Are these Jews in Jerusalem in 1948 the occupier?

Labels: » » » » » » » »
Looting of the Jewish Jerusalem, John Phillips. Jume 1948
Looting in burning Jerusalem, John Phillips. June 1948
An Israeli NGO has sent a letter to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton threatening a class action lawsuit if she continues to call Jewish cities and towns in Judea and Samaria 'illegal settlements.' The letter, which was also sent to Prime Minister Netanyahu, argues that the 'settlement freeze' is illegal under a 1924 treaty in which the United States recognized that Judea and Samaria were part of the British Mandate for 'Palestine.' The Office for Israeli Constitutional Law, a non-governmental legal action organization, sent a letter to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last week, warning that by labeling Jewish settlements in the West Bank illegal, she is violating international law via israelmatzav.blogspot.com"The little-known Anglo-American Convention, a treaty signed by the US and British governments in 1924, stipulated that the US fully accepted upon itself the Mandate for Palestine, which declared all of the West Bank within its borders."
Jewish girl, Rachel Levy, 7, fleeing from street w. burning bldgs. as the Arabs sack Jerusalem after its surrender. May 28, 1948. John Phillips
Jewish girl, Rachel Levy, 7, fleeing from street w. burning bldgs. as the Arabs sack Jerusalem after its surrender. May 28, 1948. John Phillips
1948israel3
Jewish families leaving the old city through Zion's Gate. June 1948. John Phillips
Jewish people attempting to leave portion of city surrendered to Arab forces. Jerusalem, Israel. June 1948. John Phillips
Jewish people attempting to leave portion of city surrendered to Arab forces. Jerusalem, Israel. June 1948. John Phillips http://xrl.us/1948jerusalem UPDATE Bibi has agreed to freeze housing building in Jerusalem and Samaria, but the agreement did not include Jerusalem. Obama and his administration are complaining anyway.

Israel should build the tallest building in the world in Jerusalem

Labels: » » » » » » » » »

The little-known Anglo-American Convention, a treaty signed by the US and British governments in 1924, stipulated that the US fully accepted upon itself the Mandate for Palestine, which declared all of the West Bank within its borders.

Israeli Settlements are legal and legitimate under US law


by JACOB KANTER , THE JERUSALEM POST



The Office for Israeli Constitutional Law, a non-governmental legal action organization, sent a letter to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last week, warning that by labeling Jewish settlements in the West Bank illegal, she is violating international law.



The little-known Anglo-American Convention, a treaty signed by the US and British governments in 1924, stipulated that the US fully accepted upon itself the Mandate for Palestine, which declared all of the West Bank within its borders.



"The treaty has been hidden," said OFICL director Mark Kaplan. "But if you look at the House [of Representatives] deliberations during World War I, people are saying, 'Look, we've invested a lot of money in Palestine, and we expect that this treaty will be upheld.'"



Though the United Nations' 1947 partition plan declared the West Bank an Arab territory, the mandate's borders still hold today.



"The mandate expired in 1948 when Israel got its independence," Kaplan said. "But the American-Anglo convention was a treaty that was connected to the mandate. Treaties themselves have no statute of limitations, so their rights go on ad infinitum."



"The UN partition plan was just that-a plan," said OFICL chairman Michael Snidecor in a statement. "The General Assembly has no authority to create countries or change borders."



Clinton's rhetoric, according to Kaplan, has become more and more troubling.



"Our letter was sent as a result of so many comments that have been made by the secretary of state," he said. "It's part of a process that we've been involved with for a number of months, but we're speeding things up because of the acceleration of recent events."



A few days after praising Israel for its "unprecedented" actions in freezing settlement activity, Clinton reemphasized the supposedly illegal status of the settlements.



"The United States believes that settlements are not legitimate," she said. "That has been the policy of our government for 40 years. That is the policy of President [Barack] Obama today and going forward."



According to Kaplan, the IDF presence in the West Bank has added to this misconception of illegal activity.



"Israel chose to adopt a policy of military rule in 1967, which makes it smell of occupation," Kaplan said. "And the world says it is illegal occupation because of all the propaganda that's been out there. Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria does not qualify as an occupation under international law because of the Anglo-American Convention, and if you look at the Hague and Geneva conventions."



The OFICL letter also warned Clinton that if her office does not comply with the civil rights recognized in the Anglo-American convention, OFICL will file a class-action suit in a US district court.



Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu declared a 10-month settlement freeze last Wednesday, but the letter, which was also sent to Netanyahu's office, states that under the legal principle of estoppel - which precludes someone from denying the truth of a fact which has been determined in an official proceeding or by an authoritative body - any demand on Israel to freeze construction within the mandated borders is illegal under US law.



According to one adviser, Netanyahu's staff is reviewing the documents and will discuss the issues before replying to OFICL's planned actions.

"thou shalt not kill" is censored

Labels:

Has it been five years already? God, how time flies...

Five years ago I was convinced that this moment would prove to be a watershed. Surely now the Netherlands, and Europe, would wake up. Surely now the aggressive wing of the muslim community would be dealt with, would be cut down to size.

With 20/20 hindsight we must conclude that it was a watershed moment, but not in the way I envisioned.

What made the day so memorable was the obvious panic coming over our political classes and the dignified calm that the general populace displayed despite everything. There were no riots. No bands of enraged citizens were roaming the streets searching out muslim victims to exact revenge upon. No headscarfs were forcefully torn off or spat upon. Mosques did not go up in flames, Korans were not torn up in the streets


"...In the days following the murder we saw Mayor Cohen visiting the family of the murderer and the mosque he used to frequent. Our queen did not go out and meet with the family of the victim to pay her respects. But she did find the time to sit down with muslim youth to assure them that the government would be there to protect them. Protect them against an 'anti-muslim backlash' that never materialized and never was on the cards to begin with."



One man, a Rotterdam artist, Chris Ripke, (who's studio is right next door to the Mosque in the Insulindestraat [the Turkish Iskender Pasa Camii Mosque) decided to do a fairly innocuous protest. He went to Rotterdam, and painted a small mural of an Angel, some Koranic text about peace at the bottom, and the words:" Though Shalt Not Kill" in Dutch across the mural.

A man representing the nearby mosque was of course, offended by the Christian sentiment on the mural and called the city and demanded it be removed. In point form, the city obliged and perhaps most horrifying of all, the police told all media present for the removal of the mural they may not film it and had their film taken away in keeping with the Dutch police of 'non-escalation'. A few days ago, someone sent me a link to a video on youtube of this whole event. Apparently someone decided not to comply with the police request thankfully, and a group of us worked hard to translate and subtitle this as we feel as many people as humanly possible need to see this and understand its importance. Although this event is old, the presence of this tape is new to me and almost certainly new to the English speaking world. Here is the English subtitled video:

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon's posterous



What a different road the Netherlands might have taken if Pim Fortuyn had lived! Back in the early spring of 2002, the sociologist-turned-politician—who didn’t mince words about the threat to democracy represented by his country’s rapidly expanding sharia enclaves—was riding high in the polls and appeared on the verge of becoming the next prime minister. For his supporters, Fortuyn represented a solitary voice of courage and an embodiment of hope for freedom’s preservation in the land of the dikes and windmills. But for the Dutch political class and its allies in the media and academia—variously blinded by multiculturalism, loath to be labeled racists, or terrified of offending Muslims—Fortuyn himself was the threat. They painted him as a dangerous racist, a new Mussolini out to tyrannize a defenseless minority. The result: on May 6, 2002, nine days before the election, Fortuyn was gunned down by a far-left activist taken in by the propaganda. The Dutch establishment remained in power. For many Dutchmen, hope died that day.

Blair: 2-state solution or hell of a fight - Israel News, Ynetnews

Labels: » »

Blair: 2-state solution or 'hell of a fight'

Quartet's Mideat envoy says next month will be 'completely critical' in efforts to resume negotiations between Israel, Palestinians
Yitzhak Benhorin
Published: 11.29.09, 21:15 / Israel News
WASHINGTON – Quartet envoy to the Middle East Tony Blair portrayed Sunday a harsh picture of the region without a Palestinian state. "The alternative to a two-state solution is a one-state solution and that will, I assure you, be a hell of fight," he said in an interview to the CNN network.
According to Blair, the next month "will be completely critical and fundamental" in the efforts to resume direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
Piece Efforts
US 'hopeful' settlement freeze can revive piece talks / AFP
American official says Obama administration hopes halt of settlement construction will contribute to resumption of negotiations, hasn't changed position on matter
Full story
The former British prime minister noted that it was essential for the sides to sit down and talk "as quickly as possible".
"I've just spent some time with the Israeli prime minister, Mr. Netanyahu," Blair said, "and I think he is genuine and serious in wanting the negotiation to start."
He said he believed that "the majority of people, both Israelis and Palestinians, want to see a two-state solution." According to Blair, the Israelis want to know that their security is going to be protected, while the Palestinians want to know that the negotiations will really end the occupation and lead to a Palestinian state.
He added that he thinks "the Palestinians have made significant progress on security and the Israelis are prepared to change significantly their posture on the West Bank."

'We have to find a way through'

Blair, who served as British premier during the peace talks with Northern Ireland, which were led by US Senator George Mitchell, defended American President Barack Obama and his special Mideast envoy Mitchell, following a New York Times article accusing them of having no strategy.
"I have worked with Senator George Mitchell together very closely. He is, in my view, one of the most skilled and strategic negotiators I've ever come across… I think President Obama and Secretary (of State Hillary) Clinton are completely committed to doing this… I went through situations in times in the Northern Ireland process where people were convinced that the thing was going to fail, where even at times I found it difficult to see a way through. But the thing is there is a way through here, because in fact both parties want to achieve a two-state solution."




Blair said he believes the biggest difference between the Bush administration and the Obama administration stems from the fact that Obama has made the Israeli-Palestinian peace process "a central strategic objective" at the very beginning of his administration.
"I have absolutely no doubt that he holds to that, and whatever the difficulties and the obstacles, we have to find a way through. And personally, I'm an optimist by nature and I believe we will," he concluded.
that sounds like a threat. which side are you on Blair? Palestine is Jordan. And if Jerusalem were occupied, then why does LIFE Magazine have photos of ethnic cleansing of Jews and evictions of Jewish homes in Jerusalem in 1947?

NY Times Scrubs Its Own Reporting on White House Party Crasher Tareq Salahi’s Board Membership in Pro-Palestinian Terror Grp

Labels: »




By Debbie Schlussel

Why did the New York Times scrub out news that it broke about the White House-crashing couple’s ties to an organization that supports Islamic terrorism?


Yes, Tareq Salahi, the male half of the couple who crashed the White House State Dinner for Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, is a Palestinian Muslim. And not only that he’s an activist Palestinian Muslim, who is on the board of the American Task Force on Palestine, a group which–as I’ve previously noted on this site–is anti-Semitic and believes that all of Israel is Palestine and which openly supports HAMAS, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and all of their mass-murdering terrorist attacks.

michaelesalahiobama

Hey, Baby, Is That an ObamaCare Bill in My Pocket . . . Or Am I Just Happy to See You?

michelleobamarushing

Um, Barack, Who Are You Talking To?

But, strangely, the New York Times–which first reported Salahi’s membership on the ATFP board– has scrubbed that from the article that first appeared Thursday.



the NYTimes gives good lessons in whitewashing to the ATFP, which also scrubbed all references to Salahi from its site. We wouldn’t want any Americans thinking that Palestinians who support terrorism against innocent people would actually crash a White House party, now would we? Sad that I have to reference the far-left, but only Talking Points Memo bothered to capture the scrubbed ATFP page, below. Too bad they didn’t do a screen save of the New York Times article, too. There’s a whole lotta Formula 409 and Comet being put to use over this strange and calculating couple.


And the wife, Michaele Salahi, is a congenital, psychotic liar, apparently. All of the things the mainstream media reported about her are false. No, she was never a Victoria’s Secret model, as she claims. No, she was never a Washington Redskins cheerleader, as she claims. It goes to show you that the MSM is inclined to believe anything a Palestinian Muslim says about himself on his Facebook page . . . and anything the dhimmi-witted Barbie doll future womb donor who is sleeping with him says about herself on that FB page.


And don’t forget, this is the guy who sued his own parents to take ownership of their winery. One extensive news report of the epic legal battle compared the family’s story to the soap opera “Falcon Crest,” and reported that Salahi blamed his mother for a failed winery purchase bid by NBA star Shaquille O’Neal. Well, I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that a guy who supports the homicide bombings of innocent people, would literally run over his parents to get what he wants.

tareqsalahiatfp






Posted via web from noahdavidsimon's posterous

But we have to acknowledge that kill the unbelievers; is an awkward verse - Jihad Watch

Labels: »
From left, Sheikh Jamal Rahman, Pastor Don Mackenzie, and Rabbi Ted Falcon read from their respective holy books during their presentation at the Second Presbyterian Church in Nashville, Tenn., in October.
if this verse only applies to situations in which Muslims are in grave danger, such that Islam itself may not survive, they would argue -- and do argue -- that that is precisely the situation that prevails today. Accordingly, the interpretation that is supposed to mollify and reassure Westerners actually only opens the door for more jihad.

" At least Sheik Jamal Rahman is honest enough to acknowledge that there is a problem with the "Verse of the Sword" -- Koran 9:5 -- although he retails the same old tired glib dismissal that we have heard a thousand times before, that it is "taken out of context."

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Muslims Against Sharia Blog

Labels:
Thousands of Palestinian workers in Dubai may lose their jobs due to the financial crisis there, economists project.

Over the past few months, thousands of the estimated 100,000 Palestinian laborers working in Dubai have lost their jobs.

The Gulf state's economy is grinding to a halt, due to the huge international debts the country took on to drive its breakneck expansion coupled with the global economic crisis.

Last week, the Dubai government announced its flagship conglomerate needed a six-month halt to interest payments on $59 billion worth of debt.

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon's posterous


Might be a good idea to lock down those Israeli borders this year.

Christian's arranged Islamic marriage is invalid

Labels:
The marriage was voided from the Islamic side because the arrangement voided the marriage on conversion. would be legally more interesting if this were not the case:
A judge in Ohio ruled a marriage arranged by a Muslim father for his 17-year-old daughter who now has converted to Christianity isn't valid, clearing her of accusations she made false statements in applying for a marriage license with the man who now is her husband.

The little-reported case developed in Ohio, where Larry Crain, senior counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, argued on behalf of his client, identified only as "Nishan."


Nishan was married last month to a man she began dating this year when she converted to Christianity, the ACLJ said.


She didn't reveal her conversion to her "devout Muslim family members" until just before the marriage because she feared what they might do.


When her father discovered her plans, he allegedly tried to assault her and then filed a claim that she had falsified her marriage-license application because of the earlier arranged marriage.


The ACLJ explained, "Nishan's marriage was arranged by her father during a trip to Karachi, Pakistan, in May 2007 following her graduation from high school. Three days after the 'nikah' ceremony, Nishan and her father returned to the United States.


"She remained confused about the ceremony conducted during her trip to Pakistan and later took precautionary steps to annul her vows by preparing an affidavit for the U.S. consulate in Pakistan in August of 2007," the legal team said. "She gave her affidavit to her father who assured her he would send the necessary paperwork to the consulate. Her family never again mentioned her alleged Paksitani husband and Nishan believed that all necessary steps had been taken to annul any alleged marriage vows."


However, her father's anger over her conversion to Christianity and her marriage included the statement she had falsified her marriage-license application in the U.S.


"The fact is that Nishan never knowingly or intentionally misstated her marital status on her application … the fact is that even if Nishan's own attempts to nullify her Pakistani marriage were insufficient, her conversion to Christianity in 2009 effectively annulled her partial marriage pursuant to Islamic law, which provides that if either spouse leaves Islam … and the two never consummated their union, the 'nikah' is immediately annulled," the team explained.


The court listened to testimony from Nishan, her father and the man who claimed to be her Pakistani husband, and said Nishan's version of the events was "credible."


"On cross-examination, the father denied assaulting or abusing his daughter or making any threat to his daughter that a 'fatwa' – an Islamic religious ruling – could be issued against her. In fact, the father told the court that he did not know what the term 'fatwa' meant – testimony that the court labeled 'not believable,'" the organization reported.


"This is an important case involving the rights of a former Muslim to accept and convert to Christianity. And this decision no doubt will be watched closely by other Christian converts in this country who cannot publicly testify about their conversion to Christianity for fear of facing retaliation – and even harm – from their own family members," the report said.

via wnd.com

NGO: so called Settlements are legal and we will go to court to prove it

Labels: » » » » » »
An Israeli NGO has sent a letter to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton threatening a class action lawsuit if she continues to call Jewish cities and towns in Judea and Samaria 'illegal settlements.' The letter, which was also sent to Prime Minister Netanyahu, argues that the 'settlement freeze' is illegal under a 1924 treaty in which the United States recognized that Judea and Samaria were part of the British Mandate for 'Palestine.'
The Office for Israeli Constitutional Law, a non-governmental legal action organization, sent a letter to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last week, warning that by labeling Jewish settlements in the West Bank illegal, she is violating international law.
"The little-known Anglo-American Convention, a treaty signed by the US and British governments in 1924, stipulated that the US fully accepted upon itself the Mandate for Palestine, which declared all of the West Bank within its borders."


The little-known Anglo-American Convention, a treaty signed by the US and British governments in 1924, stipulated that the US fully accepted upon itself the Mandate for Palestine, which declared all of the West Bank within its borders.

"The treaty has been hidden," said OFICL director Mark Kaplan. "But if you look at the House [of Representatives] deliberations during World War I, people are saying, 'Look, we've invested a lot of money in Palestine, and we expect that this treaty will be upheld.'"

Though the United Nations' 1947 partition plan declared the West Bank an Arab territory, the mandate's borders still hold today.

"The mandate expired in 1948 when Israel got its independence," Kaplan said. "But the American-Anglo convention was a treaty that was connected to the mandate. Treaties themselves have no statute of limitations, so their rights go on ad infinitum."

"The UN partition plan was just that-a plan," said OFICL chairman Michael Snidecor in a statement. "The General Assembly has no authority to create countries or change borders."

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu declared a 10-month settlement freeze last Wednesday, but the letter, which was also sent to Netanyahu's office, states that under the legal principle of estoppel - which precludes someone from denying the truth of a fact which has been determined in an official proceeding or by an authoritative body - any demand on Israel to freeze construction within the mandated borders is illegal under US law.

According to one adviser, Netanyahu's staff is reviewing the documents and will discuss the issues before replying to OFICL's planned actions.

Feminists Psychoanalyze Themselves Again

Labels: » » » »



Cass Sunstein is a stupid man, but now I feel bad because I suspect some over the top stuff going on in Samantha's bed. yuck. the polygamy bit of threw me for a curve ball. I had no idea.

Funny that the husband of Samantha Power

(aka let's invade Israel) was involved.

that is creepy. Trying to legalize polygamy? I never would of thought feminists hated themselves that much. What comes to mind is the movie "Ice Storm" by Ang Lee

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon's posterous

If our government cannot define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, it follows that there can be no law against the union of a man and several women, which is totally demeaning and harmful to women.

The very first Platform adopted by the Republican Party, in 1856, condemned polygamy and slavery as the "twin relics of barbarism." Always a stalwart defender of traditional marriage, the 2008 Republican Platform calls for "a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it." It's vitally important that the Republican Party continue to be the standard-bearer for traditional marriage.

We thought our nation had definitely settled the polygamy issue a century and a half ago, but it recently raised its ugly head. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is on record as supporting polygamy. The ACLU's feminist president, Nadine Strossen, stated in a speech at Yale University in June 2005 that the ACLU defends "the right of individuals to engage in polygamy." And on October 15, 2006, in a high-profile debate against Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Strossen stated that the ACLU supports the right to polygamy.


Speaking to the Federalist Society on November 18, 2006, the ACLU's executive director, Anthony Romero, confirmed his organization's support of polygamy.


The massive immigration that the United States has accepted in recent years includes large numbers of immigrants from Third World countries that practice polygamy and marriage to children and close relatives. We wonder if polygamists have been allowed to immigrate and if they are continuing these customs in U.S. neighborhoods.


President Obama's nominee for a commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a lesbian law-school professor named Chai R. Feldblum, signed a radical manifesto that endorsed polygamous households (i.e., "in which there is more than one conjugal partner"). Signed in 2006, this manifesto, entitled "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families & Relationships," argues that traditional marriage "should not be legally and economically privileged above all others." The American people obviously think otherwise, and current laws reflect our wishes.


Feldblum is not the only pro-polygamy Obama appointee. His Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein, wrote a book in 2008 called Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness in which he urged that "the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of government."


Sunstein argues that traditional marriage discriminates against single people by imposing "serious economic and material disadvantages." He asks, "Why not leave people's relationships to their own choices, subject to the judgments of private organizations, religious and otherwise?"


Sunstein also suggests "routine removal" of human organs because "the state owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone's permission."


In Socialist Canada, which has already approved same-sex marriage, polygamy has suddenly become a live issue. In a current lawsuit, British Columbia's Supreme Court is being asked to decide if polygamy should remain illegal.


Traditional marriage is essential to a stable society. We should maintain government's proper role in defining it and protecting it.


via eagleforum.org


The feminists have been strikingly successfull;
women are now half the labor force,
and 40% of women are essential family breadwinners.
In the current recession, the majority of workers
laid off have been men (especially from construction and
manufacturing). Jobs where women predominate have not
been much affected.Even so, the feminists demanded that the Obama
Administration give half the Stimulus jobs to women rather than
to the shovel-ready work that was the reason for passing
the Stimulus funds. Whatever the feminists demand from the Democrats they get,
and the Stimulus money was directed to jobs
in education, health care, and social services. The feminists'
tactics to divert Stimulus jobs to women were described in
the July 2009 Phyllis Schlafly Report.

So what are the feminists complaining about? Now
that women are half the work force, they want workforce rules
to be changed to be more female-friendly. (These are the
same feminists who have been saying for years that there is no
difference between male and female.) Feminists demand that the taxpayers provide high-quality daycare and paid family leave, that new laws prohibit employers from ordering women to
work overtime (as men are often required to do), and probably that
men should be forced to assume half the household and
baby-care duties.

The feminists are still crying about President Richard
Nixon vetoing a federal program to make daycare a
middle-class entitlement. But Nixon's action was popular then and still
is, because the majority of Americans don't want their tax
dollars to pay for babysitters for other people's children.

No doubt this will come as a shock to the feminists,
but Time Magazine reports that "a majority of both men and
women still say it is best for children to have a father working and
a mother at home."






Women's percentage in the labor force keeps rising


because of who is going to college and who drops out.


Thirty years ago, the ratio of males to females on college


campuses was 60-40; now it's 40-60, and women receive the majority


of college degrees.






But the feminists are griping because women


students choose humanities majors that lead to lesser paid jobs


than male students, who in larger numbers choose math,


science and engineering. The feminists want government to


remedy this gender difference by bribing women with taxpayers'


money to make other choices. (Feminists claim that there are no


gender differences, but they demand government intervention


to override women's choices.)






The feminists push hard for what they call


"Title-Nining," using Title IX, which bans sex discrimination in schools


and colleges, to force equal numbers of women in all athletic programs. Since this misuse of Title IX was initiated by


radical feminists in Jimmy Carter's Education Department, the


feminists have forced colleges to eliminate thousands of


men's teams, including many championship teams and more


than 450 wrestling teams. Now the feminists are Title-Nining


science and math departments. Using phony charges of


gender bias, they are directing millions of dollars of federal and


university money to override women's choices in


order to increase the number of women in math and science at


the expense of men.






Joanne Lipman, who has held several of the biggest


jobs in publishing but still whines that "progress for women


has stalled," nevertheless makes a couple of sensible comments.


She writes that feminists defined "progress for women


too narrowly; we've focused primarily on numbers at the


expense of attitudes."






She's right about that. Attitude is the problem with


feminists; as long as they believe they are victims of an


oppressive patriarchy, they will never be successful. Women won't


be happy as long as they believe the false slogan (repeated


in most of these current articles) that women make only 77


cents on the dollar compared to men. The Equal Pay Law


was passed in 1963, but requires equal pay only


for equal work, and women in the labor force don't work nearly as


many hours per week as men do, and women voluntarily


choose jobs that pay less.






Lipman also urges feminists to "have a sense of


humor." That's a very constructive proposal. When I tell a joke


during my college lectures, I can identify the feminists by the


students who are not laughing.






Only one sentence in all these feminist articles


confronts the fundamental reason why today's women are not as


happy as women were in 1972. Time Magazine wrote: "Among


the most dramatic changes in the past generation is the


detachment of marriage and motherhood."






That's what the feminist movement did to America.


All those impressive statistics about women holding


well-paying jobs and receiving college degrees will not produce


happy women as long as 39% of children are born to


unmarried mothers who lack a loving husband.






And one more glaring point: the lack of grandchildren


isn't mentioned in these exposés of women's unhappiness. In


rejecting marriage, most feminists also rejected the


grandchildren who could have provided a significant measure


of women's happiness.






Feminists Are Still Unhappy






All this self-psychoanalyzing of women's attitudes appears to have been triggered by a study released earlier this year


by the National Bureau of Economic Research and published in the American Economic Journal. Called "The Paradox


of Declining Female Happiness," this report concluded that women's happiness has measurably declined since 1970.


Since this study covers the same time period as the rise of the


so-called women's liberation movement, the feminists


recognized it as a challenge to the goals and alleged achievements


of their movement.






The authors, University of Pennsylvania


economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, advanced a theory


that the women's liberation movement "raised women's


expectations" (sold them a bill of goods), making them feel


inadequate when they fail to have it all. The authors also presented


a second theory that the demands on women who are


both mothers and jobholders in the labor force are overwhelming.






A more realistic explanation is that the feminist


movement taught women to see themselves as victims of an


oppressive patriarchy in which their true worth will never


be recognized and any success is beyond their reach. If you


believe you can never succeed because you are a helpless


victim of mean men, you are probably correct.






Feminist organizations such as the National


Organization for Women held consciousness-raising sessions where


they exchanged tales of how badly some man had treated


them. Grievances are like flowers; if you water them, they will


grow, and self-imposed victimhood is not a recipe for happiness.






Another explanation for women's unhappiness could


be the increase in easy divorce and illegitimacy (39% of


American births are now born to single moms), which means


that millions of women are raising kids without a husband and


therefore expect Big Brother government to substitute as





provider. The 2008 election returns showed that 70% of


unmarried women


voted for Barack Obama, perhaps hoping to be





beneficiaries of his "spread the wealth around" policies.






In the pre-1970 era, when surveys showed women


with higher levels of happiness, most men held jobs that


enabled their wives to be fulltime homemakers. At the same time,


the private enterprise system produced many products that


make household work and kiddie care easier (such as dryers,


dishwashers, and paper diapers).






Betty Friedan started the feminist movement in the





late 1960s with her book The Feminine




Mystique, which created the myth that suburban housewives were suffering from




"a sense of dissatisfaction" with their alleged-to-be-boring


lives. To liberate women from the home that Friedan labeled


"a comfortable concentration camp," the feminist


movement worked tirelessly to make the fulltime homemaker


dissatisfied with her role.






Economic need plays no role in the feminist


argument that women should seek labor-force jobs. Feminists


encourage wives to leave the home because marriage is


allegedly archaic and oppressive to women. A job in the labor force


is upheld as so much more fulfilling than tending babies and


preparing dinner for a hard-working husband.






Women's Studies courses require students to accept as an article of faith the silly notion that gender differences


are not natural or biological but are social constructs created


by the patriarchy and ancient stereotypes. This leads


feminists to seek legislative corrections for problems that don't exist.









A former editor of the Ladies' Home




Journal, Myrna Blyth, wrote in her book, Spin Sisters: How the Women


of the Media Sell Unhappiness and Liberalism to the


Women of America, that the anorexic blondes on television are




every day selling the falsehood that women's lives are full of


misery and threats from men. Bernard Goldberg calls the


mainstream media "one of America's most pro-feminist institutions."






According to feminist ideology, the only


gender-specific characteristic is that men are naturally batterers who


make all women victims. On that theory, the feminists conned


Congress into passing the Violence Against Women Act (note


the sex discriminatory title), which includes a handout of a


billion dollars a year to finance the feminists' political, legislative


and judicial goals.






The feminists whine endlessly using their favorite


word "choice" in matters of abortion, but they reject choice in


gender roles. The Big Mama of feminist studies, Simone


de Beauvoir, said, "We don't believe that any woman should


have this choice. No woman should be authorized to stay at


home to raise her children . . . precisely because if there is such


a choice, too many women will make that one."






The feminists have carried on a long-running campaign


to make husbands and fathers irrelevant and unnecessary


except to provide a paycheck. Most divorces are initiated


by women. More women than men request same-sex


marriage licenses in Massachusetts so that, with two


affirmative-action jobs plus in vitro fertilization, they can create a


"family" without husbands or fathers.






Despite the false messages of the colleges and the


media, most American women are smart enough to reject


the label feminist, and only 20% of mothers say they want


full-time work in the labor force. Women suffering from


unhappiness should look into how women are treated in the rest of


the world, and then maybe American women would realize


they are the most fortunate people on earth.






Feminist Attack on Marriage










While the gay lobby gets most of the blame for the


assault on the institution of marriage, the modern feminist


movement has always been virulently and effectively anti-marriage.


When the movement marched onto the stage of the


culture war in the late 1960s and early 1970s, they called


themselves the women's liberation movement. The buzz word was


liberation, which specifically meant liberation from home,


husband, family and children.






Harvard Professor Harvey Mansfield's book


entitled Manliness includes a most informative chapter called


"Womanly Nihilism." Mansfield rightly concludes that the


20th-century feminist intellectuals, such as Simone de


Beauvoir, Betty Friedan, Kate Millett and Germaine Greer, wanted


independence not only from men, but from morality and


from human nature and motherhood.






The feminists' first legislative triumph was to change


the divorce laws of all 50 states to unilateral divorce,


i.e., allowing one spouse to walk out of marriage without the consent


of the other spouse, and without having to allege any fault


or reason to sever the marriage contract. Big media eagerly


cooperated to promote the notion that we have moved into


an era of "serial" (rather than lifetime) marriages. "Ozzie


and Harriet," a then-popular sitcom featuring a traditional


family, became a favorite epithet for feminists to scoff at


traditional marriage and the role of the fulltime homemaker.






The feminists' second victory was


Roe v. Wade. Abortion has always been central to the feminist movement


(proving there is no connection with the movement for


women's right to vote, whose leaders were very anti-abortion).






Their third victory (a Gloria Steinem favorite) was


getting President Jimmy Carter to pluralize the name of


his White House Conference on Families in order to


popularize the notion that non-traditional families should be


recognized and included.






The anti-marriage feminists stormed state capitols to


repeal the laws designed to respect morality and preserve


marriage, such as the laws against adultery, fornication,


sodomy, and alienation of affection.






The only goal they failed to achieve was ratification


of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).






Meanwhile, beginning with Lyndon Johnson's Great


Society in the late 1960s, the welfare system was working


hard to dismantle marriage by channeling taxpayers' money


only to mothers, thereby making the husband and father


irrelevant and unnecessary to the family's economic well-being.


Widespread illegitimacy and single moms were the predictable


result, producing the matriarchy that the feminists sought.






Feminist solidarity with the gay rights movement was


cemented at the International Women's Year (IWY)


Conference in Houston in 1977, following impassioned


emotional entreaties by Betty Friedan and Eleanor Smeal. IWY


resolutions proclaimed the feminists' attack not only on


traditional marriage, but also on motherhood. Feminists view


society's expectation that mothers should care for their own


children as oppressive discrimination against women.






Marriage: One Man, One Woman










The institution of marriage as the union of one man


and one woman has been fundamental to America ever since


the founding of our nation. When the famous French


commentator Alexis de Tocqueville traveled the United States in


the early-19th century, he recognized the fact that respect


for marriage is very American. He wrote: "There is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is more


respected than in America, or where conjugal happiness is


more highly or worthily appreciated."






Not only do American laws specifically recognize


marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but


many laws legislate special benefits to the institution of


marriage. The Government Accountability Office (GAO)


identified more than 1,000 federal laws that are based on the


definition of marriage in its traditional meaning, including the


tax laws that permit married couples the advantage of filing


joint income tax returns and the Social Security benefits


awarded to fulltime homemakers.






Attacks on the definition of marriage as the union of


one man and one woman come from the gay lobby seeking


social recognition of their lifestyle, from the feminist movement


that opposes what they call the patriarchy (that supposedly


makes women second-class citizens), and also from some


libertarians who believe marriage should be merely a private


affair and/or a religious contract, and that the terms of this


union should be none of the government's business. These


libertarians want to deny government the right to define


marriage, set its standards, or issue marriage licenses.






Government's Role in Marriage






Government has and should have a very important role


in defining who may get a license to marry. In America, it is


and should be a criminal offense to marry more than one person


at a time, or marry a child, or a close relative, even though


such practices are common in some foreign countries.


via eagleforum.org

Google joins ClimateGate (dis)information fray? [krakatoa]

Kate at Small Dead Animals notices a peculiar thing when searching Google for things like "climategate", "climate hack", or "climate emails".

It used to be, up until yesterday, when beginning to type those queries the drop-down helper would show the list of most searched items. Yahoo has a similar feature. Go ahead and try both in Yahoo and Google, and you'll see the difference.

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Pakistan's president hands over nuclear powers | The Australian

Labels: »

PRESIDENT Asif Ali Zardari has given up control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in a bid to fend off mounting pressures threatening to weaken his rule further and complicate the war on the Taliban.

Mr Zardari took the decision overnight as an amnesty protecting him and key aides from corruption cases expired and risked flinging the country, struggling to contain a Taliban insurgency in the northwest, into fresh political crisis.

The presidency announced that control of the National Command Authority, which analysts and lawyers confirmed is responsible for nuclear weapons, had shifted to Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani.

"The president has handed over his power regarding the national command and control authority to me and has issued an ordinance," Mr Gilani said.

Islamabad earlier this month rejected a report in The New Yorker magazine that raised fears of a militant seizure of Pakistan's nuclear weapons and suggested that the US had a hand in protecting the arsenal.

Mr Zardari's predecessor, military ruler Pervez Musharraf, enforced a state of emergency in 2007, introducing a 17th amendment to the constitution that gives the president the power to dissolve parliament and sack the prime minister.

"We are going in the right direction. There is no threat to democracy and to the present government," said Mr Gilani, a member of Zardari's Pakistan People's Party (PPP) but who is said to enjoy closer relations with the military.

"He believes in the balance of power between the presidency and the parliament and he is committed to undo the 17th amendment," he said.

Mr Zardari's approval ratings are rock bottom as Pakistan struggles with Taliban violence, a recession and stalled efforts on reform.

He spent several years in jail for corruption and is still referred to as "Mr Ten Per Cent" because of his reputation for taking kickbacks on deals.

Presidential spokesman Farhatullah Babar hailed the transfer of the National Command Authority as "a giant leap forward to empower the elected parliament and the prime minister".

But senior lawyers said the nuclear move is window dressing.

"The president wants to give the impression that he is empowering his prime minister. This transfer is basically cosmetic," said lawyer Akram Sheikh.

The president was quoted by state media as saying he will revoke the amendment in December.

The corruption amnesty passed by Musharraf in 2007 and known as the National Reconciliation Ordinance, or NRO, expired as Pakistan celebrated the first day of the Muslim festival of sacrifice, Eid al-Adha.

It had quashed charges against Mr Zardari, his wife and ex-prime minister Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated two months later, and other politicians in an apparent gesture of political reconciliation.

The PPP went on to win elections in 2008, restoring civilian rule in a country governed for most of its existence by the army.

But today the government is seen as too weak to secure an extension of the NRO in parliament, and pending another decree the end of the amnesty allows cases against beneficiaries to be reopened and convictions could be restored.

Although there is no immediate likelihood of cases being reopened against Mr Zardari, who enjoys immunity as president, opponents say the supreme court could yet declare his election illegal.

More than 8000 people benefited from the amnesty that was connected to 3478 cases ranging from murder, embezzlement, abuse of power and writeoffs of bank loans worth millions of dollars.

Interior Minister Rehman Malik and Defence Minister Ahmed Mukhtar are among more than 30 politicians who had cases against them withdrawn.

Analyst Talat Masood said the distraction posed by possible litigation would divert attention from the battle against Taliban and al-Qaeda-linked fighters whose bomb attacks have killed more than 2550 people in the last 29 months.

"It will affect the campaign against insurgency and militancy. The opposition and other forces will continue pressure on the government to quit. Mr Zardari will have to shed his powers to be able to survive," he said.

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon's posterous


Report: Germany home to 90 combat-trained jihadists - Jihad Watch

Labels:
Until now, anti-radicalisation measures had been piecemeal across Germany's states, ranging from educational comic books to one-on-one conversations with violence-prone Islamists, the Spiegel report said.
The forum, organised by the Interior Ministry, would also study Jihadists who had already been convicted and imprisoned, as they posed their own danger in jail, where they could radicalise other prisoners.
To fight this problem, moderate Imams and Islamic organisations could be brought into counter the influence of radicals in jails, the Spiegel report said.

Just as soon as a meaningful definition of "moderate" is agreed upon.

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Pamela Geller, Newsmax: Muslim Groups Shut Down Free Speech at Ivy Leagues - Atlas Shrugs

Labels:

Princeton Arab Society President Sami Yabroudi and former President Sarah Mousa issued a joint statement, claiming: “Nonie Darwish is to Arabs and Muslims what Ku Klux Klan members, skinheads and neo-Nazis are to other minorities, and we decided that the role of her talk in the logical, intellectual discourse espoused by Princeton University needed to be questioned.”

KKK? Neo-Nazi? Nonie Darwish was scheduled to speak about Shariah and Israel — standing up for human rights against the jihad.

"Nonie Darwish, the executive director of Former Muslims United and author of "Cruel And Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law," was scheduled to speak at Columbia and Princeton Universities last week, but both events were canceled under pressure from Muslim groups on campus.

Columbia, where Ahmadinejad was welcomed like a returning king.

Just hours before Darwish was scheduled to speak at Columbia, the groups that had invited her to come to both universities, the Whig-Clio student debate society and Tigers of Israel, succumbed to demands from student Muslim groups and canceled her speaking event. Tigers for Israel, my eye. Their name mocks them.

"

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon's posterous


Iranian Peace? not quite

Labels: »

Islam, Sigh... the religion of peace from a point of view of killing *you* and then resting afterwards. Legacy battles are being fought over who rules after Mohammed and these guys are declaring peace with each other before they kill. sadly they can't convince the other side that they can kill more Jews, Christians and Pagan Infidels.

meanwhile Iran protests the Saudis: and stage hajj protest

"Ignoring Saudi warnings against political activity, the Iranians chanted for Muslim unity and against the "enemies" of the faith in their camp at Arafat outside of Mecca.

"Death to America, death to Israel," thousands of Iranians chanted inside a huge tent on the Arafat plain."

"We need all Muslims, Sunni and Shiite, to be unified and focus on important issues: Al-Aqsa (mosque in Jerusalem), the occupation of Palestine, the problems in Iraq, the Afghan occupation, and the fighting between brothers in Yemen. We need be purified from all infidels."

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon's posterous


The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Excess Ethanol

Labels:

Congress demanded oil refiners use more ethanol, but meeting the federal targets is going to be a problem. Now it’s up to the EPA to ease the mandate. Will they act?

I see Ethanol as the only way out... but I don’t need it shoved up my rectum. If petrol goes up and Ethanol wins then it will be company imposed not government imposed.

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon's posterous

A Little Bit.ly Sharia? Tech Business Builds on Libya Domain « Creeping Sharia

Labels:

Sorry I haven't tweeted much lately...



 ...he is using .ly - a Libyan domain. stupid


A Little Bit.ly Sharia? Tech Business Builds on Libya Domain

By creeping
In other words, as Gawker titled their story: Muammar Qaddafi More or Less Owns Your Links. Astute reporting below from a blog entitled Workbench:
The URL shortening service Bit.ly just secured $2 million in financing from investors including O’Reilly’s AlphaTech Ventures. Though URL shorteners have been around for years, Bit.ly believes there’s money in offering Twitter-friendly short links along with web analytics to track how the links are used. The company reports that its links were clicked 20 million times last month.
So far, the news coverage I’ve read about Bit.ly has neglected an unusual aspect of the startup: It’s one of the only prominent online ventures using a domain name in the .LY namespace, which is controlled by Libya.
There are two issues that arise from this relationship.
First, of course, is the appearance of an American company doing business with Libya, a country that the U.S. considered a state sponsor of terror from 1979 through 2006. On Dec. 21, 1988, Libyan intelligence agents planted a bomb on Pan Am Flight 103 that blew up 31,000 feet over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 people onboard.
Bit.ly’s only doing a trivial amount of business with Libya — the domains sell for $75 per year from the registrar Libyan Spider Network — but its use of .LY domain is helping to popularize and legitimize the top-level domain for general use on the Internet. It’s only a matter of time before a reporter decides to ask the families of Lockerbie victims what they think of the arrangement. I can’t imagine that story going well for the company.
Even without that PR hit, there’s another potential concern for Bit.ly and any other venture that builds its business on an .LY domain. These domains are governed by Libyan law, as it states on the Libyan Spider Network site:
Any .LY domain names may be registered, except domains containing obscene and indecent names/phrases, including words of a sexual nature; furthermore domain names may not contain words/phrases or abbreviations insulting religion or politics, or be related to gambling and lottery industry or be contrary to Libyan law or Islamic morality.
So the names must conform to Islamic morality, and it’s possible that the use of the domains could fall under the same rules. What are the odds that some of those 20 million clicks on a Bit.ly-shortened URL end up at sites that would be considered blasphemous or otherwise offensive in an Islamic nation? Bit.ly conveniently provides search pages for such topics as Islam, sharia, gambling and sex, any of which contain links that could spark another controversy.
Bit.ly’s building a business atop a domain that could be taken away at any time, and the company’s only recourse would be to seek redress in the Libyan court system. Take a look at Section 11 of the regulations for .LY owners:
The Arabic language is the language of interpretation, correspondence and the construction of the Regulation or anything related to it. … In case of conflict between the Arabic and the English versions the Arabic version shall prevail.
I hope Bit.ly’s attorneys are brushing up on their Arabic. ~end
it gets to be burdensome because any twitter, facebook or friendfeed user is already catering to Libyan interests by defaulting url shortening to bit.ly. people were shocked when I said social media was biased against Israel. Would this not be the icing on the cake of an unethical culture?

Creative Black Book

Labels:

http://facebook.com/CreativeBlackBook

Dubai's Economy about to fall even with oil profits

Labels: »
AP
Thu Nov 26, 9:16 AM ET
Rising high among the towers in Business Bay, Burj Dubai, the world tallest tower, which is still under construction, is scheduled to be open in January 2010 in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, Thursday, Nov. 26, 2009. In a brief statement Wednesday, Dubai's government said its main development engine, Dubai World, would ask creditors for a 'standstill', and to delay maturity of its $60 billion debt until at least May 2010.
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates – Just a year after the global downturn derailed Dubai's explosive growth, the city is now so swamped in debt that it's asking for a six-month reprieve on paying its bills — causing a drop on world markets Thursday and raising questions about Dubai's reputation as a magnet for international investment.
The fallout came swiftly and was felt globally after Wednesday statement that Dubai's main development engine, Dubai World, would ask creditors for a "standstill" on paying back its $60 billion debt until at least May. The company's real estate arm, Nakheel — whose projects include the palm-shaped island in the Gulf — shoulders the bulk of money due to banks, investment houses and outside development contractors.
In total, the state-backed networks nicknamed Dubai Inc. are $80 billion in the red and the emirate needed a bailout earlier this year from its oil-rich neighbor Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates.




ruler, Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid Al-Maktoum, had continually dismissed concerns over the city-state's liquidity and claims it overreached during the good times.

When asked about the debt, he confidently assured reporters in a rare meeting two months ago that "we are all right" and "we are not worried," leaving details of a recovery plan — if such a plan exists — to everyone's guess.

Then, earlier this month, he told Dubai's critics to "shut up."

Google+ Badge

Google+ Followers

Translate