving often by local officials and governors.
The first Thanksgiving Proclamation was issued by the Governing council of Charlestown, Massachusetts on June 20, 1676. The council wanted to offer thanks for a series of victories in the ongoing 'War with the Heathen Natives' setting apart the 29th of June as a 'day of Solemn Thanksgiving and praise to God for such his Goodness and Favor.'
But it was President George Washington at the request of the Congress, who on October 3, 1789 issued the first national thanksgiving day proclamation from New York City. Setting aside November 26, the proclamation stated that 'our duty as a people, with devout reverence and affectionate gratitude, to acknowledge our many and great obligations to Almighty God and to implore Him to continue and confirm the blessings we experience.'
Washington issued his second thanksgiving day proclamation in 1795. Presidents Adams, Jefferson and Madison all issued proclamation calling for a day of Thanksgiving.
But few Americans gathering this week with family and friends for the feast know about the woman most credited with making Thanksgiving Day a national holiday.
Born Sarah J. Buell on October 24, 1788, in Newport, New Hampshire, it was Sarah Josepha Hale’s persistent petitions that brought about the holiday. She sent hundreds of letters to politicians including five presidents imploring them to institute a national day of thanksgiving.
Buell became one of the most influential women in the United States as the editor of the most widely circulated women’s magazine called Godey’s Lady’s Book. She also penned 'Mary Had a Little Lamb,' the most-well-known poem in American history.
But it was not until 1863, when Abraham Lincoln received her letter in the midst of the Civil War that the New England tradition would become a national one. 'If every state would join in Thanksgiving,' she wrote, 'Would it not be a renewed pledge of love and loyalty to the Constitution?' Lincoln agreed.
He set apart the last Thursday of November as a day of 'Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens.' He called upon Americans 'that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility and Union.'
Lincoln would issue three more thanksgiving proclamations from the White House. Subsequent presidents issued similar proclamations but the states chose different days for the thanksgiving observance. It was not until 1934 that Franklin Delano Roosevelt said that to 'set aside in the autumn of each year a day on which to give thanks to Almighty God for the blessings of life is a wise and reverent custom, long cherished by our people.' In 1941, the Congress made the Third Thursday of November an official national holiday.
Again and again even in our darkest days, our leaders have called upon us to give thanks to our Creator for our many blessings. This year was a difficult year for so many Americans who are out of work or have suffered economic hardship. Nevertheless, we are a nation that has always persevered through hardship and we will again. Because even when challenged we have always been a grateful nation. So with gratitude, it is fitting that we should reflect upon what is good and what God has given us. It is in that spirit that Callista and I along with our entire team wish you and your loved ones a safe and happy Thanksgiving."
Creeping Sharia
What's with all the whining about Islamophobia in this country? The reality is that Muslims are being treated with kid gloves. Now, I am not saying that they should be mistreated because that would be wrong, but I, for one, am getting sick and tired of hearing case after case of Muslims receiving special treatment when it is the Christians who are being persecuted.
Read of such a case from WND:
Kansas pastor warns of creeping Shariah
Charges police, court giving special treatment to Muslims
"A Wichita, Kan., pastor who was defending himself on a charge of loitering for passing out Gospel tracts from a public sidewalk at an Islamic mosque is suggesting Shariah is creeping into America through preferential treatment provided by law enforcement and the courts.
Pastor Mark Holick of Spirit One Christian Center, who previously challenged Internal Revenue Service mandates that he not comment on politicians' moral values in the midwestern state, was in court for a hearing on the accusation of loitering.
He said he was challenging the government's version of events and asking whether it is procedure for captains in the Wichita police department to respond to calls about someone allegedly loitering.
'I asked them how often a captain answers a call for loitering. He said, "Well, I did it when I was an officer," but I said, "How many times have you done it as a captain?"' Holick observed.
'I mean, what are the odds that a captain would respond to a call about people passing out the Gospel at a mosque? He was there in five minutes of the call coming in,' Holick continued.
Holick told WND the episode is evidence Wichita is moving to give wider latitude to Muslims operating mosques in the city.
He also believes that the events of the confrontation in August show the city of Wichita is willing to be at the disposal of the Islamic community.
Officials at the Islamic Society of Wichita have not responded to a WND request for comment.
The case developed when Holick set up a Gospel distribution project on the public sidewalk at the mosque on Aug. 27.
Holick told WND his group stayed on the public sidewalk and at no time attempted to block the drive or prevent any of the mosque's attendees from leaving the parking area.
He believes mosque officials themselves called police to have the Christians removed.
'The captain arrived and told me that I couldn't stand in the driveway and he told me that I had to keep moving. I kept moving and when I turned around, that's when the captain arrested me,' Holick explained.
Holick says that he tried to defend himself during the court appearance on the accusation of loitering.
'Probably 75 percent of the questions I would ask were objected to and probably 90 percent of those were sustained. So I was simply not able to ask detailed questions,' Holick asserted.
He also believes the 30 church members in attendance in the court had an impact.
'Everybody who's ever been to court knows that when you're defending yourself, it automatically makes the court upset,' Holick stated.
'Then we had a number of our members there and it's just my opinion that he's not used to that. At one point the judge began to talk about how people were attempting to intimidate him,' Holick continued.
'All they were doing is sitting in the court room and I was asking questions. So I think it was just the Christians' presence that made it difficult for him,' Holick added.
The Wichita Police Department has not responded to inquiries on the case.
Holick told WND the result of the recent hearing in Kansas' Sedgwick County District Court was that he was cited for contempt when he angrily responded to court restrictions on his attempts to introduce his arguments.
'What we think happens next is that this case has been set aside and is going to have to be retried, I'm guessing. The next thing is that I have a hearing for a contempt of court charge,' Holick stated.
But he said the claims of contempt and loitering aren't the real issue.
'I would say it's more of an excessive attempt by the Wichita Police Department to give Islam "Most Favored Religion Status" in the United States,' he said.
WND previously reported when Holick was sharing his religious beliefs with others on a public sidewalk outside a homosexual festival in the city, and was arrested and prosecuted.
Ultimately, the city of Wichita, Kan., confessed it violated Holick's civil rights. The case against the city was brought for Holick by attorneys for the Alliance Defense Fund.
It eventually was dismissed in an order from U.S. District Judge Thomas Martin, whose ruling described the situation:
'Plaintiff was preparing to share his religious beliefs with others on the public sidewalk near the entrance of Heritage Park in Wichita, Kansas, where a Gay Pride event was about to take place … within 5 minutes of arriving at that location, plaintiff was threatened with arrest if he did not leave, and then immediately arrested when he refused to leave, handcuffed, placed in a squad car in front of members from his church, including adults, youth, and children, processed at the police station by having his mug shot taken, fingers printed, and placed in a cell with others.'
The judge noted that all charges against Holick later were dismissed, and the civil rights complaint was filed for the wrongful arrest.
'The defendants do not contest that they violated plaintiff's constitutional rights,' the judge wrote.
A video of the arrest was posted on YouTube:
'Christians shouldn't be penalized for expressing their beliefs,' said Joel Oster, a senior legal counsel for the ADF, at the time. 'We are pleased city of Wichita officials will now ensure that Pastor Holick is free to exercise his First Amendment rights in public without fear of arrest.'
That case stemmed from Holick's June 24, 2007, arrest while he was peacefully expressing his faith on a public sidewalk with other members of his church.
The city paid Holick $11,700 in damages 'in accord with the city's ordinary accounting procedures,' plus attorneys fees and litigation costs of $2,500.
Holick's church earlier was targeted by the Internal Revenue Service for moral statements he posted on the church's sign."
Read of such a case from WND:
Kansas pastor warns of creeping Shariah
Charges police, court giving special treatment to Muslims
"A Wichita, Kan., pastor who was defending himself on a charge of loitering for passing out Gospel tracts from a public sidewalk at an Islamic mosque is suggesting Shariah is creeping into America through preferential treatment provided by law enforcement and the courts.
Pastor Mark Holick of Spirit One Christian Center, who previously challenged Internal Revenue Service mandates that he not comment on politicians' moral values in the midwestern state, was in court for a hearing on the accusation of loitering.
He said he was challenging the government's version of events and asking whether it is procedure for captains in the Wichita police department to respond to calls about someone allegedly loitering.
'I asked them how often a captain answers a call for loitering. He said, "Well, I did it when I was an officer," but I said, "How many times have you done it as a captain?"' Holick observed.
'I mean, what are the odds that a captain would respond to a call about people passing out the Gospel at a mosque? He was there in five minutes of the call coming in,' Holick continued.
Holick told WND the episode is evidence Wichita is moving to give wider latitude to Muslims operating mosques in the city.
He also believes that the events of the confrontation in August show the city of Wichita is willing to be at the disposal of the Islamic community.
Officials at the Islamic Society of Wichita have not responded to a WND request for comment.
The case developed when Holick set up a Gospel distribution project on the public sidewalk at the mosque on Aug. 27.
Holick told WND his group stayed on the public sidewalk and at no time attempted to block the drive or prevent any of the mosque's attendees from leaving the parking area.
He believes mosque officials themselves called police to have the Christians removed.
'The captain arrived and told me that I couldn't stand in the driveway and he told me that I had to keep moving. I kept moving and when I turned around, that's when the captain arrested me,' Holick explained.
Holick says that he tried to defend himself during the court appearance on the accusation of loitering.
'Probably 75 percent of the questions I would ask were objected to and probably 90 percent of those were sustained. So I was simply not able to ask detailed questions,' Holick asserted.
He also believes the 30 church members in attendance in the court had an impact.
'Everybody who's ever been to court knows that when you're defending yourself, it automatically makes the court upset,' Holick stated.
'Then we had a number of our members there and it's just my opinion that he's not used to that. At one point the judge began to talk about how people were attempting to intimidate him,' Holick continued.
'All they were doing is sitting in the court room and I was asking questions. So I think it was just the Christians' presence that made it difficult for him,' Holick added.
The Wichita Police Department has not responded to inquiries on the case.
Holick told WND the result of the recent hearing in Kansas' Sedgwick County District Court was that he was cited for contempt when he angrily responded to court restrictions on his attempts to introduce his arguments.
'What we think happens next is that this case has been set aside and is going to have to be retried, I'm guessing. The next thing is that I have a hearing for a contempt of court charge,' Holick stated.
But he said the claims of contempt and loitering aren't the real issue.
'I would say it's more of an excessive attempt by the Wichita Police Department to give Islam "Most Favored Religion Status" in the United States,' he said.
WND previously reported when Holick was sharing his religious beliefs with others on a public sidewalk outside a homosexual festival in the city, and was arrested and prosecuted.
Ultimately, the city of Wichita, Kan., confessed it violated Holick's civil rights. The case against the city was brought for Holick by attorneys for the Alliance Defense Fund.
It eventually was dismissed in an order from U.S. District Judge Thomas Martin, whose ruling described the situation:
'Plaintiff was preparing to share his religious beliefs with others on the public sidewalk near the entrance of Heritage Park in Wichita, Kansas, where a Gay Pride event was about to take place … within 5 minutes of arriving at that location, plaintiff was threatened with arrest if he did not leave, and then immediately arrested when he refused to leave, handcuffed, placed in a squad car in front of members from his church, including adults, youth, and children, processed at the police station by having his mug shot taken, fingers printed, and placed in a cell with others.'
The judge noted that all charges against Holick later were dismissed, and the civil rights complaint was filed for the wrongful arrest.
'The defendants do not contest that they violated plaintiff's constitutional rights,' the judge wrote.
A video of the arrest was posted on YouTube:
'Christians shouldn't be penalized for expressing their beliefs,' said Joel Oster, a senior legal counsel for the ADF, at the time. 'We are pleased city of Wichita officials will now ensure that Pastor Holick is free to exercise his First Amendment rights in public without fear of arrest.'
That case stemmed from Holick's June 24, 2007, arrest while he was peacefully expressing his faith on a public sidewalk with other members of his church.
The city paid Holick $11,700 in damages 'in accord with the city's ordinary accounting procedures,' plus attorneys fees and litigation costs of $2,500.
Holick's church earlier was targeted by the Internal Revenue Service for moral statements he posted on the church's sign."
Almost Half of Dems Want Someone to Run Against Obama in Primary
What's your excuse for this poll, Diogenes? Even your buddies on the Left are considering forsaking your beloved Obama.
Read from Weasel Zippers:
McClatchy Poll: 45% of Dem Voters Want Obama to Face Primary Challenger…
"In related news, Obama’s unicorn last seen plummeting to Earth after being hit by a Stinger missile…
WASHINGTON — 'President Barack Obama emerges from a bruising midterm election with uncertain prospects for the next one in 2012, according to a new McClatchy-Marist poll.
Nearly half of his own base — 45 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents — want someone to challenge him for the Democratic nomination, according to the poll.
And, assuming he wins re-nomination, barely more than 1 in 3 voters, or 36 percent, said they’ll definitely vote for him, while nearly half, 48 percent, said they’ll definitely vote against him.
“There’s some serious electoral jeopardy and his position is very tenuous,” said Lee Miringoff, the director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion at Marist College in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., which conducted the national post-election poll.
His political problems start with his own base.
Among Democrats, 41 percent want someone to challenge Obama for the 2012 nomination, while 51 percent don’t.
Moreover, a majority of Democratic-leaning independents, 56 percent, want him challenged, while 33 percent don’t.
Among pro-Democratic voters who want him challenged: pluralities of women, voters younger than 45, and those without a college degree. Those who don’t want him challenged include majorities of pro-Democratic men and college graduates, and a plurality of those 45 and older.
Among groups lining up against Obama early:
•Whites, by a margin of 57-27
•Men, 55-31
•Independents, 50-30
•Midwesterners, 51-35
•Southerners, 54-32
•Westerners, 47-41
Those planning definitely to vote for him rather than against him:
•Minorities, by a margin of 57-28
•Northeasterners, 39-36
•Liberals, 74-17'
Rest here>>>"
Read from Weasel Zippers:
McClatchy Poll: 45% of Dem Voters Want Obama to Face Primary Challenger…
"In related news, Obama’s unicorn last seen plummeting to Earth after being hit by a Stinger missile…
WASHINGTON — 'President Barack Obama emerges from a bruising midterm election with uncertain prospects for the next one in 2012, according to a new McClatchy-Marist poll.
Nearly half of his own base — 45 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents — want someone to challenge him for the Democratic nomination, according to the poll.
And, assuming he wins re-nomination, barely more than 1 in 3 voters, or 36 percent, said they’ll definitely vote for him, while nearly half, 48 percent, said they’ll definitely vote against him.
“There’s some serious electoral jeopardy and his position is very tenuous,” said Lee Miringoff, the director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion at Marist College in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., which conducted the national post-election poll.
His political problems start with his own base.
Among Democrats, 41 percent want someone to challenge Obama for the 2012 nomination, while 51 percent don’t.
Moreover, a majority of Democratic-leaning independents, 56 percent, want him challenged, while 33 percent don’t.
Among pro-Democratic voters who want him challenged: pluralities of women, voters younger than 45, and those without a college degree. Those who don’t want him challenged include majorities of pro-Democratic men and college graduates, and a plurality of those 45 and older.
Among groups lining up against Obama early:
•Whites, by a margin of 57-27
•Men, 55-31
•Independents, 50-30
•Midwesterners, 51-35
•Southerners, 54-32
•Westerners, 47-41
Those planning definitely to vote for him rather than against him:
•Minorities, by a margin of 57-28
•Northeasterners, 39-36
•Liberals, 74-17'
Rest here>>>"
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
"'People Who Do Not Have Anything to Hide Do Not Mind Being Profiled"--UPDATED
With all the commotion over full-body scans and pat-downs (which resemble sexual assaults) at our airports, it is high time we begin profiling as Israelis have done for years. The TSA should definitely be looking at passports. If a passenger has traveled to Muslim nations which support terrorism, he should get closer scrutiny.
Individuals from Muslim nations should be checked more carefully. Let's face the facts: terrorists are Muslims. I haven't heard any cases of fair-haired Norwegians. Have you?
And last, but not least, closely examining behavior is of the utmost importance. Israeli security officials have been taught to spot those who are acting suspicious and could be potential terrorists.
Why can't we implement many of the tools that they use? Political correctness should not take a priority over our safety. Good Muslims should not be offended by closer security because it ensures their own safety. If they have nothing to hide, why the objection?
Read what one Lebanese American has to say on the subject, via One News Now:
Gabriel to TSA: 'Profile, profile, profile'
Chad Groening
"A national defense advocate and terrorism expert says the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) needs to stop invading the privacy of law-abiding American travelers and use profiling to weed out potential terrorists.
John Pistole, the head of the TSA, recently told CBS on The Early Show he understands the public's distaste for invasive airport security procedures, particularly hand pat-downs. But he insists the attempted bombing of a U.S.-bound plane last Christmas and the more recent effort to ship packages with bombs to the United States on cargo planes makes tougher security necessary.
Brigitte Gabriel, founder and president of ACT! for America, and author of The New York Times bestseller, They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It, says there is a better alternative: 'Profile, profile, profile.'
'People who do not have anything to hide do not mind being profiled,' she contends. 'I come from the Middle East; I look Middle Eastern. Do you think I would mind one bit if somebody pulled me aside and asked me a few questions before I boarded a plane? Anybody who has nothing to hide will sound exactly like I do -- whether you are a Muslim, whether you are a Christian [or] whether you are from the Middle East. And when someone complains and does not the sound the way I sound about being profiled, you'd better watch out for them because they are up to something no good,' she suggests.
Instead of spending millions of dollars on high-tech invasive scanners, Gabriel thinks the TSA should invest in training its agents on how to profile passengers like the Israelis have done successfully for so many years."
UPDATE: 70% of Americans want Israeli-style airport security
Individuals from Muslim nations should be checked more carefully. Let's face the facts: terrorists are Muslims. I haven't heard any cases of fair-haired Norwegians. Have you?
And last, but not least, closely examining behavior is of the utmost importance. Israeli security officials have been taught to spot those who are acting suspicious and could be potential terrorists.
Why can't we implement many of the tools that they use? Political correctness should not take a priority over our safety. Good Muslims should not be offended by closer security because it ensures their own safety. If they have nothing to hide, why the objection?
Read what one Lebanese American has to say on the subject, via One News Now:
Gabriel to TSA: 'Profile, profile, profile'
Chad Groening
"A national defense advocate and terrorism expert says the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) needs to stop invading the privacy of law-abiding American travelers and use profiling to weed out potential terrorists.
John Pistole, the head of the TSA, recently told CBS on The Early Show he understands the public's distaste for invasive airport security procedures, particularly hand pat-downs. But he insists the attempted bombing of a U.S.-bound plane last Christmas and the more recent effort to ship packages with bombs to the United States on cargo planes makes tougher security necessary.
Brigitte Gabriel, founder and president of ACT! for America, and author of The New York Times bestseller, They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It, says there is a better alternative: 'Profile, profile, profile.'
'People who do not have anything to hide do not mind being profiled,' she contends. 'I come from the Middle East; I look Middle Eastern. Do you think I would mind one bit if somebody pulled me aside and asked me a few questions before I boarded a plane? Anybody who has nothing to hide will sound exactly like I do -- whether you are a Muslim, whether you are a Christian [or] whether you are from the Middle East. And when someone complains and does not the sound the way I sound about being profiled, you'd better watch out for them because they are up to something no good,' she suggests.
Instead of spending millions of dollars on high-tech invasive scanners, Gabriel thinks the TSA should invest in training its agents on how to profile passengers like the Israelis have done successfully for so many years."
UPDATE: 70% of Americans want Israeli-style airport security
Why Women Choose Lesbian Relationships
Quite an interesting study has been done regarding what leads girls into lesbianism.
Read from One News Now:
Lesbianism linked to upbringing
Charlie Butts
"A recently released study shows a link between childhood family structure and the rate of female homosexuality -- undermining the claim that sexual orientation is genetic or biological.
Family Research Council (FRC) looked into the family lives and worship rates of 7,643 women between the ages of 14 and 44. Pat Fagan, senior fellow and director of the Marriage and Religion Research Institute at FRC, co-evaluated the data and tells OneNewsNow about the findings.
'Once the girl grows up in a home in which her father is not present, it's about three times' more likely she has had or will have homosexual partners, he says -- but when she is raised by parents who are married and 'always intact, it's about a four-percent rate.' Moreover, he explains that rate is 'slightly higher in the always-intact-but-cohabitating parents -- that's parents who never married.'
Statistics are also higher with step-families, the cohabiting step-family, and the single divorced parent, adds the FRC spokesman.
'The big take away from this study is that clearly, this [type of sexual behavior] is not genetic,' Fagan points out. 'The different rates of homosexuality among women are very reactive to the family structure within which they grow up. If it was genetic, you would find pretty much the same rates all across.'
He further notes that, according to the results of the study, women who claim to worship weekly or monthly have a lower rate of lesbianism, while those who rarely or never worship are at a higher rate.
Results from our related poll
What factor do you believe plays the greatest role in same-sex attraction among girls and women?"
Now, obviously, One News Now is a Christian site. Nevertheless, most of those polled were right-on when they suggested that the growth in lesbianism stems from a society which has lost its fear of God. Women who attend church are less likely to become lesbians because they are taught Biblical principles regarding sex, unless, of course, they attend one of the leftist churches in this country which neglects to teach the Word of God.
I find it rather interesting that if a girl's father is not present, she is more likely to dabble in a lesbian relationship. Is it possible that she has lived with a bitter mother who frequently bashes men? In such a scenario, is it really that surprising that the daughter would be turned off by males?
I also have seen many instances of heterosexual women becoming lesbians after failed marriages. Is it not likely that they are so turned off by their former husbands, that they turn against all males? Rather sad because all men are not evil SOBs.
Read from One News Now:
Lesbianism linked to upbringing
Charlie Butts
"A recently released study shows a link between childhood family structure and the rate of female homosexuality -- undermining the claim that sexual orientation is genetic or biological.
Family Research Council (FRC) looked into the family lives and worship rates of 7,643 women between the ages of 14 and 44. Pat Fagan, senior fellow and director of the Marriage and Religion Research Institute at FRC, co-evaluated the data and tells OneNewsNow about the findings.
'Once the girl grows up in a home in which her father is not present, it's about three times' more likely she has had or will have homosexual partners, he says -- but when she is raised by parents who are married and 'always intact, it's about a four-percent rate.' Moreover, he explains that rate is 'slightly higher in the always-intact-but-cohabitating parents -- that's parents who never married.'
Statistics are also higher with step-families, the cohabiting step-family, and the single divorced parent, adds the FRC spokesman.
'The big take away from this study is that clearly, this [type of sexual behavior] is not genetic,' Fagan points out. 'The different rates of homosexuality among women are very reactive to the family structure within which they grow up. If it was genetic, you would find pretty much the same rates all across.'
He further notes that, according to the results of the study, women who claim to worship weekly or monthly have a lower rate of lesbianism, while those who rarely or never worship are at a higher rate.
Results from our related poll
What factor do you believe plays the greatest role in same-sex attraction among girls and women?"
Now, obviously, One News Now is a Christian site. Nevertheless, most of those polled were right-on when they suggested that the growth in lesbianism stems from a society which has lost its fear of God. Women who attend church are less likely to become lesbians because they are taught Biblical principles regarding sex, unless, of course, they attend one of the leftist churches in this country which neglects to teach the Word of God.
I find it rather interesting that if a girl's father is not present, she is more likely to dabble in a lesbian relationship. Is it possible that she has lived with a bitter mother who frequently bashes men? In such a scenario, is it really that surprising that the daughter would be turned off by males?
I also have seen many instances of heterosexual women becoming lesbians after failed marriages. Is it not likely that they are so turned off by their former husbands, that they turn against all males? Rather sad because all men are not evil SOBs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
