Share This

Google+ Badge


Those Who Deceive Must Be Revealed!




Thursday, September 30, 2010

Attacks and Bomb Scares Rattle Caucasus

Moscow Times

Members of a bomb disposal team getting ready to disarm an explosive found in a car in Stavropol on Thursday.


An apparent counterattack by Islamist insurgents, who lost 15 men in security operations in Dagestan this week, killed at least two police officers and injured 19 other people in the North Caucasus, while bomb scares rattled residents in Stavropol and Beslan, news reports said Thursday.

Stavropol residents alerted police about a car containing a bomb and a dead body with multiple stab wounds abandoned near a cafe Thursday, RIA-Novosti reported.

The bomb, equivalent to about 15 kilograms of TNT, was disarmed. Initial reports said the unidentified dead man might have been a suicide bomber who killed himself by a smaller blast but failed to detonate a larger bomb. But an unidentified police officer told RIA-Novosti that the man probably had been forced into the car for reasons that remained unclear.

A bomb hidden in a bag and placed under a tree in central Stavropol exploded May 26, killing eight and injuring 50.

A school in the North Ossetian town of Beslan — where terrorists seized a school in a 2004 attack that killed 334 — was evacuated Thursday because of a phone call about a bomb planted in the building, RIA-Novosti reported. No explosives were found on the premises.

Meanwhile, 17 riot police officers were wounded in a blast not far from the airport of the Dagestani town of Kaspiisk late Wednesday, Interfax reported. Eight were hospitalized, one in serious condition.

About the same time, two investigators were shot dead by unidentified assailants on a street in the Kabardino-Balkaria town of Tyrnauz, Interfax reported.

A controlled explosion targeted a traffic police car in Kabardino-Balkaria's capital, Nalchik, early Thursday, Interfax reported. An officer and the driver of a passing car sustained head injuries in the incident.

Fifteen militants were killed by police in coordinated raids in Kaspiisk and the Dagestani capital, Makhachkala, on Wednesday. No casualties were reported for law enforcement officers.

Another Jewish Historical Reference Found in Stuxnet Code

From Legal Insurrection blog: http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/

The New York Times reported on a possible reference to the Book of Esther in the Stuxnet code. Queen Esther, of course, saved the Jews of Persia from the evil Haman, as celebrated in the Jewish holiday Purim.


Now, a Symantec researcher has found a reference in the code to an obscure date in 1979 which just happens to be the date on which the Iranian revolutionaries executed a prominent Iranian Jew. As reported at ThreatPost:

A Symantec researcher filled in more critical details about the Stuxnet worm here, demonstrating the worm's ability to take control of programmable logic controllers (PLCs) by Siemens Inc. and disable machinery connected to them.

Liam O'Murchu of Symantec, speaking at the Virus Bulletin Conference here, provided the first detailed public analysis of the worm's inner workings to an audience of some of the world's top computer virus experts. O'Murchu described a sophisticated and highly targeted virus and demonstrated a proof of concept exploit that showed how the virus could cause machines using infected PLCs to run out of control....

As for suggestions that Israeli intelligence may have authored the virus, O'Murchu noted that researchers had uncovered the reference to an obscure date in the worm's code, May 9, 1979, which, he noted, was the date on which a prominent Iranian Jew, Habib Elghanian, who was executed by the new Islamic government shortly after the revolution.

Here is a portion of the Wikipedia entry on Elghanian:

On May 9, 1979, Elghanian was executed by a firing squad in Tehran sending shock waves through the closely knit Iranian Jewish community. He was the first Jew and one of the first civilians to be executed by the new Islamic government. This prompted the mass exodus of the once 100,000 member strong Jewish community of Iran which continues to this day.

Was this an Israeli attack with snippets of code manipulated to mock the Iranians, or a false flag operation meant to blame the Israelis?

Somewhere, someplace, someone is laughing. We just don't know who.

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/09/another-jewish-historical-reference.html

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Freedom of Conscience Under Attack by EU “Equalities” Initiatives

By Hilary White


ROME, September 29, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The European Union’s proposed Equal Treatment Directive overturns centuries of legal philosophy of justice and will restrict legally guaranteed rights of freedom of conscience, says Sophia Kuby of European Dignity Watch, a pro-life and pro-family NGO working at the European level. Kuby told LifeSiteNews.com at a conference in Rome last week, that, if adopted, upcoming EU initiatives will severely restrict basic democratic freedoms for Christians, all under the rubric of “equalities.”

Major European legislative bodies, Kuby said, are working to create legislation that will ultimately result in Christian doctors being pushed out of the medical professions across Europe. In general, she said, legal tendencies are growing to limit freedoms of expression and conscience and constitute a direct threat to religious individuals and institutions.

The crackdown on conscience comes, she said, as a response to “more and more doctors objecting” to abortion and other legal but morally offensive practices. She cited statistics from the Lazio region of central Italy that includes Rome, where 86 percent of doctors refuse to commit abortions.

Pro-abortion forces in European institutions are reacting now because, the situation “is kind of new. Ten years ago, much fewer doctors were objecting.”

“So now they face a situation where it really becomes a contradiction. Yes, they say, you have to balance rights, but then you have to ‘balance’ the right of freedom of conscience, which is one of the pillars of a democratic society, with a ‘right’ that is actually the killing of an unborn child.”

Kuby highlighted two main initiatives, the McCafferty Report from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, (PACE) and the Equal Treatment draft Directive of the European Commission, that she said combine to create a legal situation opposed to religious freedom and freedom of conscience in Europe.

The EU’s Equal Treatment Directive, now before the Council of Ministers of the EU, proposes to “prohibit discrimination” but in reality, Kuby said, it will attempt to “control the relationships between individuals.” It means that if there is a “socially undesired behaviour,” such as public criticism of homosexuality, feminism, or abortion, it would create mechanisms to sue a person who offends.

The head of the English Catholic Bishops’ Conference political affairs office, Archbishop Peter Smith of Southwark, said that the Catholic Church supports the “underlying moral principle” of the Directive. He warned only of “possible unintended consequences” for Christian believers. But Kuby refuted this, saying that the Directive “turns upside down traditional concepts of justice.”

Its foundation, she said, opposes the ancient legal principle, elucidated by Aristotle, that “like things should be treated alike, unlike things should be treated differently, and everything should be treated appropriately.”

“The antidiscrimination Directive and the philosophy underpinning it go into the radical opposite direction,” Kuby told LSN. “Like things are treated differently, unlike things are treated alike, and nothing is treated appropriately.”

“Indeed, the use of appropriate criteria is simply given up, and replaced by a perpetual cycle of (mostly inappropriate and badly reasoned) comparisons: Because X has got some goodie, Y must also get it, irrespective of any real merit or justification.

“This, in short, is the ideology underlying this whole new compound of political initiatives, and the Church would be well advised to analyse it more systematically and less superficially.”

The Directive leaves open the definitions of behaviour that constitute “discrimination” in this sense. Kuby said that the result is that instances of illegal discrimination are “completely left to a subjective perception of how I feel treated by another.”

The directive says that behaviour shall be deemed discriminatory if it “creates an offensive or humiliating environment.”

“That can mean anything,” she said. “Anything.”

If adopted, the McCafferty Report, she said, “would close the medical community to people, solely on the basis of a well-founded moral conviction,” which, she pointed out, is well-protected by numerous European international agreements, including Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights that guarantees freedom of conscience.

“Formally, freedom of conscience is protected legally,” but the McCafferty Report “would make it basically impossible for a Catholic or Christian to become a doctor.”

Pro-life advocates in Europe have identified the McCafferty Report as the latest in a string of EU and PACE efforts to establish abortion as a universal human right. The report, is set to be debated in the PACE on October 7 and claims to leave doctors the right to refuse to participate in abortion, but would force them to provide the service by referring to other physicians and, if that fails, to provide it themselves.

Kuby said that the McCafferty Report also turns traditional jurisprudence on its head, obliging doctors to prove that their objection is grounded in their conscience or religious belief. “This might sound not very critical, but what it means is that the burden of proof is on the one who is objecting. So a doctor who says ‘I don’t do those because of my conscience,’ has to prove that he did it in good faith.”

The other goal of such legislation, she said, “is to deprive public and state institutions, such as public hospitals and clinics as a whole from the guarantee of the right to conscientious objection.”

The report’s drafters have also proposed the creation of a public registry of conscientious objectors. “It’s basically a blacklist. And you can imagine the consequences that such a thing could have.” The drafters also propose to create “complaint mechanisms” to allow authorities to keep track of those who object to a procedure on conscientious grounds.

Kuby also spoke of an increasingly ominous public atmosphere in Europe, in which Christian symbols and church buildings are frequently vandalised and desecrated and Christians themselves have reported being attacked in the streets both physically and verbally.

Read related LSN coverage:

Council of Europe Declares Unlimited Abortion an Unconditional Right for all of Europe

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/apr/08041611.html

Indonesia Rejects Proposal to Subject Girls to Virginity Tests

Jakarta. The Indonesian government on Tuesday dismissed a provincial lawmaker’s proposal to force teenage schoolgirls to undergo virginity tests before they can enter state schools.


Women’s Affairs Ministry official Wahyu Hartomo said such tests would violate basic human rights and potentially harm the health of young women.

“That kind of test violates human rights and will have serious psychological impacts on students,” he said. “It is more effective for our generation to receive moral education from their parents at home, especially with the [bad] influence from the Internet.”

Lawmakers in Sumatra island’s Jambi province have agreed to drop the idea, which was proposed by local parliamentarian Bambang Bayu Suseno, Hartomo said.

Suseno believes girls should be required to pass virginity tests before they can enter state-funded high schools, citing concerns over pre-marital sex among teenagers in the Muslim-majority country.

Indonesian officials are struggling to balance the country’s rapid modernisation, especially the runaway growth of Internet use, with traditional, mainly Muslim values.

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has signed a controversial Anti-Pornography Law, backed filters against online pornography and warned that a “frenzy” of Internet use could tear the nation apart.

Earlier this year police entered classrooms to check teenage students’ mobile phones for evidence they had downloaded celebrity sex clips that went viral on the Internet, causing a national scandal.

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Proposed Moscow Mosque Stirs Protests

There are up to 1.5 million Muslims in Moscow, which has a population of roughly 10 million, said Gulnur Gaziyeva, a spokeswoman for Russia's council of muftis. On Islamic holidays, up to 100,000 people fill the capital's mosques.


A dispute has escalated over plans to build a mosque in Moscow's southeastern outskirts, with local residents vowing to send an appeal with about 2,000 signatures to President Dmitry Medvedev and nationalist groups promising to support them.

Muslim leaders defend the need for the worship site, saying the capital's four mosques are overflowing with people.

Residents of the Tekstilshchiki district in southeastern Moscow will send Medvedev a complaint signed by more than 1,800 people opposing construction of the mosque, mainly on the grounds that it might cause massive traffic jams in the area on Islamic holidays, activist Mikhail Butrimov told The Moscow Times on Friday. Butrimov leads the movement Moi Dvor, or My Yard, which supports residents in their fight against the mosque.

Butrimov said residents asked local authorities several years ago to build a Russian Orthodox chapel or create a park on the unused lot. But authorities banned construction on the plot, saying utilities ran underneath it, he said.

The proposed site on Volzhsky Bulvar covers half a hectare with some trees and grass. Locals push their children in strollers and walk their dogs there, and people would benefit more if a park were seeded there, Butrimov said.

Local residents staged a park-founding ceremony at the disputed site by planting 15 young maple trees there Sunday, Interfax reported.

Two ultranationalist groups, the Movement Against Illegal Immigration, or DPNI, and the Russian Public Society, pledged their support to the residents at a joint news conference Friday.

"DPNI will check whether the documents authorizing the mosque's construction are legal and do everything to attract maximum public attention to the case," DPNI spokeswoman Alla Gorbunova said by telephone.

Amid the outcry, Vladimir Zotov, prefect for the Southeastern Administrative District, has backtracked on his previous support for the project. Zotov wrote in a May 2009 letter to Mayor Yury Luzhkov that construction of the mosque on the land would contradict a 2004 order from City Hall but that he considered the construction "rational" after consulting with city officials.

Last Wednesday, however, Zotov told RIA-Novosti that "the mosque can't be built until the consent of the residents is obtained."

Traffic jams have been a main fear of residents. If a mosque goes up, "no one will be able to drive past it on holidays," Butrimov said.

In fact, Moscow's mosques are surrounded by Friday traffic jams as worshippers arrive for prayers, the imam for Memorial Mosque on Poklonnaya Gora told Vesti FM radio last week, Interfax reported.

There are up to 1.5 million Muslims in Moscow, which has a population of roughly 10 million, said Gulnur Gaziyeva, a spokeswoman for Russia's council of muftis. On Islamic holidays, up to 100,000 people fill the capital's mosques.

"It is goes without saying that a new mosque is needed," Gaziyeva said.

Butrimov said the new mosque would accommodate 3,000 to 5,000 people.

Gaziyeva countered that it would be smaller, although she could not specify the number of worshippers that it would accommodate.

City authorities have been searching for a location for a new mosque for several years, Gaziyeva said. Luzhkov approved the unused lot in Tekstilshchiki for the construction in June, the web site for the southeastern district said.

"Of course, any construction will always be an inconvenience to local residents, and we understand that," Gaziyeva said.

"But Moscow residents have to understand that it is better that Muslims go to a mosque than to an informal missionary who can preach something wrong," she said, referring to radical Islamists.

Many young Muslims who are "separated from their parents" arrive in Moscow, and "the only teacher who can make sure that they don't go the wrong way is an imam," Gaziyeva said.


Nice to see other non americans speaking out against the building of a Mosque. Could it be the Russians have been following the problems Muslim extremists in Dagestan republic?







Mohammed, From now on Your Name is Johnny haha!

Mohammed entered his classroom on the first day of school. "What is your name?" asked the teacher. "Mohammed. . ." answered the kid. "You are in America now. From now on your name will be Johnny," replied the teacher.


In the evening, Mohammed returned home. "How was your day, Mohammed?" asked his mother."My name is not Mohammed. I'm in America and now my name is Johnny." "Ah, are you ashamed of your name, are you trying to dishonor your parents, your heritage, your religion? Shame on you!" and she beat him. Then she called his father and he too beat him.

The next day Mohammed returned to school. When the teacher saw him with all the bruises she asked, "What happened to you little Johnny?""Well ma'am, 10 hours after becoming an American, I was attacked by two fucking Arabs."

Sad thing about this story is that so often its true. And sometimes little Johnny ends up a victim of Honor Killing.

Jury Acquits the Four Christian Evangelists Arrested For Proselytizing at the Dearborn Arab Festival

Late Friday evening, a jury of six Dearborn, Michigan residents returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty of breach of the peace charges, which were brought by the Dearborn Police Department against four Christian evangelists as they were peacefully proselytizing to Muslim youths during the Arab International Festival on June 18, 2010.


The Thomas More Law Center, a national Christian public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, represented the evangelists, Dr. Nabeel Qureshi, Paul Rezkalla, Negeen Mayel and David Wood, at no charge. The jury returned its verdict after an hour and half of deliberations. Nageen Mayel was found guilty of failing to obey a police officer—a charge unrelated to the actual incident, which will most likely be reversed on appeal.

Robert Muise, the Law Center’s Senior Trial Counsel, handled the five-day trial. The prosecutor placed seven witnesses on the stand including Chief of Police, Ron Haddad.

Even after the acquittals, Dearborn’s mayor, Jack O’Reilly, continued his ongoing and unprecedented personal attacks on the Christian evangelists, accusing them of being anti–Muslim bigots. O’Reilly’s continuous anti-Christian rhetoric was clearly an attempt to curry favor with Dearborn’s large Muslim population, which also explains the Police Department’s alarming mobilization to arrest the four Christians.

Wood and Dr. Qureshi are co-founders of “Act 17 Apologetics,” a ministry group that defends the Gospel of Jesus Christ. On June 18, Mayel and Rezkalla joined them in their missionary work. Dr. Qureshi and Mayel are converts from Islam to Christianity. After the verdict, the group praised the Thomas More Law Center and particularly Robert Muise, whom they described as sharing their emotional burdens and investing more time on the issue than even they did. The group claimed that without the Thomas More Law Center, they would not have been able to defend themselves from persecution by the City of Dearborn.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commented, “Rob Muise did an outstanding job advocating on behalf of Free Speech rights protected by our Constitution, despite unsubstantiated police claims that peaceful conversations with Muslims were going to incite a disturbance. The bottom line in the jury’s not guilty verdict: the Constitution, not Shariah law, still prevails in Dearborn, Michigan.”

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at http://www.thomasmore.org/.

This is "Breach of the Peace," according to the City of Dearborn, Michigan



Notice how the young Muslims try to silence this christian from speaking freely about his religion. Muslims don't believe in our constitution. Muslims want to take away this Christians free speech as well as all of America.

Palestinian Arab Raping of Peace Activist Not an Isolated Incident

Elder of Ziyon Blog: http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/

A couple of months ago I posted a Ha'aretz article about how an American pro-Palestinian Arab activist was raped by one of her heroes, and the crime was hushed up. JoeSettler followed up with other cases of harassment and attacks.


There have been a few other articles in the Hebrew media about these cases, and the Zionism Israel site puts it all together - and it is not pretty:  http://www.zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2010/09/24/palestine-breaking-the-silence-about-rape/

If you are looking for an adventure of a new and different kind, then you should probably head for the Palestinian territories, where you can do a real service to the oppressed Palestinians and at the same time get first hand experience of solidarity and intimate dialog with Palestinian Arabs, who, it seems, rape American and European female activists.

The stories of rape and sexual molestation of foreign peace activists by Palestinians first appeared in the dovish Haaretz several months ago. Back in July, Avi Isacharoff asked, Are the Palestinians silencing the attempted rape of U.S. peace activist? and then he reported: PA, protest leaders hushed up attempted rape of U.S. activist. That was back in July. Incredibly, nobody noticed these ‘juicy’ stories. ...

It was not the only incident. An undated article in Hebrew, by Roni Aloni Sedovnik reported on Betrayal by the left of female peace activists who were sexually assaulted. Aloni-Sedovnik reported an additional case, the ‘severe sexual assault’ of an Israeli peace activist at Sheikh Jarrah. The victim tried to complain, but this time it was Israeli peace activists who shut her up: http://www.news1.co.il/Archive/003-D-52114-00.html

“However, after heavy and unfair pressure from the organizers of the Sheikh Jarrah protest, she withdrew her complaint.

“As if that is not enough to make one appalled at the hypocritical morality and loss of direction, the situation became more serious recently, when the activists organizing the the demonstrations in Bil’in and Sheikh Jarah asked female demonstrators to wear ‘modest dress’ according to the code accepted in Arab villages: Hijab, Burqa or other head covering…

“How did we not hear about this? After all, the phenomenon is known in a broad group of peace activists, so what can we learn from the hushing up of this topic by the media?…

‘Peace’ groups such as Ir Amim that are demonstrating in Sheikh Jarrah and Bilin get U.S. tax deductible donations through the NIF, which supposedly advances ‘women’s rights’ and ‘democracy.’

The two cases are apparently only the tip of the iceberg.Yehudah Belo wrote, under the dramatic headline, Female leftist activists are raped day after day, night after night about the alleged rape of Scandinavian girls:
http://www.notes.co.il/ben-hateva/64914.asp

“I know of such rape cases from women who are not Jewish: a female European leftist activist, a female Red Cross volunteer and a young Arab woman from Yafo. I met the three of them during reserve service. I met with each of them afterwards… they told me what happens there, in the Palestinian villages, far from any observing eye.”

“It is not a matter of rape to satisfy lust. They are done systematically in order to impregnate the girl, and then to marry her, after she converts to Islam. Of course, we know about this method from girls who underwent a similar process inside Israel and escaped to Europe, but it is hard to escape from the [Palestinian] territories. Sometimes these women, some of whom are already older women, are not allowed to leave their homes unaccompanied, in order to prevent their escape. If someone doubts my words…please, check the statistics for entries and departures, and you will discover that a large portion of female leftist activists did not leave the country. Everyone knows about it, but nobody dares to talk about it…

“I ran into a few Norwegian girls married to Palestinians. They are not happy. Their lives were destroyed. Their families have broken off contact with them. They have no place to return to. They are deep in the raising of children and wish to die. I assume there are women in that situation in their own countries and in Israel too. Not everyone is happy, but one might think that a person who grew up in Oslo will have trouble adjusting to life in the refugee camps. She is no longer allowed to be free, to fly about the world as she wishes, or even to be a leftist activist.


Belo pleaded with Israeli womens’ and leftist organizations to help, but so far, none has done so.

The cause was also taken up by Israeli blogger Nimrod Avissar, in a Hebrew article called Thunderous Silence.

These Israeli reporters and bloggers do not all fit the stereotype of right wing settler supporters. Haaretz generally is sympathetic to Palestinians and so is their reporter and analyst Avi Issacharoff. Nimrod Avissar lives in Ramat Gan, not in a settlement. The reports cannot be dismissed. When rumors about Israeli ‘war crimes’ and illegal organ transplants surfaced, they were plastered all over respected journals such as the New York Times and Time magazine, as well as Scandinavian journals, though there was probably not a word of truth to them. Judge Richard Goldstone wrote thousands of pages and made the gravest accusations based on flimsier evidence, causing an upheaval in international justice as well as media coverage. But almost nothing at all has been published in international media about these rapes. No activists took up the cause of these poor women. There were two articles about the rape issue in a respectable journal, but they were ignored. Additional material accumulated, but that too was ignored. ...


Over the years, I have heard plenty of stories, not just about Israeli or European women being raped, but about Arab Christian girls being raped, sometimes with the cooperation of, or on the initiative of, the Fatah Police. I have also seen those earnest Scandinavian Lutheran girls, recruited for the causes of ‘peace’ and dialog,’ standing in a room full of Palestinian young men. What could they have in common?? Why were there no Scandinavian young men? Draw your own conclusions. If it was ‘dialog’ and ‘solidarity’ that they sought, they came to the right place, it seems. I have also seen ominous warnings about ‘modest dress.’

Don’t the charges at least merit further investigation and publicity? After all, if the same charges were leveled at Israelis, there would be a barrage of publicity, regardless of whether they had any truth to them or not. There are numerous specious allegations that Israeli soldiers raped Palestinians. There was even a ‘study’ that ‘proved’ that Israeli soldiers (including the non-Jewish ones) do not rape Palestinians because IDF soldiers are racists.

Surely it is time to break the silence? Won’t Women in Black or Code Pink or perhaps Gila Svirsky’s group (CWP – Coalition of women for Peace) organize a tumultuous demonstration demanding an international investigation?? It is understandable if they keep mum about these stories. But where is the army of Zionist bloggers and journalists who are supposed to publicize these issues? Where are the organizations who take money to supposedly defend Israel? Why is everyone silent??

At least there should be an investigation. Surely, all progressive people will welcome an investigation into the status of women in the West Bank, which is no doubt commendable in every way.

Won’t someone publicize this cause? Won’t someone speak out about this injustice? Won’t someone tour campuses in the United States and Scandinavia to warn the innocents before it is too late?? Won’t someone come forward and break the silence??

And thus the hypocrisy of feminists who support Palestinian Arab rights is exposed. The only leftists who care about these victims are the ones who happen to be - Zionist.

Posted by Elder of Ziyon at 11:01 PM


\http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2010/09/palarab-raping-of-peace-activists-not.html

Monday, September 27, 2010

William Ayres Denied Honor Status at University of Illinois

Investors Business Daily
Turning Down The Terrorist Emeritus


Academia: In an era when our universities have become liberal re-education camps, '60s radical William Ayers has been denied professor emeritus status. For one brief instance, academia shows a spine.


It was, no pun intended, a bombshell. Ayers, a professor at the University of Illinois, Chicago, and co-founder of the anti-war group Weather Underground, was denied the honor he requested for himself after a passionate speech by board chairman Chris Kennedy, son of the late Sen. Robert Kennedy.

Kennedy said he could not confer the title "to a man whose body of work includes a book dedicated in part to the man who murdered my father." Kennedy referred to a 1974 book co-authored by Ayers, "Prairie Fire," that was dedicated to, among others, RFK assassin Sirhan Sirhan and "all political prisoners in the U.S."

Ayers' "body of work" includes Weather Underground bombings of NYPD headquarters in June 1970, the U.S. Capitol Building in March 1971 and the Pentagon in May 1972. A review of his memoir, "Fugitive Days," appeared oddly enough on Sept. 11, 2001, in the New York Times. "I don't regret setting bombs," he told reviewer Dinitia Smith. "I feel we didn't do enough." In the book, he said he found "a certain eloquence in explosives."

John Murtaugh wasn't at the UIC board meeting, but he could have told the members plenty. Murtaugh is the son of a judge whose home got bombed by the Underground on the morning of Feb. 21, 1970. Three gasoline-filled firebombs went off, two at the front door and one under the family car.

Young Murtaugh's father, then a New York Supreme Court justice, was presiding over the trial of the Panther 21, members of the Black Panther Party indicted in a plot to bomb New York landmarks and department stores. Ayers' wife, Bernadine Dohrn, later acknowledged Weathermen responsibility for the bombing.

Ayers became an academic when he realized he could do more damage to our society by controlling what our children are taught than by blowing up buildings one at a time. An idea of what William Ayers had in mind for America's schools was provided in his own words in November 2006 at the World Education Forum in Caracas, Venezuela, hosted by dictator Hugo Chavez.

With Chavez at his side, Ayers voiced his support for "the political educational reforms under way here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez. We share the belief that education is the motor force of revolution. ... I look forward to seeing how . .. all of you continue to overcome the failures of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane."

He would teach the teachers and they, through their students, would change the future of America. One of Ayers' descriptions for a course called "Improving Learning Environments" says a prospective K-12 teacher needed to "be aware of the social and moral universe we inhabit and ... be a teacher capable of hope and struggle, outrage and action, teaching for social justice and liberation."


We have documented his long and intimate association with President Obama. When Obama was making his first run for the Illinois Senate, Ayers and Dohrn had Obama at their house for a 1995 campaign event.

Ayers served with Obama on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a liberal nonprofit, from 1999 to Dec. 11, 2002, and in 2001 Ayers donated $200 to "Friends of Barack Obama."


UIC records show that in the 1990s, Ayers was instrumental in starting the Annenberg Challenge, a project to overhaul Chicago public schools. Obama was given the Annenberg board chairmanship only months before his first run for office.

The UIC board did the right thing in denying him the honor. William Ayers, a nutty professor, deserves nothing more than the scorn of a nation he spent his life trying to destroy.

The Hijacking Of America, Chicago-Style

By ERNEST S. CHRISTIAN Investors Business Daily


Posted 09/24/2010 06:30 PM ET


Recently (in the Wall Street Journal no less), a barrage of big black type screamed: "Worst Ever," "Convoluted Nonsense," "Witless and Chaotic," "Nothing Makes Sense," and "Sad Fiasco."

Such unrelenting scorn — it seemed — must surely be about the Obama White House and the Democratic Congress. But, as it turned out, the venerable newspaper's outrage was directed at Hollywood's antics, not Washington's.

Easy mistake. Both create illusions, stultify the mind and tend to lower moral standards. And both are full of bad actors.

As a theatrical, the "Obama Story" could in part be patterned after a 1930s satire by playwright Bertholt Brecht about an imaginary Chicago gangster named Arturo Ui who bilked those who trusted him.

In the Obama version, the protagonist could be an obscure community organizer — with unsavory connections in Chicago and Muslim roots — who takes over America and quickly brings the world's most powerful nation to its knees.

In the opening scene of this fast-paced spoof, Obama electrifies Democrats with the power of his oratory — and, after his opponent "withdraws," gets elected Chicago-style to the Senate, where he leaves no visible tracks. Who is this guy, anyway? No one asks. No one tells.

Soon thereafter, a new presidential star is born. Joe Biden declares that Obama is a "phenom." Then he blurts out, "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean that's a storybook, man."

Who Is This Guy?

Insulting and inaccurate though Biden's patronizing comparison is, the back-handed race card works perfectly. Obama promises to transform America. Into what? He never tells. No one asks.

Biden joins the ticket and within a year, in a fit of insanity brought on by too much George W and an overdose of affirmative action, a hefty majority of voters elect Obama president. They are mostly hopeful African-Americans, Hispanics voting for amnesty, excited kiddos on a spree and other gullible people who simply got duped by a master showman.

In the second act, when Obama takes over the presidency (and America) on Jan. 20, 2009, he is reminiscent of Richard Nixon, a man with a chip on his shoulder and a "secret plan" in his hand. Further like Nixon, sporadically throughout the play, Obama points his finger at the audience and vows to make things "clear." But he never does. To this day, we still don't even know who he really is.

Is the president of the United States a Christian or a Muslim? An American or a citizen of the world? Perhaps he hasn't decided yet. As columnist Richard Cohen recently wrote in the Washington Post, "He casts no shadow."


Obama's secret plan quickly becomes obvious. Use Americans' incomes, savings and future earning capacities as collateral for borrowing trillions of dollars from foreigners. Take over America's manufacturing and financial industries.

Give those assets plus draft choices and unspecified amounts of borrowed cash to a list of "friends" on his Political Facebook. Then force his non-friends to pay off the debt with heavy taxes that pauperize and enslave them.

Poor and Huddled

In the final act, the satirical knife cuts close to the bone of reality. With the speed of summer lightning, Obama brings transformational change to America — and it is absolutely frightening.

Deficits and debts skyrocket, the dollar crashes, jobs disappear, access to doctors and medicine is restricted, energy production stops, our military defenses are dismantled and Iran goes nuclear.

The "Shining City on a Hill" disappears. So do our unalienable rights — along with capitalism and other bourgeois artifacts of America's past. They are unsuitable for the new post-constitutional, post-individual, post-Judeo-Christian world.

In a tragic reversal of history — and in mockery of the presently outward-looking invitation on the Statue of Liberty — we Americans are ourselves now the "tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free."

When the final curtain falls, the ashen-faced audience rises to its feet and walks silently out of the theater straight to the nearest voting booth in one last desperate attempt to save America. If the voters succeed, Nov. 2, 2010, will forever be celebrated as Independence Day 2.0.

But, if they fail, Obama and his followers will have pulled off the biggest heist in history — and the story will be told around the campfires of the hardcore left for generations to come. After all, plundering is what "redistributional" politics is really all about.


• Christian, an attorney, was a deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Ford administration.

Six mysteries about the Stuxnet computer worm

Blake Hounshell discusses six mysteries regarding the Stuxnet computer worm that may have infected Iran's nuclear facilities. Here are some of the more interesting ones.


1. What was the target? Although the worm has affected computers in Indonesia, India, Pakistan, and elsewhere in addition to Iran, security researchers who have been pouring over Stuxnet for months say it appears aimed at a very specific target. According to Siemens, "The behavioral pattern of Stuxnet suggests that the virus is apparently only activated in plants with a specific configuration. It deliberately searches for a certain technical constellation with certain modules and certain program patterns which apply to a specific production process." Two German experts, Ralph Langner and Frank Rieger, have offered competing theories as to what that target might be, both of them in Iran, where most of the affected machines are.

Langner guesses that Stuxnet is aimed at Bushehr, Iran's civilian nuclear power plant, which is slated to go online this fall. Langner's case rests largely on the fact that Bushehr runs Siemens software and that Russian contractors would have had access to the facility -- and that they would have used USB drives to set up the system.

Rieger counters that Natanz, Iran's uranium enrichment plant, is a more likely target. Not only is it more of a proliferation threat, there's suggestive evidence that it actually may have been affected by sabotage. (More on this later.) He also points out that Natanz is more likely to have the kinds of identical nodes, in this case "cascades" or groups of centrifuges, that would be susceptible to an attack.

2. Who did it? The obvious culprit is Israel, which has both the sophisticated technology and the motive to sabotage Iran's nuclear program, which it deems a mortal threat. An eerily prescient Reuters article published in July 2009 quotes Scott Borg, a U.S. cybersecurity expert, speculating that Israel might want to do so, adding that "a contaminated USB stick would be enough" to cause real damage to Iranian facilities.

Other countries, such as the United States, China, and Russia, probably have the capability, but only one -- the United States -- has a clear motive (some might add France and Germany to this list). One could spin complicated theories as to why Russia would want to sabotage its own facility, but Occam's Razor probably applies here -- and other reporting has indicated that the United States and Israel have, in fact, approved a covert sabotage campaign that may include a cyber component.

You think WE - the world's biggest experts on cybersecurity - would do something like that? Hmmm.


http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2010/09/six-mysteries-about-stuxnet-computer.html

Sunday, September 26, 2010

Why Muslim Men Always Seem so Frustrated

Comparing the lifestyle of a typical American or Western Man with a Muslim Male.

The Western man is allowed to enjoy the opposite sex in rather revealing ways. For example:

When a Muslim man comes home, he's greeted with this

 No wonder the poor guy get so bent out of shape over every little thing that pops up.  Now what if he came home to something looking like this.
Perhaps the poor chap wouldn't need to be out burning down churches and killing off the infidels.

Mark Steyn on Danish TV: European elites drew wrong conclusion after WWII

English conversation begins after short danish introduction. Worth watching.

The Muslim Students Association and the Jihad Network



Our Universities are being used to promote hatred of Jews and Infidels. Political Correctness gone mad.

MOLLIFYING MUSLIMS, AND MUSLIFYING MOLLIES

Steyn on America


Monday, 20 September 2010

While I've been talking about free speech in Copenhagen, several free speech issues arose in North America. I was asked about them both at the Sappho Award event and in various interviews, so here's a few thoughts for what they're worth:

Too many people in the free world have internalized Islam’s view of them. A couple of years ago, I visited Guantanamo and subsequently wrote that, if I had to summon up Gitmo in a single image, it would be the brand-new copy of the Koran in each cell: To reassure incoming prisoners that the filthy infidels haven't touched the sacred book with their unclean hands, the Korans are hung from the walls in pristine, sterilized surgical masks. It's one thing for Muslims to regard infidels as unclean, but it's hard to see why it's in the interests of us infidels to string along with it and thereby validate their bigotry. What does that degree of prostration before their prejudices tell them about us? It’s a problem that Muslims think we’re unclean. It’s a far worse problem that we go along with it.

Take this no-name pastor from an obscure church who was threatening to burn the Koran. He didn’t burn any buildings or women and children. He didn’t even burn a book. He hadn’t actually laid a finger on a Koran, and yet the mere suggestion that he might do so prompted the President of the United States to denounce him, and the Secretary of State, and the commander of US forces in Afghanistan, various G7 leaders, and golly, even Angelina Jolie. President Obama has never said a word about honor killings of Muslim women. Secretary Clinton has never said a word about female genital mutilation. General Petraeus has never said a word about the rampant buggery of pre-pubescent boys by Pushtun men in Kandahar. But let an obscure man in Florida so much as raise the possibility that he might disrespect a book – an inanimate object – and the most powerful figures in the western world feel they have to weigh in.

Aside from all that, this obscure church’s website has been shut down, its insurance policy has been canceled, its mortgage has been called in by its bankers. Why? As Diana West wrote, why was it necessary or even seemly to make this pastor a non-person? Another one of Obama's famous "teaching moments"? In this case teaching us that Islamic law now applies to all? Only a couple of weeks ago, the President, at his most condescendingly ineffectual, presumed to lecture his moronic subjects about the First Amendment rights of Imam Rauf. Where's the condescending lecture on Pastor Jones' First Amendment rights?

When someone destroys a bible, US government officials don’t line up to attack him. President Obama bowed lower than a fawning maitre d’ before the King of Saudi Arabia, a man whose regime destroys bibles as a matter of state policy, and a man whose depraved religious police forces schoolgirls fleeing from a burning building back into the flames to die because they’d committed the sin of trying to escape without wearing their head scarves. If you show a representation of Mohammed, European commissioners and foreign ministers line up to denounce you. If you show a representation of Jesus Christ immersed in your own urine, you get a government grant for producing a widely admired work of art. Likewise, if you write a play about Jesus having gay sex with Judas Iscariot.

So just to clarify the ground rules, if you insult Christ, the media report the issue as freedom of expression: A healthy society has to have bold, brave, transgressive artists willing to question and challenge our assumptions, etc. But, if it’s Mohammed, the issue is no longer freedom of expression but the need for "respect" and "sensitivity" toward Islam, and all those bold brave transgressive artists don’t have a thing to say about it.

Maybe Pastor Jones doesn't have any First Amendment rights. Musing on Koran burning, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer argued:

[Oliver Wendell] Holmes said it doesn’t mean you can shout 'fire' in a crowded theater... Why? Because people will be trampled to death. And what is the crowded theater today? What is the being trampled to death?

This is a particularly obtuse remark even by the standards of contemporary American jurists. As I've said before, the fire-in-a-crowded-theatre shtick is the first refuge of the brain-dead. But it's worth noting the repellent modification Justice Breyer makes to Holmes' argument: If someone shouts fire in a gaslit Broadway theatre of 1893, people will panic. By definition, panic is an involuntary reaction. If someone threatens to burn a Koran, belligerent Muslims do not panic - they bully, they intimidate, they threaten, they burn and they kill. Those are conscious acts, at least if you take the view that Muslims are as fully human as the rest of us and therefore responsible for their choices. As my colleague Jonah Goldberg points out, Justice Breyer's remarks seem to assume that Muslims are not fully human.

More importantly, the logic of Breyer's halfwit intervention is to incentivize violence, and undermine law itself. What he seems to be telling the world is that Americans' constitutional rights will bend to intimidation. If Koran-burning rates a First Amendment exemption because Muslims are willing to kill over it, maybe Catholics should threaten to kill over the next gay-Jesus play, and Broadway could have its First Amendment rights reined in. Maybe the next time Janeane Garafolo goes on MSNBC and calls Obama's opponents racists, the Tea Partiers should rampage around town and NBC's free-speech rights would be withdrawn.

Meanwhile, in smaller ways, Islamic intimidation continues. One reason why I am skeptical that the Internet will prove the great beacon of liberty on our darkening planet is because most of the anonymous entities that make it happen are run by people marinated in jelly-spined political correctness. In Canada, an ISP called Bluehost knocked Marginalized Action Dinosaur off the air in response to a complaint by Asad Raza, a laughably litigious doctor in Brampton, Ontario. Had his name been Gordy McHoser, I doubt even the nancy boys at Bluehost would have given him the time of day. A similar fate briefly befell our old pal the Binksmeister at FreeMarkSteyn.com: In other words, a website set up to protest Islamic legal jihad was shut down by the same phenomenon. In America, The New York Times has already proposed giving "some government commission" control over Google’s search algorithm; the City of Philadelphia, where the Declaration of Independence was adopted and the Constitution signed, is now so removed from the spirit of the First Amendment that it's demanding bloggers pay a $300 "privilege" license for expressing their opinions online. The statists grow ever more comfortable in discussing openly the government management of your computer. But, even if they don't formally take it over, look at the people who run publishing houses, movie studios, schools and universities, and ask yourself whether you really want to bet the future on the commitment to free speech of those who run ISPs. SteynOnline, for example, is already banned by the Internet gatekeepers from the computers at both Marriott Hotels and Toronto Airport.

But forget about notorious rightwing hatemongers like me. Look at how liberal progressives protect their own. Do you remember a lady called Molly Norris? She's the dopey Seattle cartoonist who cooked up "Everybody Draws Mohammed" Day, and then, when she realized what she'd stumbled into, tried to back out of it. I regard Miss Norris as (to rewrite Stalin) a useless idiot, and she wrote to Mark's Mailbox to object. I stand by what I wrote then, especially the bit about her crappy peace-sign T-shirt. Now The Seattle Weekly informs us:

You may have noticed that Molly Norris' comic is not in the paper this week. That's because there is no more Molly.

On the advice of the FBI, she's been forced to go into hiding. If you want to measure the decline in western civilization's sense of self-preservation, go back to Valentine's Day 1989, get out the Fleet Street reports on the Salman Rushdie fatwa, and read the outrage of his fellow London literati at what was being done to one of the mainstays of the Hampstead dinner-party circuit. Then compare it with the feeble passivity of Molly Norris' own colleagues at an American cartoonist being forced to abandon her life: "There is no more Molly"? That's all the gutless pussies of The Seattle Weekly can say? As James Taranto notes in The Wall Street Journal, even much sought-after Ramadan-banquet constitutional scholar Barack Obama is remarkably silent:

Now Molly Norris, an American citizen, is forced into hiding because she exercised her right to free speech. Will President Obama say a word on her behalf? Does he believe in the First Amendment for anyone other than Muslims?

Who knows? Given his highly selective enthusiasms, you can hardly blame a third of Americans for figuring their president must be Muslim. In a way, that's the least pathetic explanation: The alternative is that he's just a craven squish. Which is odd considering he is, supposedly, the most powerful man in the world.

Listen to what President Obama, Justice Breyer, General Petraeus, The Seattle Weekly and Bluehost internet services are telling us about where we're headed. As I said in America Alone, multiculturalism seems to operate to the same even-handedness as the old Cold War joke in which the American tells the Soviet guy that "in my country everyone is free to criticize the President", and the Soviet guy replies, "Same here. In my country everyone is free to criticize your President." Under one-way multiculturalism, the Muslim world is free to revere Islam and belittle the west's inheritance, and, likewise, the western world is free to revere Islam and belittle the west’s inheritance. If one has to choose, on balance Islam’s loathing of other cultures seems psychologically less damaging than western liberals' loathing of their own.

It is a basic rule of life that if you reward bad behavior, you get more of it. Every time Muslims either commit violence or threaten it, we reward them by capitulating. Indeed, President Obama, Justice Breyer, General Petraeus, and all the rest are now telling Islam, you don’t have to kill anyone, you don’t even have to threaten to kill anyone. We’ll be your enforcers. We’ll demand that the most footling and insignificant of our own citizens submit to the universal jurisdiction of Islam. So Obama and Breyer are now the “good cop” to the crazies’ "bad cop". Ooh, no, you can’t say anything about Islam, because my friend here gets a little excitable, and you really don’t want to get him worked up. The same people who tell us "Islam is a religion of peace" then turn around and tell us you have to be quiet, you have to shut up because otherwise these guys will go bananas and kill a bunch of people.

While I was in Denmark, one of the usual Islamobozos lit up prematurely in a Copenhagen hotel. Not mine, I'm happy to say. He wound up burning only himself, but his targets were my comrades at the newspaper Jyllands-Posten. I wouldn't want to upset Justice Breyer by yelling "Fire!" over a smoldering jihadist, but one day even these idiots will get lucky. I didn't like the Danish Security Police presence at the Copenhagen conference, and I preferred being footloose and fancy-free when I was prowling the more menacing parts of Rosengard across the water in Malmö the following evening. No one should lose his name, his home, his life, his liberty because ideological thugs are too insecure to take a joke. But Molly Norris is merely the latest squishy liberal to learn that, when the chips are down, your fellow lefties won't be there for you.

Mark Steyn Online:
http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/3505/26/

How Moses parted the Red Sea - in Egypt?

The views at the Red Sea have changed since the Exodus


Researchers in Colorado have come up with an explanation as to how Moses was able to part the Red Sea and save the Israelites from Pharaoh’s army.

The group of scientists from the University of Colorado (CU) and the National Centre for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) found that the waters could have been separated by a strong gust of wind.

The investigation, which used computer modelling, suggests that Moses’ extraordinary feat took place at the Nile delta rather than Red Sea.

And rather than a strong hand and an outstretched arm, the scientists think the parting of the waters can be understood “through fluid dynamics”.

According to the research, a 63mph east wind blew apart the sea in northern Egypt enabling the Israelites to cross safely.

Such a strong wind would have created a “land bridge” up to four km long and five km wide, and the waters would have remained separated for four hours.

The scientist in charge of the research, Carl Drews, said: "The simulations match fairly closely with the account in Exodus."

In 2002 a BBC documentary suggested that the Red Sea could have been split as a result of a volcanic eruption on the Mediterranean island of Santorini, 500 miles away.


Jewish Chronicle Online: http://www.thejc.com/news/israel-news/38562/how-moses-parted-red-sea-egypt

Jewish boat heads to Gaza in attempt to break blockade

Jewish Chronicle Online: http://www.thejc.com/

Jewish boat heads to Gaza Share3

By Jennifer Lipman, September 26, 2010

A boat carrying a group of Jewish pro-Palestinian activists has set sail for Gaza with the aim of breaking Israel’s naval blockade.


The boat, named “Irene”, left a port in Cyprus on Sunday morning.

It has been organised by Jews for Justice for Palestinians and the umbrella organisation European Jews for a Just Peace.

More than 40 activists had been expected to join the passage; however JfJP said there were ten passengers and crew on board, from Britain, Germany and the US.

The cargo includes fishing nets, musical instruments and textbooks.

JjJP spokesman Richard Kuper described the boat as “a symbolic act of protest” and “a message of solidarity to Palestinians and Israelis who seek peace and justice.”

In May, activists on board the Mavi Marmara flotilla were found to be carrying weapons including knives.

However Mr Kuper, who is not on board, said the mission was non-violent and that “multicoloured peace flags” would be flown.

He said: “We aim to reach Gaza, but our activists will not engage in any physical confrontation and will therefore not present the Israelis with any reason or excuse to use physical force.”

Organisers had originally intended for the ship to set sail in July but the plan was delayed by an £18,000 funding shortfall.

I guess Rauf wasn't able to contact Soros in time to fund the earlier attempted departure.

Saturday, September 25, 2010

Iranian journalist Masih Alinejad writes a letter to Christian Amanpour



Via of Enduring America

 Masih Alinejad, an Iranian journalist, writes Christiane Amanpour, the broadcast journalist of America’s ABC News who interviewed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad this week. Originally in Rah-e-Sabz and translated by Hasty Pezhman:


Ms Amanpour,

In our country Iran, those who control the prisons and have control over citizen’s lives are the absolute power.

Those who can interpret the law as they wish or change it for their own benefit should be strongly challenged. Those who have the means to change the fate of their citizens should be questioned seriously. The criticism and questioning of those in power, above all the President whose winning of the election has cost hundreds of lives, is encouraged by the Iranian people.

The people of Iran know that, because we, Iranian journalists, are not able to do this right now, the responsibility has fallen on other journalists, like you, in the foreign media. We would like to think it is this responsibility to criticise absolute power that has resulted in the line of interviewers wanting their time with Mr Ahmadinejad.

In Iran there is no such thing as freedom of speech. This is why we appreciate it more than anyone else, and we admire the fact that you have been willing to interview Ahmadinejad in this practice of freedom. If you ask the real victims of the lack of freedom in Iran, “What do you want from these interviews by the foreign media, on your world filled with threats and misery?,” you would probably get a common answer. They all believe it is good to question him so that the whole world can see the real Ahmadinejad.

However, these one-sided interviews with Ahmadinejad have always brought more pain for Iranians and we believe they infect the concept of real freedom. When you prepare the stage for a person to talk to the whole world and influence people’s views about the existence/non-existence of freedom in his country, and you justify this act by giving him the freedom everyone else has in your country , you should take the rights of people of his country into consideration. You should acknowledge a nation whose freedom has been violated by this same person and whose lives have been infected by his never-ending lies.

You as a journalist are merely doing your job, even when interviewing a dictator, but your work is affected by the lack of justice in the case. What you lack is an equal chance given to the other side of the “Iran case”, the Iranian people. Last year when people were being killed in the streets of Iran while protesting, when four young innocents were tortured to death in Kahrizak Prison, the Iranian government deported every last one of the foreign journalists. All the Iranian journalists who opposed the government were imprisoned, silenced or forced to leave the country. In that same year, as soon as Ahmadinejad dared set his foot outside Iran, the world gave him the chance to feed the media with his usual lies, denials and excuses.

A year later, while those arrested journalists are still in prison and the silenced ones are still under serious threat, while those who killed people have not been tried and not even the foreign journalists — the same ones who prepare this stage for Ahmadinejad — are given permission to go back to Iran to carry on with their work, your media is giving him more chances to present the world with more shameless lies.

We do understand you were doing your job when showing Ahmadinejad the video of the mothers of the two American detainees, Josh Bauer and Shane Fattal, so that he can play his usual “I am innocent” and “others are to blame” game, but shouldn’t you do your job differently when it comes to a dictatorial regime?

We did not expect you to make him listen to the voice of all those Iranian mothers who hold Ahmadinejad responsible for their children’s deaths, to Sohrab Arabi’s mother saying that he son participated in a silent protest [on 15 June 2009, three days after the election], that he did not set fire to any cars or houses, and that was shot to death by people who directly or indirectly work for Ahmadinejad. To the voice of the spouse of Ali Hasanpour, saying that her husband was shot in the head when trying to help another person who was shot also, his death a threat from the Islamic regime to the people of Iran that they fear of even caring for one another. We did not expect you to make him listen to the voice of all those whose beloveds are in prison because of criticising Ahmadinejad.

But would it be too much to expect you to ask him, as he is so willing to be interviewed by you outside Iran, why wouldn’t he permit you to go to Iran and allow you to interview some Iranians and ask them the same questions? Questions about the freedom of speech that he insists exists there fully and unconditionally?

You would not ask Ahmadinejad if the Iranian regime would allow Mr. Obama to appear on Iranian state TV and talk freely to the people of Iran, because you know very well what his answer would be — that the Iranian TV is free and independent and that he can’t meddle with their decisions, the same way he has always answered the questions you have asked many times about the judiciary of Iran.

He is partly right. What the judiciary does has nothing to do with him, so why question him about it? Ahmadinejad should be questioned about all the suppression and the crackdown enforced by organisations under his supervision. He should be asked why the newspapers are being closed down because of complaints made against them by his minsters and members of his government like his close advisor Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai.

Ahmadinejad is the head of the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance. The ministry that dictates who to interview and who not to interview to any foreign journalist that travels to Iran, that dictates this to an Iranian journalist travelling outside Iran. This is the ministry that has banned journalists from interviewing those who have been opposing Ahmadinejad’s government and whose rights have been violated constantly by his agents. This is the ministry that has banned journalists from interviewing even those who have had high positions within the Islamic regime in the past.

I personally was interrogated in the passport office of Ahmadinejad’s goverment for hours merely because I had requested an interview with Mr. Obama. My passport was confiscated, and I eventually lost my interview in the end. This is the same ministry that interrogated eleven of my colleagues in the airport for several hours and confiscated their passports because they intended to report on the US Presidential elections.

While Ahmadinejad is not being questioned about that for what he is directly responsible, would it be too much if we expected you — instead of competing with the other media sources over a more challenging interview by asking the same old questions of the same person who denies everything and anything — to be a bit more creative and, for example, request an interview with the university students who have been banned from their studies by the Ministry of Science, working directly under Ahmadinejad’s supervision, and who have been imprisoned because of protesting this? Or to ask Ahmadinejad to let you travel to Iran and interview people like Mr. Farahani, Tajzadeh, Arabsorkhi, Nabavi, Ramezanzadeh and all those political activists who have claimed the election was rigged, who claim they have documents to prove this, and who have been jailed for daring to make this public?

We wished that, instead of competing to interview Ahmadinejad over and over, you would think of the people in Iran and of those who have lost lives under this regime and that you had tried once to hear them. We wished instead of sitting there and listening to repeated lies, you had asked Ahmadinejad to allow you to talk to the people of Iran, those who are not allowed to travel to America.

Is it against the principles of journalism and international standards of the media if a professional journalist, when interviewing the head of a dictatorial government, a government that has silenced any voice other than its own, tries to create an opportunity for a whole nation suffering under that dictatorship, a chance for their voices and stories to be heard as well?

Ms. Amanpour,

I know it’s too much to expect you to present Ahmadinejad with the questions of Iranian mothers waiting endlessly for the trial of the murderers of their children, as you present him with the requests of the American mothers waiting for their children to come home. But you had an opportunity to ask Ahmadinejd in front of millions, as a sign of goodwill and a proof of the freedom that he shamelessly insists exists in Iran, to allow you to travel to Iran and interview those mothers whose children were killed in the streets and in prisons, without his Ministry of Culture causing you problems or his Ministry of Intelligence later imprisoning those whom you interviewed.

Before anything a journalist is a human being, and in a situation like this when the normal people in Iran, who are beting killed and imprisoned, are in serious need of help, people of the world — including the journalists — can offer them a hand and at least try to create for them opportunity. An opportunity equal to that given to an Ahmadinejad whose lies have destroyed the lives of many.

Yours,

Masih Alinejad

Planet Iran: http://planet-iran.com/index.php/news/24321

CAIR tries to squash criticism of agenda through intimidation and lawfare

 “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth,” San Ramon Valley Herald reporter Lisa Gardiner wrote when summarizing the message of Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) founder Omar Ahmad to a Muslim audience in 1998.

But if yours is an Islamist organization, operating as a mainstream advocacy group in a country that has not accepted Allah as supreme, how do you remain relevant and keep Islam on a pedestal? Answer: sue, coerce, and intimidate those who say or write things damaging to the image of the faith and its followers.

Since their founding in 1994, CAIR has sued and/or attacked with consequence such media outlets as: The Washington Times, The Los Angeles Times, The National Post, National Review, Anti-CAIR, various talk radio hosts, and college newspapers. Recently, even The Daily Caller has found itself caught in CAIR’s crosshairs.

“It is really impossible to know how many people have been intimidated with these lawsuits because if you read the original letter they sent to me, you know, ‘don’t discuss this with anybody else.’ How many people have succumbed to that and said, ‘hey, we don’t want to get involved in this,’ and they’ve quietly gone away,” Andrew Whitehead, a blogger CAIR sued in 2004 for defamation, told The Daily Caller.

Indeed, it was difficult to find individuals to go on the record for this article about CAIR’s alleged intimidation tactics for just that reason, as well as safety concerns of sources.

Whitehead’s case eventually was dismissed in 2006 after CAIR refused to disclose pertinent information (including the origin of its funding and their alleged connections with Hamas and other radical organizations) requested by the defense during the “discovery” phase of the proceedings.

CAIR, billed by some as the country’s largest “moderate” Muslim rights group, is alleged by others to be in reality a radical front group with ties to terrorists and a record of unsavory dealings — which caused the FBI to end all of its dealings with the group in 2009.

According to Stephen Schwartz, executive director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, the CAIR’s primary directive is safeguarding radicalism. “Their actual mission, on the record — which is demonstrated by their public record from the beginning — is to advocate for and protect the influence of Hamas, the Wahhabis from Saudi Arabia, Pakistani radicals. I mean they are interested in legally protecting radical Islam,” Schwartz told TheDC.

Despite such concerns, the group continues to wield a great deal of power as the purported mouthpiece for “moderate” Islam both in government and in the media.

According to Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, CAIR frequently meets with members of Congress and the administration on an unofficial basis. “They are not doing terribly well, in the sense that they are officially somewhat banned, but they are unofficially doing quite well and should that ban be reversed they will have great strength,” Pipes told TheDC.

With the threat of Islamaphobia in their back pocket, CAIR agilely has been able to steer the media’s narrative. And what they cannot accomplish with press releases and influence peddling, they achieve through threats and lawfare.

In 2005, Rabiah Ahmed, a CAIR spokeswoman, told The New York Sun that lawsuits had become an “instrument” for the community. “The Muslim community realizes that it has to respond to these allegations and to these attacks, otherwise, the people who are promoting these defamatory remarks will win in the court of public opinion.”

But even before that admission, CAIR was leveling suits against publications that crossed them. In 2003, CAIR sued National Review for an apparent error which appeared in an article by a guest reporter. National Review acknowledged the mistake, but the group pushed forward with their suit, bringing National Review to court. National Review won in the end, but, in the process, spent more than $65,000 in defense costs. “We viewed this as an attempt to intimidate and punish NR. We probably could have settled early and cheaply, but we took the more principled route — we fought back,” National Review wrote in a letter appealing for donations.

CAIR also has been able to terminate careers. In 2005, despite widespread listener support and lip service to the importance of free speech, ABC radio fired Michael Graham from D.C.’s 630 WMAL in the wake of threats and pressure by CAIR for his criticisms of Islam as a terrorist organization. “What was told to me by people who would have knowledge of this inside ABC Disney was, CAIR sent out an appeal to people with large stock holdings in Disney and people from the Middle East responded to the appeal and pressured ABC Disney to dump me,” Graham said.

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, president and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, has been observing CAIR’s tactics for years. “They are completely removed from all responsibility of reform and the ideological problem and to them it is all about intimidation and somehow putting the fear of God into people so that they think it is going to prevent it from happening again,” Jasser said. “And then they get up and start telling America about Islamaphobia, when they’re creating phobias….It almost seems like their role is to inflame Muslims against their own society.”

Schwartz added that CAIR is not just focused on going after the ‘big fish’ as they want to show their might in any way they can. To them, no target is too small. “They concentrate on small issues, and small conflicts or complaints because they want to build themselves up in the Muslim community, local Muslim communities. So they try to spread their stuff out as much as possible,” he said.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/22/cair-tries-to-squash-criticism-of-agenda-through-intimidation-and-lawfare-critics-say/2/#ixzz10Ztg9qAo

New Jersey Gov. Confronts Heckler

Governor Christie gets my vote if he ever runs for Commander in Chief.



America needs more Governor Christie's if were ever going to get back on the right track. Obama and his leftwing thugs are ruining our country. Vote all the leftwing bastards and GOP rino's out of office.

Arlington woman sentenced to 10 years in federal prison

mitchmitchell@star-telegram.com

FORT WORTH — Two people were sentenced in federal court Friday for charges related to a February police chase through Arlington and Fort Worth.
                            “Kimberly” Asma Al-Homsi & Girlfriend Aisha Abdul-Rahman Hamad


Kimberly Al-Homsi, 45, of Arlington, was sentenced Friday in federal court and will serve 10 years in prison and three years of supervised release after she leaves prison.

Her co-defendant, Yasinul Ansari, 19, of Arlington, was sentenced to more than three years in prison and three years of supervised release.

Al-Homsi and Ansari have been in custody since their arrest in February by officers with the Arlington Police Department and both pleaded guilty to possession of an unregistered firearm, according to a news release from the U.S. Attorney's Office.

On Feb. 13, during the investigation of a possible aggravated assault, Arlington Police Department officers stopped Al-Homsi's vehicle, but she sped away. She led officers from Arlington to Fort Worth, where she stopped on the southbound entrance ramp to Loop 820 at Rosedale Street. Ansari was a passenger in the vehicle.

Al-Homsi and Ansari were arrested after she told officers that there were three pipe bombs in a bag in the back seat of her vehicle. The pipe bombs were rendered safe. Al-Homsi told authorities that on Feb. 7, she and Ansari bought various items that they used to construct three pipe bombs and at one point, attempted to detonate one of the bombs. These three bombs, which were in working order, or could have easily been put in working order, were the ones that law enforcement found in her vehicle, the release

Why don't we hear about the Christian or Jewish nutjobs that want to blow up innocent women and children. 10 years is too short a time for this jihadist. Heck, if shere were found guilty of the same crimes in Iran, Saudi Arabia or other Islamic countries, she would be dangling from the end of a rope by now.

Read more: http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/09/24/2493162/arlington-woman-sentenced-to-10.html#ixzz10YUKMUIg
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/17337/memba-her-texas-lesbian-muslim-terrorist-chick-caught-again-w-three-bombs/





Read more: http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/09/24/2493162/arlington-woman-sentenced-to-10.html#ixzz10YTq59Ry

Friday, September 24, 2010

Letter to WELT: Sarrazin Deserves Respect

Politically Incorrect Blog: http://www.pi-news.org/2010/09/letter-to-welt-sarrazin-deserves-respect/

Honored Ladies and Gentlemen, Editors of die WELT, “I do not want the country of my grandchildren and great-grandchildren to be in large parts Muslim, that Turkish and Arab are spoken in large areas, that women wear head covering and the daily routine is determined by the call of the muezzins”, Sarazin writes. Because of such statements, you are dragging this man through the mud, who simply out of courage dares to bring such unpopular truths — that have already ruined his career so far — to the public and deserves the greatest respect?


(Open letter from Le Waldsterben to the WELT Editors)

Therefore, I would like, in any case, for the country of my grandchildren and great-grandchildren to be for the greater part agnostic-Christian-atheist-Jewish-or-what-ever-else-there-might-be, but in absolutely no way a victim of this monstrous mono-culture called Islam that has so far kept any country where it rules at a pitiful Stone Age level — economically and morally, and especially in relation to the human rights in force in those places.

I would like for the country of my grandchildren and great-grandchildren that German will be spoken over broad areas. As an aid, English would be OK. Otherwise, I can’t understand what is being said, and this is my homeland. Shouldn’t I be able to understand what’s being said? And if I should one day emigrate to the US, what would I do there? Wouldn’t I endeavor to improve my English? Or will I expect Americans ultimately to please learn German, and write “racism” when a US authority dares to put a form in front of my face in their language?

I would like the women in the country of my grandchildren and great-grandchildren to wear long dresses, shorts, mini-skirts, long pants, bikinis, dirndls, and in my opinion even pantsuits or whatever occurs to them — but there are two things I absolutely do not want to see on them, and indeed for the selfsame reasons: SS bands and headcoverings.

And if the muezzins would call, “Dear immigrant, come to this land. Get rid of archaic family structures. Integrate. Learn the language of the land. Treasure your children’s education. Take the opportunity to realize your goals, regardless of what you do. Ladies can be in leadership positions, instead of standing before the stove. You can be gay instead of marrying four wives. And if you would like to be a Geman slob, then it’s allowed here. Even men.” … then I would be able to bear these sounds that bring to mind more of a comparison with a loud-ringing bell than a shout.

But, instead, the muezzin calls: if you dare to do one single item of these things, you are guilty of death.

Then he calls: Allah is the greatest. And in turn, he has expressly forbidden everything that I have named as examples here. And yet much, much, much more.

Really anything that a free society is made of.

And he is even proud of threatening offenses in this “holy” book with punishments that only a psychopath could only do with great effort.

And for this, I would write on the Sarrazin’s side, if I would possess his courage:

- yes, precisely that, indeed, which is in the first paragraph.

In addition, I would like to write something else: Old rags like you who think themselves to be Journalists of Quality, may you be cursed!

Frankfurt: Funeral March for Free Speech

From the Politically Incorrect Site: http://www.pi-news.org/2010/09/frankfurt-funeral-march-for-free-speech/


Dr. Thilo Sarrazin moves the people. In Frankfurt, a citizens’ movement has been founded on “Wer kennt wen” (who knows whom) and “Facebook” that — independent of political groups and parties — has announced a funeral march to the German Bundesbank under the slogan “for the freedom of speech.”


The following call is coursing throughout the Internet:

We citizens are mourning our constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech that is being trampled under foot by our government, it’s institutions and politicians! We regret the witch-hunt being carried out against our compatriot Dr. Thilo Sarrazin.

We regret that we are not allowed to express real grievances and problems without being defamed, fired or indeed attacked personally!

We want to thank you Dr. Thilo Sarrazin, for your courage and your honesty!

The “Free Voters of Frankfurt” also stand with Sarrazin. In their press statement it says:

For if people in Germany have to count on occupational disadvantages and public ostracism — whether in word or in writing — by the Chancellor, the Federal President, parties and greater parts of the media, then the step to a factual dictatorship of opinion is no longer far away.

It is nice to see that citizens like PI and other groups join together independent of political discussion forums and publicly act on behalf of free speech. Dr. Sarrazin has the majority of citizens behind him — no associations. This is something new in our country. This is something of which our elected government and the federal president presently can only dream.

Please support this demonstration with your personal participation as citizens of the country, or announce as soon as possible a demonstration likewise in your own city or community. Write to your nearest PI group and get active.

This same freedom of Speech is now being attacked here in America. Why do you think Obama wants to take control of the Internet? Obama would love to silence Fox news, silence the tea party folks. CAIR is pushing for Hate Speech Crimes. If we don't stand up for our freedoms, we too will someday be marching in a funeral for our lost freedoms.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

John Bolton: Obama is not qualified to be Commander in Chief!

A new book called “Obama’s Wars” has come out that has a few revelations in it that the White House has apparently not denied. The major one being these words from Obama’s lips:


“We can absorb a terrorist attack. We’ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11 we absorbed and we are stronger.” 

If we are ever hit again, I can only hope Obama is a casualty. For him to make such a callus comment is so disgusting.

And one more:

“I have two years with the public on this (Afghanistan war)…I want an exit strategy…I can’t let this be a war without end…I can’t lose the whole Democratic Party.”

John Bolton rips into Obama from the start, suggesting this is more evidence that Obama is not qualified to be Commander in Chief. He goes on to point out that if Obama really felt this way about getting out of Afghanistan, that he didn’t want to be there, then why put our troops in harms way for 2 years for nothing?”

But it’s at the end when I realized my mancrush for Bolton. Just watch to the end and enjoy!


I'd do it again, says honour killer

By Middle East correspondent Anne Barker


Audio: Honour killer says he'd do it again (AM) There is a growing push in the Arab world to have men responsible for so-called honour killings treated as murderers by the courts.

Every year hundreds of women are killed by their husbands or brothers or another male family member for supposedly bringing shame on their families.

In many countries the honour killers are given leniency. Many men are not charged, or they spend only a few days or weeks in custody.

But Palestinian human rights groups have recently drafted their own amendments to have them treated as murderers.

Khaled Mahmoud, 21, admits beating his sister to death last year in the West Bank.

"She has made very wrong decisions," he said.

"I started drinking then I got crazy. When I saw her I beat her. I smashed her head to the wall."

His sister Asmaa - not her real name - was 23, a university student, and engaged to be married to another Muslim.
As brother and sister they were close, yet Mahmoud says she made the unforgivable mistake of sleeping with another man, a Christian, and brought enormous shame on the family.

"I was telling her that she should stay away from him and she shouldn't talk to him because he was playing," Mahmoud said.

"He wasn't serious with her and he is bragging about what he was doing. I was so ashamed with my sister."

Mahmoud says it is hard to describe how he felt after killing his sister.

"I don't say that I wish I hadn't killed her, but I say I wish she hadn't done that," he said.

"I am really sorry for what happened, but I think even if I'm in the same situation now after this experience and she does the same thing, I would kill her again."

A prime example of whats so wrong with Islam. To kill your own sister because you feel she shamed you. What a crock. Its so sick.
Mahmoud says he found a note belonging to his sister with several phone numbers and rang one to find it was a clinic that restores a woman's virginity through surgery.

He says that was the final straw.

"She was violating rules of the society. Why has she done that?

"She didn't have the right to do that. She shamed our family."

On average in the West Bank, about 20 men a year like Mahmoud kill a sister, daughter or even their mother because they claim she has brought shame on the family.

Some women are killed if they are considered promiscuous, have an affair, or even if they are victims of rape or incest.

"I don't think if anyone betrays his family (they) can be trusted by anyone else," Mahmoud said.

He says his views are representative of most people in the West Bank.

Mahmoud spent six days in custody. He was never charged and does not see himself as a murderer.

"It wasn't my fault, and I haven't done anything wrong," he said.

"I overreacted but I don't think that it makes me deserve jail for a long time."


'Killing is killing'

But human rights groups, non-government organisations and virtually every minister in the Palestinian government is demanding change so others like Mahmoud are treated as cold-blooded murderers.

Ashraf Hayyeh from the Palestinian Women's Centre for Legal Aid is one of the strongest advocates for reform.

"Killing is killing, whether it's for honour or anything," he said.

"And if someone kills that way they should deal with it as murder. He should be sentenced to at least 15 years' jail."

There is, however, one major obstacle to change.

The Palestinian penal code, in the West Bank at least, is a Jordanian law drafted 50 years ago.

To change it the Palestinian government needs to abolish that law and draft its own.

But since the militant group Hamas refused to take part in elections due last January, the Palestinian Legislative Assembly is effectively paralysed.

Until there is a new election, men like Mahmoud will continue to be let off the hook for what most countries would say is cold-blooded murder.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/20/3016288.htm