R.I.P. Mark Harding, Victim Of Canada’s Anti-Free Speech Javerts

Harding was a small town Ontario Christian pastor, who tried to warn people in his community about the jihad. Unfortunately, he did so pre-9/11, when such warnings were considered to be “hate speech.” For his “crime” of telling the truth about the supremacist Islam that has become all-too familiar in these days of ISIS and the rest of the litany of wretched jihadi outfits which are wreaking so much havoc worldwide, Harding was persecuted and prosecuted by Canadian authorities, sent to prison and, as a condition of his release, forced to do “penance” by performing his “community service” under the auspices of an organization with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

R.I.P. Mark Harding, Victim of Canada’s Anti-Free Speech Javerts http://t.co/cdVyJ4NidR
— Blazing CatFur (@Blazingcatfur) April 13, 2015

Brandeis University decided to withdraw an honorary degree from Ayaan Hirsi Ali due to her criticism of Islam.

(The Wall Street Journal has published the speech that Ms. Hirsi Ali planned to give.)

You deserve better memories than 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombing. And you are not the only ones. In Syria, at least 120,000 people have been killed, not simply in battle, but in wholesale massacres, in a civil war that is increasingly waged across a sectarian divide.

Violence is escalating in Iraq, in Lebanon, in Libya, in Egypt. And far more than was the case when you were born, organized violence in the world today is disproportionately concentrated in the Muslim world.

Another striking feature of the countries I have just named, and of the Middle East generally, is that violence against women is also increasing. In Saudi Arabia, there has been a noticeable rise in the practice of female genital mutilation. In Egypt, 99% of women report being sexually harassed and up to 80 sexual assaults occur in a single day.

Especially troubling is the way the status of women as second-class citizens is being cemented in legislation. In Iraq, a law is being proposed that lowers to 9 the legal age at which a girl can be forced into marriage. That same law would give a husband the right to deny his wife permission to leave the house.

Sadly, the list could go on. I hope I speak for many when I say that this is not the world that my generation meant to bequeath yours. When you were born, the West was jubilant, having defeated Soviet communism. An international coalition had forced Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. The next mission for American armed forces would be famine relief in my homeland of Somalia. There was no Department of Homeland Security, and few Americans talked about terrorism.

Two decades ago, not even the bleakest pessimist would have anticipated all that has gone wrong in the part of world where I grew up. After so many victories for feminism in the West, no one would have predicted that women's basic human rights would actually be reduced in so many countries as the 20th century gave way to the 21st.

Today, however, I am going to predict a better future, because I believe that the pendulum has swung almost as far as it possibly can in the wrong direction.

When I see millions of women in Afghanistan defying threats from the Taliban and lining up to vote; when I see women in Saudi Arabia defying an absurd ban on female driving; and when I see Tunisian women celebrating the conviction of a group of policemen for a heinous gang rape, I feel more optimistic than I did a few years ago. The misnamed Arab Spring has been a revolution full of disappointments. But I believe it has created an opportunity for traditional forms of authority—including patriarchal authority—to be challenged, and even for the religious justifications for the oppression of women to be questioned.

Yet for that opportunity to be fulfilled, we in the West must provide the right kind of encouragement. Just as the city of Boston was once the cradle of a new ideal of liberty, we need to return to our roots by becoming once again a beacon of free thought and civility for the 21st century. When there is injustice, we need to speak out, not simply with condemnation, but with concrete actions.

Turkish Economy Fails As Predicted Here on this blog

Too much to hope Mr Soros was long on lira RT @JoostNiemoller: The Turkish Market Is Getting Destroyed http://t.co/FGGIm53Dpc
— Sam Schulman (@Sam_Schulman) December 27, 2013

We saw Greece fail, now watch what happens when the people are Muslims

The Erdogan government is facing a massive corruption crisis, and the Turkish lira is getting crushed. Turkey has a large external debt position and an ugly trade deficit, so its economy and financial markets are highly sensitive to the whims of the global investor community. And the global investor community doesn't like what it's seeing. 

It is bad business to be Islamist.

Sweden's conflictual relationship with issues of tolerance

(Simply) A nude painting named Juno, which was painted by baroque artist G E Schröder and has hung in the dining room of the Swedish Parliament for 30 years has been taken down for fear of offending the sensitivities of feminists and Muslim visitors, Swedish newspaper, The Local reported on Thursday.

Explaining the ban on the baroque breasts, a source from the parliament said: "You have to think of the foreign guests, especially those from Muslim countries."

The deputy speaker of Sweden's parliament, Susanne Eberstein, also a prominent Social Democrat, added:

"I think it is more a feminist issue. It's tiresome (looking at) a bare-breasted woman when I sit at public dinners with foreign guests. I think it feels a little hard to sit there with men who look at us women."

Saudi Arabia complicit in 911.

Good luck getting Obama to work with you on transparency. The transparency president has been the least revealing leader in history. At this point we are starting to wonder about aliens.

Unbelievable…

Via NY Post:

After the 9/11 attacks, the public was told al Qaeda acted alone, with no state sponsors.

But the White House never let it see an entire section of Congress’ investigative report on 9/11 dealing with “specific sources of foreign support” for the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi nationals.

It was kept secret and remains so today.

President Bush inexplicably censored 28 full pages of the 800-page report. Text isn’t just blacked-out here and there in this critical-yet-missing middle section. The pages are completely blank, except for dotted lines where an estimated 7,200 words once stood (this story by comparison is about 1,000 words).

A pair of lawmakers who recently read the redacted portion say they are “absolutely shocked” at the level of foreign state involvement in the attacks.

Reps. Walter Jones (R-NC) and Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) can’t reveal the nation identified by it without violating federal law. So they’ve proposed Congress pass a resolution asking President Obama to declassify the entire 2002 report, “Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001.”

Some information already has leaked from the classified section, which is based on both CIA and FBI documents, and it points back to Saudi Arabia, a presumed ally.

Keep reading…

The Truth Behind the War in Syria: The Qatari Natural Gas Pipeline – Obama’s War for Oil

(source Sharia Unveiled by Michael Snyder | Men’s News Daily) Why has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the rebels in Syria?  Could it be because Qatar is the largest exporter of liquid natural gas in the world and Assad won’t let them build a natural gas pipeline through Syria?  Of course.  Qatar wants to install a puppet regime in Syria that will allow them to build a pipeline which will enable them to sell lots and lots of natural gas to Europe.  Why is Saudi Arabia spending huge amounts of money to help the rebels and why has Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan been “jetting from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Élysée Palace in Paris and the Kremlin in Moscow, seeking to undermine the Assad regime”?  Well, it turns out that Saudi Arabia intends to install their own puppet government in Syria which will allow the Saudis to control the flow of energy through the region.  On the other side, Russia very much prefers the Assad regime for a whole bunch of reasons.  One of those reasons is that Assad is helping to block the flow of natural gas out of the Persian Gulf into Europe, thus ensuring higher profits for Gazprom.  Now the United States is getting directly involved in the conflict.  If the U.S. is successful in getting rid of the Assad regime, it will be good for either the Saudis or Qatar (and possibly for both), and it will be really bad for Russia.  This is a strategic geopolitical conflict about natural resources, religion and money, and it really has nothing to do with chemical weapons at all.

It has been common knowledge that Qatar has desperately wanted to construct a natural gas pipeline that will enable it to get natural gas to Europe for a very long time.  The following is an excerpt from an article from 2009…

Qatar has proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey in a sign the emirate is considering a further expansion of exports from the world’s biggest gasfield after it finishes an ambitious programme to more than double its capacity to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG).

“We are eager to have a gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey,” Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the ruler of Qatar, said last week, following talks with the Turkish president Abdullah Gul and the prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the western Turkish resort town of Bodrum. “We discussed this matter in the framework of co-operation in the field of energy. In this regard, a working group will be set up that will come up with concrete results in the shortest possible time,” he said, according to Turkey’s Anatolia news agency.

Other reports in the Turkish press said the two states were exploring the possibility of Qatar supplying gas to the strategic Nabucco pipeline project, which would transport Central Asian and Middle Eastern gas to Europe, bypassing Russia. A Qatar-to-Turkey pipeline might hook up with Nabucco at its proposed starting point in eastern Turkey. Last month, Mr Erdogan and the prime ministers of four European countries signed a transit agreement for Nabucco, clearing the way for a final investment decision next year on the EU-backed project to reduce European dependence on Russian gas.

“For this aim, I think a gas pipeline between Turkey and Qatar would solve the issue once and for all,” Mr Erdogan added, according to reports in several newspapers. The reports said two different routes for such a pipeline were possible. One would lead from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq to Turkey. The other would go through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey. It was not clear whether the second option would be connected to the Pan-Arab pipeline, carrying Egyptian gas through Jordan to Syria. That pipeline, which is due to be extended to Turkey, has also been proposed as a source of gas for Nabucco.

Based on production from the massive North Field in the Gulf, Qatar has established a commanding position as the world’s leading LNG exporter. It is consolidating that through a construction programme aimed at increasing its annual LNG production capacity to 77 million tonnes by the end of next year, from 31 million tonnes last year. However, in 2005, the emirate placed a moratorium on plans for further development of the North Field in order to conduct a reservoir study.

As you just read, there were two proposed routes for the pipeline.  Unfortunately for Qatar, Saudi Arabia said no to the first route and Syria said no to the second route.  The following is from an absolutely outstanding article in the Guardian…

In 2009 – the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria – Assadrefused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter’s North field, contiguous with Iran’s South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets – albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad’s rationale was “to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe’s top supplier of natural gas.”

Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 – just as Syria’s civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo – and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.

The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a “direct slap in the face” to Qatar’s plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that “whatever regime comes after” Assad, it will be“completely” in Saudi Arabia’s hands and will “not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports”, according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.

If Qatar is able to get natural gas flowing into Europe, that will be a significant blow to Russia.  So the conflict in Syria is actually much more about a pipeline than it is about the future of the Syrian people.  In a recent article, Paul McGuiresummarized things quite nicely…

The Nabucco Agreement was signed by a handful of European nations and Turkey back in 2009. It was an agreement to run a natural gas pipeline across Turkey into Austria, bypassing Russia again with Qatar in the mix as a supplier to a feeder pipeline via the proposed Arab pipeline from Libya to Egypt to Nabucco (is the picture getting clearer?). The problem with all of this is that a Russian backed Syria stands in the way.

Qatar would love to sell its LNG to the EU and the hot Mediterranean markets. The problem for Qatar in achieving this is Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have already said “NO” to an overland pipe cutting across the Land of Saud. The only solution for Qatar if it wants to sell its oil is to cut a deal with the U.S.

Recently Exxon Mobile and Qatar Petroleum International have made a $10 Billion deal that allows Exxon Mobile to sell natural gas through a port in Texas to the UK and Mediterranean markets. Qatar stands to make a lot of money and the only thing standing in the way of their aspirations is Syria.

The US plays into this in that it has vast wells of natural gas, in fact the largest known supply in the world. There is a reason why natural gas prices have been suppressed for so long in the US. This is to set the stage for US involvement in the Natural Gas market in Europe while smashing the monopoly that the Russians have enjoyed for so long. What appears to be a conflict with Syria is really a conflict between the U.S. and Russia!

The main cities of turmoil and conflict in Syria right now are Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo. These are the same cities that the proposed gas pipelines happen to run through. Qatar is the biggest financier of the Syrian uprising, having spent over $3 billion so far on the conflict. The other side of the story is Saudi Arabia, which finances anti-Assad groups in Syria. The Saudis do not want to be marginalized by Qatar; thus they too want to topple Assad and implant their own puppet government, one that would sign off on a pipeline deal and charge Qatar for running their pipes through to Nabucco.

Yes, I know that this is all very complicated.

But no matter how you slice it, there is absolutely no reason for the United States to be getting involved in this conflict.

If the U.S. does get involved, we will actually be helping al-Qaeda terrorists that behead mothers and their infants…

Al-Qaeda linked terrorists in Syria have beheaded all 24 Syrian passengers traveling from Tartus to Ras al-Ain in northeast of Syria, among them a mother and a 40-days old infant.

Gunmen from the terrorist Islamic State of Iraq and Levant stopped the bus on the road in Talkalakh and killed everyone before setting the bus on fire.

Is this really who we want to be “allied” with?

And of course once we strike Syria, the war could escalate into a full-blown conflict very easily.

If you believe that the Obama administration would never send U.S. troops into Syria, you are just being naive.  In fact, according to Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School, the proposed authorization to use military force that has been sent to Congress would leave the door wide open for American “boots on the ground”…

The proposed AUMF focuses on Syrian WMD but is otherwise very broad.  It authorizes the President to use any element of the U.S. Armed Forces and any method of force.  It does not contain specific limits on targets – either in terms of the identity of the targets (e.g. the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Hezbollah, Iran) or the geography of the targets.  Its main limit comes on the purposes for which force can be used.  Four points are worth making about these purposes.  First, the proposed AUMF authorizes the President to use force “in connection with” the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war. (It does not limit the President’s use force to the territory of Syria, but rather says that the use of force must have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian conflict.  Activities outside Syria can and certainly do have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war.).  Second, the use of force must be designed to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of WMDs “within, to or from Syria” or (broader yet) to “protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.”  Third, the proposed AUMF gives the President final interpretive authority to determine when these criteria are satisfied (“as he determinesto be necessary and appropriate”).  Fourth, the proposed AUMF contemplates no procedural restrictions on the President’s powers (such as a time limit).

I think this AUMF has much broader implications than Ilya Somin described.  Some questions for Congress to ponder:

(1) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to take sides in the Syrian Civil War, or to attack Syrian rebels associated with al Qaeda, or to remove Assad from power?  Yes, as long as the President determines that any of these entities has a (mere) connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and that the use of force against one of them would preventor deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.  It is very easy to imagine the President making such determinations with regard to Assad or one or more of the rebel groups.

(2) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to use force against Iran or Hezbollah, in Iran or Lebanon?  Again, yes, as long as the President determines that Iran or Hezbollah has a (mere) a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and the use of force against Iran or Hezbollah would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.

Would you like to send your own son or your own daughter to fight in Syria just so that a natural gas pipeline can be built?

What the United States should be doing in this situation is so obvious that even the five-year-old grandson of Nancy Pelosi can figure it out…

I’ll tell you this story and then I really do have to go. My five-year-old grandson, as I was leaving San Francisco yesterday, he said to me, Mimi, my name, Mimi, war with Syria, are you yes war with Syria, no, war with Syria. And he’s five years old. We’re not talking about war; we’re talking about action. Yes war with Syria, no with war in Syria. I said, ‘Well, what do you think?’ He said, ‘I think no war.’

Unfortunately, his grandmother and most of our other insane “leaders” in Washington D.C. seem absolutely determined to take us to war.

In the end, how much American blood will be spilled over a stupid natural gas pipeline?

source:  http://michaelsnyder.mensnewsdaily.com/2013/09/is-the-united-states-going-to-go-to-war-with-syria-over-a-natural-gas-pipeline/

Updated: Walmart Fires Employee for Anti-Muslim Post on Facebook, with the Help of CAIR

(VIN) A Facebook rant about Muslims by an employee of a Walmart store in Hamburg has prompted the retail giant to fire the man.
The derogatory posting on Friday morning was brought to the attention of Wal-Mart Stores executives by a member of the local Muslim community and by a national Muslim advocacy organization.
The assistant manager at the Walmart on Southwestern Boulevard in Hamburg posted a photograph from behind of two Muslim women dressed in full cover and the written comments: “Halloween came early this year … do they really have to … dress like that … you’re in my country … get that … off!!!!!.”
The employee was identified as Terry Earsing by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a national civil liberties organization that advocates on behalf of Muslims and had urged “appropriate disciplinary action” in the matter.
A Wal-Mart spokeswoman said Wednesday that the employee was fired.
“As soon as we became aware, we began looking into this and as a result, this associate is no longer with the company,” said Kayla Whaling. “We set high expectations for our associates, and this associate clearly failed to meet these expectations at every level.”
Whaling said Wal-Mart learned of the posting Friday.
Earsing apologized for the comments in a telephone interview.
“I’m truly, honestly sorry about the whole thing. I just apologize. I don’t know what else I can say,” he said.
Earsing said the incident started out as a joke that went awry.
The board president of CAIR’s New York chapter praised the retailer for acting swiftly according to its policies.
“We absolutely commend them for doing the right thing,” said Ryan Mahoney. “I wish this person didn’t take this course of action and force this outcome.”
CAIR expressed concern because the organization thought that the photograph was taken while the assistant manager was at his workplace and not on his own personal time.
“Because he did it at his job, it’s not about personal expression, it’s about Wal-Mart’s policy toward hate speech,” said Mahoney.
Earsing said a friend of his sent the picture to him, and he added his comments to the picture in a Facebook posting.
He said he was at home at the time he made the post.
“I didn’t do it from work,” he said.
–

The problem at the heart of Egypt's Revolutions

 Nonie Darwish

This is the central problem in most Muslim countries: the difficult choice between a man-made, civilian, military, "infidel" government, and a totalitarian Islamic theocracy.

This latest revolution in Egypt, the second in the last two years, is a symptom of a deep-rooted problem at the heart of Islam itself: Egypt is on the verge of a civil war to bring a resolution to the never-ending tension between what Islam demands versus what the people really want.
This is the central problem in most Muslim countries: the difficult choice between a civilian, military "infidel" government, and a totalitarian Islamic theocracy. The problem is compounded when most Egyptians consider themselves both Muslim and lovers of democracy, but refuse to see that Islam and freedom cannot co-exist. How can Islam anywhere produce a democracy when freedom of speech and religion are outlawed, where there is no free and independent judiciary, and equal rights for women, minorities and non-Muslims are legally suppressed?
Islam also cannot let go of government control: since its inception, Islam has lacked the confidence in its own survival without government enforcement. As Muslim Brotherhood leader Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi stated this winter on Egyptian television, "without the 'Death for Apostasy' laws, apostasy laws, Islam would have failed with the death of Mohamed, as people would never stay in this religion otherwise." It is no coincidence therefore that Islamic law dictates that all Muslims must be ruled by Sharia, and declares that all secular governments, made by man, not by Allah, are heresy and an abomination.
While mosques are busy teaching Muslims how to carry out jihad, hate Jews and mistreat Christians, their imams allocate no time to preach the values of peace and trust as a foundation for an orderly society or civilization. As a result of such an Islamic education, Muslims who know they want freedom are unable to build the value system on which to achieve it.
Egypt's dilemma is nothing new, but the good news today is that finally there is an awakening in Egypt regarding the tyranny that Sharia law brings, especially if it is made the basis of a constitution. Despite this awakening, however, not one rebel in Tahrir Square was able openly to carry a sign saying, "Sharia must become null and void." The majority of Egyptians still believe that to say that would be an act of apostasy, punishable by death.
All current surveys still show that the overwhelming majority of Egyptians still support Sharia law, or at least say they do. This is where the problem lies: the laws of a society are the mirror of its morality. Egyptians cannot make believe that they can have both Sharia and freedom, or that their laws do not have to match their style of government and what they can feel comfortable with. According to Sharia, a Muslim head of state must rule by Islamic law, and must preserve Islam in its original form, or he must be removed from office. Islamic law leaves no choice for any Muslim leader but to accept, at least officially, that Sharia is the law of the land, or else be ousted from office. Sharia also commands Muslims to remove any leader who is not a Muslim. Because of that command, Muslim leaders must play a game of appearing Islamic and anti-West while trying to get along with the rest of the world. It is a game with life and death consequences for them.
That stricture is the reason many Egyptians today agree to keep Sharia in the constitution, even if only symbolically. But how can Egyptians be so nave to believe they can ignore the laws of their constitution? As long as Sharia is on the books, even if it is ignored, the country can never have true stability and freedom. Even with revolutions, Egyptians can only achieve cosmetic changes with no substance; changes such as, the name of the country, its flag, national anthem, or even putting on or taking off women's hijabs.
Although Egyptians were always exuberant about the removal of a regime or a dictator, they never were about a change in the religious, cultural and moral foundations of the country. Whether it is the Egyptian revolution of 1919, 1952 or 2011, the change achieved has always been superficial, or for the worse. Somehow whenever the Muslim mind comes to the underlying religious ideology that is the foundation upon which its systems are erected, it freezes.
The result is a majority of confused citizens whose trust is shattered; moral standards in conflict, and laws and the concept of reality distorted. But how long can this warped existence last undetected? So far it has succeeded for 1,400 years without collapsing, but can this latest revolution be the crack in the stranglehold of Sharia?
Egyptian secularists have achieved a great step against the Muslim Brotherhood, but will they be able to sustain it? The Muslim Brotherhood has powerful roots in the Egyptian psyche, and the Brotherhood has vowed a bloodbath against any secular government.
For any secular government to remain in power, it needs to turn tyrannical and put in jail members of the Muslim Brotherhood. This has already begun; arrest warrants against leaders and 300 members of the Brotherhood were issued within hours of the removal of Morsi.
Egypt is now back to square one; a military dictatorship is, for the moment at least, the only solution that can preserve and sustain a certain level of secularism in the face of the constant Islamic assault that human rights, freedom of religion and democracy. The assault has also been on the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which, on August 5, 1990, was repudiated and superseded by the Organization of Islamic Conference [OIC] in favor of the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which, in article 24, in its entirety, concludes that "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah." Article 19(d) also posits that, "There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shari'ah."
One can only hope that this military dictatorship will not be like others, which promise elections and freedom, but remain as autocracies for decades.

Nonie Darwish is the author of "The Devil We Don't Know".

http://writingtw.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-problem-at-heart-of-egypts.html?m=1

Muslim woman strangled by her burqa in freak go-kart accident

A young Muslim woman had died after her burkha became snagged in a go-kart. The 24-year-old woman, who has not yet been named, died a terrifying death today when a fluttering part of her burkha became caught in the wheels of a go-kart she was driving near the town of Port Stephens, north of Sydney. The Muslim clothing the woman was wearing flew back as she sped around the track and part of it became entangled in the go-kart's wheels. She was strangled in a second and crashed the vehicle. Despite the efforts of paramedics who rushed to her aid, the neck and throat injuries she suffered were so severe that doctors were unable to revive her when she arrived at the John Hunter Hospital in the New South Wales city of Newcastle. The young woman was riding the go-kart at a popular recreational area known as Bob's Farm, which offers rides of up to 15 minutes at a time.

now here is the part that I don't get....

Her death is being likened to that of American dancer Isadora Duncan, acknowledged as being the creator of modern dance, and who was famous for the flowing silk carves she liked to wear. But while riding in an open-top car in Nice in 1927, her scarf became entangled in one of the vehicle's spoked wheels and she was strangled.

...so a woman in a burqa is the equivalent of a founder of modern dance... I hope you didn't have to read this to realize you are being brainwashed into respecting a woman who goes around in black head to toe.

Gagged in Great Neck

(Carl) While Yeshiva University upheld 'free speech' by inviting anti-Semite Jimmy Carter to speak on its campus on Wednesday, the Left won another victory by threatening to harm Sunday school kids if Pamela Geller were allowed to speak at a synagogue in Great Neck. As a result, Geller's speech was canceled.

The rabbi, the members of the shul’s men’s club – that is who invited her to speak – the parents of the children in the GNS Sunday School, everyone was beaten down.  They were beaten down by those who hear Geller’s name and don’t see a sassy woman with long hair, they see a waving red cape, like the one held by matadors.

Geller’s opponents become so enraged by the thought of Geller speaking – speaking, mind you, not striking, not hitting, not bombing, not shooting – that they metamorphosed into a herd of stampeding bullies.  Geller is the capa, these guys heard her name and they started pawing the ground, snorting, and threatening clergy members, Sunday School children, and parents.

But it isn’t really Geller herself they cannot bear, it is the way she speaks  – without apologies – about the dangers of Islamic ideology embodied in Sharia, and that she warns without hesitation that it is encroaching upon this country.  That they simply cannot abide.

...

Geller said she understood how it was that the synagogue was unable to withstand the thuggery and intimidation by those who simply could not bear to allow her to talk.

“The synagogue didn’t turn on me, it did what it felt it needed to do to protect the Sunday School children.  Once the thugs announced they were going to organize a mob march of leftist Jews and Muslims on the shul on Sunday morning, when all the children are there to attend Sunday School – the parents were terrified and the shul had to respond,” Geller told The Jewish Press, just hours after she learned of the cancellation.

The opposition to Geller's talk was led by two kapo-like 'rabbis.'

“Rabbi Jerome Davidson became involved, and he really riled up their forces.  He let it be known that he was organizing a march with some of his congregants and some Muslims from the Westbury Mosque.  When parents got wind of that, they turned to the head of the local Jewish day school, and he then turned to the rabbi and began demanding indemnification and who can withstand that kind of tsunami,” asked Wiesenfeld.

Davidson, rabbi emeritus of Temple Beth-El of Great Neck, New York, and Michael White, the senior rabbi of Temple Sinai of Roslyn, New York, co-authored an article in The Jewish Week in which they called Geller’s proposed talk “hate speech,” and enthused about their deep and abiding love for their Muslim neighbors.

“We state unequivocally that Geller’s inflammatory rhetoric does not represent us or the great majority of Jews in Great Neck and on Long Island. Hate speech has no place in synagogues. Synagogues should be places for worship, positive dialogue and reasoned political debate,” rabbis White and Davidson wrote.  They did not mention the planned march or the waves of orchestrated phone calls, or the threats to the Sunday School children’s physical and emotional well-being.

Any 'rabbi' who cannot put a love for fellow Jews ahead of a love for Muslims doesn't deserve the title 'rabbi.'

Read the whole thing.

I did not realize that they were threatening kids. That was why I didn't initially post this. It was not that I did not empathize with the cause, it was merely that leftist Jews getting upset that someone who doesn't agree with them would be allowed to talk is at this juncture a non story. It is common. Yes I am aware of the complete hypocrisy that the left does when it allows pro Palestinian speakers into their shules and then calls Zionists hate mongers... but the story is so common that I can't always repost it. I have problems with the liberal Jews in my town. Should I expect everyone to reblog my personal angst with the Jewish community? So the story is reposted not because liberal Jews are again bullying those that speak the truth... the story is reposted because the story reached new depths when the liberal and Islamic activists threatened school children.

#Feminism: Importing Islamic Nightmares — While Denying Them in #Norway

(Fjordman) A report prepared by groups in the various Nordic countries has proposed instituting a legal ban on anti-Feminist “hatred,” comparing this to “racism.” Representing the left-wing coalition government in Norway, Ahmad Ghanizadeh from the Socialist Left Party (SV), the State Secretary in the Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion, was positive towards the proposal, and promised that the government would look into it.

My initial thought upon hearing this is that Leftism is now officially a religion, and that its proponents desire a “blasphemy statute” to ban any serious discussion of left-wing doctrines and their consequences as “hate speech.”
Writer and fellow online dissident Takuan Seiyo commented that not even George Orwell could have come up with anything that tops this scenario. Yes, there is a serious proposal afoot in Norway to ban “anti-Feminist hatred”. Yes, the ministry really has the Orwellian name of Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion. And yes, this State Secretary in Norway really is called Ahmad Ghanizadeh, originally from Iran.
In 2013, Norway’s Minister of Culture is Hadia Tajik, whose Muslim family came from Pakistan. One must assume that Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg of the Labour Party appointed her partly to remind the native population that they no longer have a culture, only “Multiculture,” but mainly in order to appeal to the Muslim and other Third World immigrant voters whose support his left-wing coalition depends upon in order to stay in power.
PM Stoltenberg in his prestigious New Year’s Speech for 2013 promised that his government would seek to ban “hateful utterances” on the Internet. The year before, Stoltenberg used his New Year’s Speech, always broadcasted on prime-time national TV and watched by a large proportion of his countrymen, to launch a frontal attack on alleged “totalitarian seducers” who use the Internet to spread unfounded “hatred.”
I was shortly afterwards contacted by the journalist Ragnhild Sleire Øyen from the state broadcaster NRK, the local equivalent of the BBC, who considered it obvious that the Prime Minister was referring to me personally. I’m sure many other citizens got the same message, and that may well have been intentional.
The PM didn’t mention any names explicitly, but then he didn’t have to, since so many others had done that dirty job for him. His right-hand man in Labour, Party Secretary Raymond Johansen, has singled me out for public attack by name several times, both before and after the Prime Minister gave this speech, as one of the individuals spreading irrational “hate” against Islam and therefore holding me partly responsible for the mental climate that allegedly created Anders Behring Breivik. I wasn’t the only name on that short list, but I usually topped it.
Norway is a small country, but I still find it unhealthy that a sitting political head of state uses his most prestigious annual speech addressing the nation to launch a thinly veiled attack on individual citizens who have done nothing criminal. An analogy for Americans would be if the President of the United States used his State of the Union speech to launch a thinly veiled attack on writers who use the Internet to publish ideas he dislikes, for instance the conservative author Michelle Malkin, or Glenn Reynolds with his major blog Instapundit. Even Obama hasn’t gone that far, at least not yet. The Social Democratic Prime Minister of Norway has.
Who gets to define “hate,” and do negative feelings always come out of nowhere? What if public anger, assuming it exists, actually has a cause that needs to be addressed? For example, being displaced in one’s own country by often hostile tribes? Should we simply ban any real discussions of this problem instead of dealing with the actual cause of public frustration? If so, what will be the long-term results of such a policy?
Elisabeth Skarsbø Moen is the debate editor and a regular columnist in VG, one of Norway’s two largest newspapers, and the largest one with a truly national readership. She writes in positive terms about Feminism, while at the same time championing the continued mass immigration of people from cultures that are extremely hostile to women. Like most other Western Feminists of her ilk, she sees no contradiction in this.
In October 2012, Skarsbø Moen wrote a deeply emotional column in VG entitled “Our children”, where she lamented that her society sometimes makes a distinction between “our” children and “other” children, that is, people born in other countries. She chastised her own country for not treating all children born anywhere on the entire planet as equally ours. The occasion concerned two young male Muslim asylum seekers from Afghanistan.
I don’t know these specific individuals, but it’s a fact that quite a few of the young asylum seekers who come to Europe from Afghanistan are actually young adults who lie about their age; so they are in fact neither children, nor are they “ours.” Skarsbø Moen thereby managed to tell two blatant falsehoods in just two words.
It also must be mentioned that these “children” usually bring with them an Islamic culture that is often violent and usually extremely hostile to women’s liberties. Yet this self-appointed Feminist does not seem to care much about that, or worry about the future consequences of allowing such a culture gain a foothold in her own country. Skarsbø Moen’s column was pure emotional pornography about how cruel and evil we are for not allowing potentially violent and generally hostile Muslims into our countries.
Neighboring Sweden has in little more than three decades metamorphosed from a safe country into being flooded by street crime and having one of the world’s highest recorded rape rates. Young blond girls in Stockholm suburbs are getting used to being called “whores” on a daily basis, and sometimes dye their hair in an attempt to avoid sexual harassment in the streets of what once was their own country.
Coincidentally, this transformation all took place at the same time as the largest wave of mass immigration in recorded history, much of it from brutal and repressive male-dominated cultures. Yet most of the left-wing or Marxist Feminist activists and journalists in Scandinavia strenuously deny that there is any connection between these two phenomena, and will aggressively attack as “racists” those who dare to suggest that the mass immigration they support has caused any of this.
In December 2011 a Swedish mother-of-two was subjected to a brutal gang-rape by perhaps a dozen young male asylum seekers from Afghanistan in a refugee camp in Mariannelund, Sweden — although only seven of them were convicted for this gruesome crime. Swedish newspapers such as Aftonbladet systematically conceal the ethnic identity of the perpetrators in cases involving immigrants, though, and only show photos featuring white criminals.
Reports stated that “The rape was oral, anal and vaginal sometimes with three rapists inside her at the same time while everybody was cheering and clapping. The gruesome rape marathon lasted for 7 hours. 11 suspects may have been involved, taking turns while drinking and getting high on drugs. The asylum seekers were cheering and clapping their hands during the rape marathon while calling the victim ‘whore’ and ‘slut’.”
The Swedish victim went into shock and has naturally become heavily traumatized. She is now subject to panic attacks and lives in a psychiatric clinic. She is also bound to a wheelchair due to the damage to her abdomen. The main perpetrator – Rafi Bahaduri, 25 – had already committed four other rapes in Sweden that we know of.
Despite this, Elina Gustafsson, a local member of the Swedish Social Democratic Youth League (SSU) who defines herself as a “proud Feminist,” thought it would be “racist” to expel these convicted Muslim criminals.
I’m reminded of another left-wing politician from Sweden. The Marxist Feminist Gudrun Schyman, then the leader of the “reformed” Communist party, in a speech in 2002 suggested that Swedish men are just like the Taliban. Fredrik Virtanen, a male columnist for the national newspaper Aftonbladet, immediately agreed with her that yes, Western men are just like the brutal Taliban regime and other Muslims from Afghanistan.
The young woman from Mariannelund, Sweden who just had her life ruined might disagree with this claim. Even native-born psychopaths rarely behave in this manner, yet such a treatment of women is unfortunately not rare in the most repressive parts of the Islamic world, whose primitive tribal cultures Western authorities insist on mass-importing to our cities.
Gang rapes and certain other types of violent crime were exceedingly rare in the Nordic countries a few decades ago, but are currently in the process of becoming routine. In Trondheim, Norway, on the 28^th of May 2011, a young girl named Eva Helgetun took her own life. She was just 14 years old, and had been gang-raped by immigrants a few weeks before. Too many others share her fate.
In the 1960s when the so-called Second Wave of Feminism began, often with strong Marxist inspirations, Western women were relatively safe compared to women in other parts of the world. Half a century later, Western women have never had more Feminism, yet they and their children have also never been less safe.
Perhaps pointing out this fact constitutes “hate” in the eyes of some people, but that doesn’t make it any less true.
The problems caused by Third World mass immigration will not go away if we ban people from speaking truthfully about them. How hard can it be for members of the ruling elites to grasp this simple fact?

via docstalk.blogspot.com

US to put 'our friends the Saudis' on trusted traveler list | #SaudiArabia #Islam #Muslims #Obama #feminism

I'm not even angry anymore. I just can't convince myself that our next government will be as hostile to American values as this one. I was wrong before. The American people were this hostile to what was good for all of us. Then again our last administration was stupid in its attempt to nation build a middle eastern country when we should of bombed the country and killed their president and left. Our goals and objectives were feminist and the end result is we convinced ourselves that women were victims. Some are... some are not... just like everyone else.

(Carl) You might recall some of the stories that came out after 9/11 about how easy it was to get a visa to the US from Saudi Arabia, the country that was the birthplace of 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers. The US is about to make the same mistake again. The Obama administration is about to put 'our friends the Saudis' on the trusted traveler program, the program that does not require a visa for entry into the United States. This is Michelle Malkin:

According to a new report released this week by the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT), President Obama’s Department of Homeland Security plans to bestow “trusted traveler” status to travelers from Saudi Arabia. Yes, the home of 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers will soon enjoy the exclusive privilege of new entry shortcuts into the U.S.

Fox News points out: “Only an exclusive handful of countries enjoy inclusion in the Global Entry program: Canada, Mexico, South Korea and the Netherlands. According to the IPT, some officials are questioning why Saudi Arabia gets to reap the benefits of the program, when key U.S. allies like Germany and France are not enrolled.”

Saudi suck-up Janet Napolitano, head of the Department of Homeland Security, hailed “the bond between the United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia” and pledged to work with the government to facilitate “legitimate trade and travel.”

This foolish move is astonishing but not unprecedented. As I noted in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration had created its own fast-pass system for Saudi elites called “Visa Express.” Thanks to this GOP idiocy, three of the 9/11 hijackers skipped the usual consular interview process and bypassed long lines in the hot Saudi sun.

Throughout the jihadist-coddling Saudi kingdom, applicants could simply file their visa paperwork through travel agencies and courier companies for a small fee — without having to appear in person or submit to extensive background checks. The U.S. embassy in Riyadh bragged before 9/11: “Applicants will no longer have to take time off from work, no longer have to wait in long lines under the hot sun and in crowded waiting rooms, and no longer be limited by any time constraints.”

What could go wrong?
Read the whole thing. 

Social engineering is what leads us to think there is nothing wrong with the most misogynist countries in the world. If we see ourselves in these cave men then we can't determine if this monstrous culture is different from our very own. If you can't come to the realization that feminism is the problem here then you need glasses. Again... let me rephrase this. We don't nation build. We don't listen to feminists. We kill our enemies for our NATIONAL interest and make no apologies for having our own interests. Allies like Israel are the only way to go... and Israel needs to get its act together and stop the ball breaking as well. Women are not victims. Women have been in power in western civilization. Queen Elizabeth, Victoria, Margaret Thatcher are not second rate historical figures of weakness. It is time to wake up. We insult our women when we tell them that they got the short end of the stick. Women oriented cultures predated Islam in Arabia itself. They weren't necessarily a good thing and it is one of the reasons the Arabs were so reactive to matriarchal power. If we can not end feminism, we will never defeat Islam. These monsters of Arabia are not equivalent to us. We have treated our women well. We have a tradition in the West of loving women.

Lars Hedegaard Assassination Attempt was ignored by Western Media for days

(US media ignore Muslim assassination attempt on Danish writer)
(Creeping Sharia)

via Andrew Bostom’s blog – Hedegaard Interviewed by Sun TV’s Michael Coren (But Not Fox News).

Once again illustrating how Canada’s Sun TV is far bolder than any US television network in dealing with Islam’s threat to Western free speech, Michael Coren, uniquely, interviewed Lars Hedegaard, who survived an assassination attempt earlier this week. Coren underscored my own sentiment that the failure to cover this assassination attempt against a major Western journalist by television media—including conservative television outlets Fox News and The Blaze—is a lingering disgrace.

I am very grateful to Michael Coren for doing the interview, but have a minor quibble with his introduction, which in fact does not (watch for yourselves) comport with these expressed sentiments on Islam by my colleague and friend Lars Hedegaard (during September, 2010):

We [the International Free Press Society] have made no bones about the fact that we consider Islam — as it is presently being preached by all influential clerics and ideologues — a deadly threat to all our freedoms among which are freedom of expression. For this consistent stance we have been vilified and called every name in the book, but we will not budge. I’m aware that some of my friends think that Islam can be reformed, domesticated, and civilized. I welcome that day, but must relate to the fact that it hasn’t happened yet — though Muslims have had 1,400 years to complete the project.

At any rate, we are all indebted to Michael Coren for interviewing Lars Hedegaard and airing his important story, which the legacy media, Fox News and The Blaze, and even the major US conservative talk radio blowhards, all continue to ignore, imperiling free speech by their craven behavior.

Foreign Policy Mag was just comparing John Brennan's CIA mustache to John Bolton

“Nor do we describe our enemy as ‘jihadists’ or ‘Islamists’ because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam…” ~ John Brennan, Counter-terrorism advisor to Barack Hussein Obama

CIA nominee John #Brennan: We are not at war w Jihadists cuz "jihad is a legitimate tenet of Islam" wp.me/pbU4v-5I8 #sharia #tcot
— Creeping Sharia (@creepingsharia) February 8, 2013

Is Saudi Prince Steering News Corp. Coverage?

Diana West

Ever since Al Gore sold Current TV to Al Jazeera, the network founded and funded by the oil-rich emirate of Qatar, the former vice president has drawn continuous fire in conservative media. Fox News, the New York Post and The Wall Street Journal, for example, have all castigated Gore, a man of the Left and leading avatar of "global warming," for such hypocrisies as timing the deal to avoid Lefty tax hikes and bagging $100 million in greenhouse-gas money.
These same news outlets share something else in common: They all belong to Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. That means they also belong to Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal.

Alwaleed owns the largest chunk of News Corp. stock outside the Murdoch family. Shortly after his purchase of 5.5 percent of News Corp. voting shares in 2005, Alwaleed gave a speech that made it clear just what he had bought. As noted in The (U.K.) Guardian, Alwaleed told an audience in Dubai that it took just one phone call to Rupert Murdoch -- "speaking not as a shareholder but as a viewer," Alwaleed said -- to get the Fox News crawl reporting "Muslim riots" in France changed to "civil riots."
This didn't make the "Muslim" riots go away, but Alwaleed managed to fog our perception of them. With a phone call, the Saudi prince eliminated the peculiarly Islamic character of the unprecedented French street violence for both the viewers at home and, more significantly, for the journalists behind the scenes. When little owner doesn't want "Muslim" rioting identified and big owner agrees, it sets a marker for employees. Alwaleed's stake, by the way, is now 7 percent.
We can only speculate on what other acts of influence this nephew of the Saudi dictator might have since imposed on Fox News and other News Corp. properties. (I have long argued that News Corp. should register as a foreign agent, due to the stock owned by a senior member of the Saudi ruling dynasty.) Alwaleed hasn't shared any other editorial exploits with the public. But that opening act of eliminating key information from News Corp.'s coverage of Islamic news might well have set a pattern of omission.
Recently, such a pattern of omission in News Corp.'s coverage of the Gore-Al Jazeera deal seems evident. I say "seems," because I can't be entirely certain that I haven't missed something in my research. But judging from online searches of news stories and audio transcripts, two salient points are missing from at least the main body of News Corp.'s coverage.
One is reference to the noticeable alignment of Al Jazeera with the Muslim Brotherhood, the global Islamic movement whose motto is, "The Koran is our law; jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope." The second (with an exception noted below) is reference to Al Jazeera's superstar host and ideological lodestar, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a leading Muslim Brotherhood figure. The influence of al-Qaradawi at the network and in Qatar -- where, according to Freedom House's 2012 press report, it is against the law for journalists to criticize the Qatari government, the ruling family or Islam -- can hardly be overestimated.
Strange omission? This relationship between the Qatari-controlled network and the Muslim Brotherhood organization has been observed for years. Back in 2007, for example, Steven Stalinsky reported in The New York Sun that various Arab commentators referred to Al Jazeera as "the Muslim Brotherhood channel" and the like. What's more, reference to the relationship appears at least in passing in coverage of the Gore deal at mainstream media sites such as USA Today and the Seattle Times. More discussion is available at some conservative outlets, including Rush Limbaugh and The Blaze. (Searches at Breitbart and the Washington Examiner, like News Corp. sites, yielded nothing on these same points. Call it, perhaps, "the Fox effect.")
Given the rise of Muslim Brotherhood parties in the revolutions of the so-called Arab Spring -- undeviatingly cheered on by Al Jazeera -- the network's Muslim Brotherhood connection, which extends to Al Jazeera's sponsors inside the Qatari ruling family, is a crucial point to miss. Especially when it seems to be missed across the board.
The same goes for failing to mention Al Jazeera's leading personality, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, in the Gore deal coverage. This longtime "spiritual guide" of the Muslim Brotherhood hosts one of Al Jazeera's most popular shows, "Sharia and Life." Among other poisonous pronouncements, al-Qaradawi has called for Americans in Iraq and Israelis everywhere to be targeted by terrorists ("martyrs") who would then find a place in Islamic paradise. Given Al Gore's refusal to sell his network to Glenn Beck's The Blaze TV due to political differences, Muslim Brother Al-Qaradawi and his Shariah ideology become highly relevant. Then again, maybe one man's news story is just another man's clipping on the cutting-room floor.
Meanwhile, the one story I found in News Corp. coverage of the Gore deal that mentions al-Qaradawi -- a column by Gordon Crovitz -- neglected to note al-Qaradawi's place in the Muslim Brotherhood. Particularly given current events, this is a little like forgetting to mention that Hermann Goring was in the Nazi Party.
Could normal editorial discretion or plain ignorance be at work here? I suppose so. Still, there is that tie-in between News Corp. and the House of Saud to consider, a partnership I find more troubling than Gore's deal with the Qatari emirate. Not only does Alwaleed own a stake in News Corp., Murdoch owns an even more substantial stake (18.97 percent) in Alwaleed's Arabic media company Rotana.
Within the Alwaleed-Murdoch-Rotana galaxy is a 24-hour-Islamic outlet called Al Risala, which Alwaleed founded in 2006. The channel's director and popular "tele-Islamist" is Tareq Al-Suwaidan, widely reported to be a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Kuwait. The station's "Supreme Advisory Committee" includes Abdullah Omar Naseef, who, according to former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy, is "a major Muslim Brotherhood figure" involved in the financing of al-Qaida.
Al Risala, then, would seem to fit right into the Al Jazeera-Qaradawi-Muslim-Brotherhood lineup.
We know Alwaleed has influenced Fox editorial matters before. Could that Alwaleed influence -- even his very presence - account for why News Corp. hasn't hit harder on the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaradawi angles of the Gore-Jazeera deal?
I don't know, but I wonder. Don't you?

Diana West

Diana West is a contributing columnist for Townhall.com and author of the new book, The Death of the Grown-up: How America's Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization.

via docstalk.blogspot.com