Posted on | October 14, 2012
The Benghazi blame game has been going on for more than a month since the Sept. 11 attack in Libya that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Last week there were signals that Team Obama was trying to make Hillary Clinton’s State Department the scapegoat, but anybody who knows the Clintons could have predicted she wasn’t going to take the fall. Today, Hillary struck back:
A confusing array of contradictions concerning the murders of four Americans, one of which was a U.S. ambassador, was made worse by Vice President Joe Biden’s remarks during the debate with Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan Thursday evening.
Today the confusion only worsened yet again when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters that her agency was not the source of misinformation concerning the attacks, charging instead that the White House was the source of the false mantra that the murders were spurred by an anti-Muslim film made in the United States.
Clinton told reporters that when Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, made her rounds on every Sunday morning news show to claim the film motivated the attacks, the information had been fed to her by the White House and not the intelligence community in the State Department or the CIA.
Not only does Clinton’s statement contradict early White House accounts but directly contradicts statements made by Vice President Biden during the debate.
If Obama thinks he’s gonna throw Hillary Clinton under his bus, he’s going to find out the hard way his bus ain’t big enough. He’s not looking too good in the polls lately — even PPP has him trailing Romney in Florida now – and rather than playing the Good Soldier in his doomed re-election campaign, why shouldn’t Hillary kick off her 2016 campaign by helping expose Obama’s bungling? And here’s a good laugh for you:
Oh, sure, like David Axelrod never exploited an issue . . .
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
Found at Blazing Cat Fur
Islam’s Insanities: All Just a ‘Hoax’?
by Raymond Ibrahim
October 11, 2012
The much welcomed word “Hoax!” appears, reconfirming your worldview. All is well again.
But is it? Are such accounts mere hoaxes? Or is this just another strategy by those who apologize for Islam’s insanities—a strategy that relies exclusively on the fact that the Western mindset cannot fathom such news, anyway, and thus is all too willing to accept the hoax charge without a second thought?
Recall the news that Salafi parliamentarians in Egypt were pushing for a law legalizing necrophilia. This information first appeared in Egypt’s most circulated newspaper, Al Ahram, followed by Al Arabiya. The news went viral, prompting Western dismay. But then a cutesy Christian Science Monitor article titled “Egypt ‘necrophilia law’? Hooey, utter hooey” tried to return us to the status quo. Its author, one Dan Murphy, admonished the many websites that disseminated the necrophilia story: “Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet, kids. At least until there’s like, you know, some proof.”
And his “proof” that it was a hoax? Nothing. He even confirmed that “there was a Moroccan cleric a few years back who apparently did issue a religious ruling saying that husbands remained married to their wives in the first six hours after death and, so, well, you know [i.e., he permitted necrophilia]. But that guy is far, far out on the nutty fringe.”
Aside from Murphy’s immature tone—”so, well, you know” what?—one fails to see how characterizing a cleric as a “nut” means that his religious ruling is a “hoax”—that it never existed? Likewise, when it comes to fatwas, it matters not which nation they hail from, so that Egyptians can easily uphold the fatwa of a Moroccan, or vice-versa, because in Islam there is no “national” distinction, only the umma.
And yet, no matter how shallow or lacking in evidence, these hoax charges resonate well, simply because the mainstream Western mentality instinctively rejects, in this case, the idea of codifying necrophilia.
Much of this is exacerbated by the fact that most Westerners, including reporters, cannot independently verify such stories, as they usually originate in Middle Eastern languages. Which leads to my familiarity with this matter: I get most of my news directly from the Arabic media—knowing that it is better to get my information directly “from the horse’s mouth” than to get it from the limited and filtered Western media.
Accordingly, I am often first to expose stories that go unreported in the West—for instance, the fact that the U.S. embassy in Cairo was being threatened days before the Muhammad movie became a convenient excuse to riot and destroy (the original reason was to coerce the U.S. to free the Blind Sheikh and others).
However, those who prefer to keep such stories suppressed have learned to cry “hoax”—taking advantage of the fact that most Americans cannot read Arabic or verify these accounts for themselves.
Thus, when I documented the indisputable fact that several Islamists were calling for the destruction of Egypt’s Pyramids, the New York Times and Huffington Post cried “hoax”; when I shed light on an obscure “sodomy fatwa” which helped explain the role of intention in Islam (or niyya), Muslims and others cried hoax, including by lying and distorting; and when I reported on how Muslim Brotherhood supporters crucified their opponents, the National Post and others cried hoax.
And yet, none of these naysayers offered any meaningful evidence (click above links for my full responses). Instead, they banked on the fact that it is simply too hard to believe these stories in the first place.
So what should the objective Western reader do—who is stuck in the middle, does not read Arabic, and cannot independently verify anything—when confronted with absurd news emanating from the Islamic world?
Along with evaluating the evidence as best they can, I suggest they learn to connect-the-dots. The fact is, there is no end of bizarre anecdotes emanating from the Islamic world. Saudi Arabia’s highest Islamic authority until he died in 1999, Sheikh Bin Baz—hardly someone to be dismissed as being “far, far out on the nutty fringe”—insisted that the earth was flat and that all scientific evidence otherwise is a Western conspiracy.
In 2007, Egypt’s second highest Islamic authority, Sheikh Ali Gomaa—the same “moderate” Grand Mufti who deems all Christians “infidels”—decreed that drinking the urine of Muhammad was a great blessing. Likewise, a few weeks ago in Egypt it was revealed that there is now a clinic “healing” people by giving them camel urine to drink—because Muhammad once advised it.
Then there are the notorious breastfeeding fatwas: Several Islamic clerics—including Dr. Izzat Atiya, of Egypt’s Al Azhar University—advised Muslim female workers to “breastfeed” their male co-workers in order to be in each other’s company (more “moderate” clerics say it is not necessary for the man to drink the milk directly from the teat but may use a cup).
The list goes on and on: Several Muslims, including prominent ones, are calling for the reinstitution of sex-slavery, whereby “infidel” women can be bought and sold in markets. One female Kuwaiti politician even recommends that Russian women seized during the Chechnya jihad be sold as sex-slaves on Muslim markets.
Other prominent clerics insist that Islam allows men to get “married” to baby girls still in the cradle, having sex with them once these children are “capable of being placed beneath and bearing the weight of the men.”
How does one explain these absurd and vile teachings—teachings advocated, not from radicals nor clerics “far, far out on the nutty fringe”—but often from its highest authorities? Simple: Islamic jurisprudence, which is responsible for defining what is right and wrong in Islam, is fundamentally based on the words of a 7th century Arab whom Muslims venerate as a prophet. And this man said and did many things that defy modern day sensibilities.
Indeed, he said and did many things that defied the sensibilities of his contemporaries—such as stripping naked and lying with a dead woman to the surprise of her gravediggers (which, incidentally, is cited by the necrophilia fatwas). And it was the prophet who first ordered a woman to “breastfeed” a man in order to be in his company. Though she expressed shock at the very idea, she went through with it anyway.
Here, then, is the rule of thumb: When it comes to determining whether a story from the Muslim world is a hoax or not, first determine whether it is it Islamic or not—whether it has doctrinal or historic support; whether it has some backing in the Quran and/or the hadith.
As it happens, destroying pyramids and pre-Islamic antiquities is very Islamic with a long paper trail; engaging in forbidden acts like sodomy or suicide or lying in order to empower Islam is legitimate according to the Islamic notion of niyya (or intention); crucifying the opponents of Islam is prescribed in the Quran—just as is sex-slavery and pedophilia; drinking urine—whether camels’ or Muhammad’s—is lauded in the hadith.
In short, the true test of whether an Islam-related story is a hoax or not, is not whether it accords with our sensibilities, but whether it accords with Islam’s teachings, many of which are strange if not downright bizarre by Western standards.
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
From Middle East Forum: http://www.meforum.org/3357/islam-hoax
Found at Blazing Cat Fur: http://blazingcatfur.blogspot.com/
From the perspective of our rulers, law is defined by multilateral human rights commitments. From the perspective of their rulers, law is defined by the Koran and allegiance to Islamic law. Both consider their approach just and believe that their mission is to extend and universalize their legal codes. The transnationalists believe that they can integrate Muslims within their codes. Muslims believe that they can integrate transnationalists within their system.
Western law’s universalism has a broader and narrower appeal to self-interest than Islamic law. This is the paradox that undermines any attempt to export it to the Muslim world. While universalism with its equality clause appears on the surface to have broader appeal, it actually has far less appeal, because it weakens the position of those in power while holding an appeal only to those who are not in power.
Freedom is not always taken at the point of a gun, sometimes it is taken at the very idea of the gun or at the economic and political disruption that would be caused by the idea of the gun. These are the effects that ripple through the conceptual spaces, breeding appeasement and surrender, as the system tries to integrate the foreign element, rather than spitting it out.
EGYPT now allows sharia-sanctioned abductions and forced conversions of young Christian girls to Islam
This is the Muslim Brotherhood dominated Islamic government supported by Obama. Notice that Romney advisor, Walid Phares, speaks to the Helsinki commission on this issue, but no one from the Obama Regime is there.
Abductions and forced conversions of young Coptic Christian girls and mothers of small children are on the rise as the Islamists try to ethnically cleanse the country of all its Christians. These women never are allowed to return to their families. A 2009 report about “The Disappearance, Forced Conversions, and Forced Marriages of Coptic Christian Women in Egypt” doesn’t reflect how much worse the problem is now.
Coptic Christians suffer daily persecution in Egypt.
Coptic Christians have lived in Egypt since Christianity began. Once they were the majority population, until Islam set about its crusade to convert all of Northern Africa by the sword. Now they number only 10% of Egypt’s population, because most people have been forcefully converted to Islam, either through terrorism, or by economic means, such as high taxation.
Now that Egypt has a radical Islamic Government, the Copts are suffering unbelievable cruelty – arrested even for praying in their own home. Their daughters are being kidnapped and forced to convert to Islam by torture and rape. Where is the UN? Where is the rest of the Christian World? Why the silence? Egyptian Christians are being cleansed from their native land.
Found at American Digest
If people were actuallycomparing the two debaters, Ryan was an attractive, polite, stable, normal, well-informed young man.
Joe was the bloviating, obnoxious drunk at the bar who had grabbed Ryan by his lapel and wouldn’t let go. You could practically see Ryan’s hair melt from the noxious odors wafting out from behind Joe’s peculiarly whitened dentures.– Bookworm Room
From American Digest: http://americandigest.org/
Found at American Digest
Infantile, Unhinged, Buffoonish, Clownish – Just Some of the Adjectives Used By Pundits to Describe Biden During the Debate
October, 11, 2012 — nicedeb
First of all – what did we just witness, tonight? Why was Joe Biden emulating Chris Matthews on crack?
I realize that the rap on Obama’s debate performance was that he wasn’t aggressive enough – so Biden’s handlers probably told him to be assertive (like Romney was!) but Biden overcompensated, interrupting Ryan 82 times. CNN’s Gloria Borger said Biden Came Off As Condescending, Brit Hume called him a ‘Cranky Old Man’…while Greta Van Susteren said he just was very unlikeable.
Romney may have been aggressive, but he was polite, and always a gentleman. He wasn’t overbearing and didn’t come off like an unhinged, condescending crank, like Biden did for this entire debate, laughing, sneering and mugging during all of Ryan’s answers – even on serious issues like Libya, Afghanistan, and Iran. What was that all about? Romney was fighting for equal time in a debate where Obama was allowed four minutes more time. Biden was merely fighting. Chris Wallace said “I’ve Never Seen a Debate Where one Candidate Was So Disrespectful”. He got a minute more time than Ryan who was interrupted at nearly every turn, either by Biden or by the moderator – the two of them seemed at times to be tag teaming him.
In spite of that, Ryan remained calm, winning easily on debate style, and holding his own on debate substance in the face of the blizzard of lies coming from Biden – a problem Sarah Palin also encountered back in 2008..
Dana Perino quipped:
Anyway, from the GOP rapid response team, Joe Biden Cackles During VP Debate:
UPDATE: Via the RNC, an excellent video compilation of Biden’s seriously inappropriate laughter: Laughing at the Issues:
Joe’s bizarre smiling and cackling act got panned by the left and right alike on Twitter:
Vice President Joe Biden and Rep. Paul Ryan were the two candidates on stage at Thursday’s vice presidential debate, but a third character emerged: Joe Biden’s laugh, which didn’t escape the notice of tweeting politicos. (And led, of course, to at least three satirical Twitter accounts: Laughing Joe Biden, Biden Smirk, and yet another Laughing Joe Biden.)
Weekly Standard’s Mark Hemingway: “Joe Biden’s laughing through talking about Iran sanctions?”
TIME’s Michael Scherer: “Not sure debate cameras have been light tested for Biden’s teeth. Best to watch with sunglasses.”
Washington Examiner’s Philip Klein: “Biden’s strategy seems to be to laugh at Ryan constantly. Will it work to infantalize Ryan, or backfire like Gore sighing?”
NBC’s David Gregory: “Biden’s smile is out of control.”
Not a crushing victory, but a victory nonetheless — the sitting VP was bested by the challenger.
So Romney passed the Threshold test — spectacularly — and Ryan passed it as well.
And in both debates, they won.
Alex Castellantos on CNN had a point: The post-debate buzz will be about Biden’s buffoonish mugging.
I hate to say this, but as I said in the liveblog, Biden’s Mission Number One was to reassure and re-energize the base. He did that. He at least stopped some Democrats from defecting to Romney, or deciding not to vote.
And see – this is why some people think Allahpundit and Ace are the same person:
I expected “table-pounding atmospherics” from Biden but I didn’t expect him to act like a total jackhole for fully 90 minutes. Give him credit for knowing his target audience, though: His task tonight was to get the left excited again after Obama fell into a semi-coma in Denver, and evincing utter disdain for Ryan — grimacing, shouting, laughing inappropriately, constantly interrupting, the total jackhole experience — is just what the doctor ordered. He might have irritated independents and undecideds, but probably not so much that it’ll change people’s votes. The Democrats needed someone to go out there and clown for liberals, and if there’s one thing this guy knows, it’s clowning.
Foreign Policy fact checked Biden on a major point: Biden contradicts State Department on Benghazi security:
Vice President Joe Biden claimed that the administration wasn’t aware of requests for more security in Libya before the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi during Thursday night’s debate, contradicting two State Department officials and the former head of diplomatic security in Libya.
“We weren’t told they wanted more security. We did not know they wanted more security there,” Biden said.
In fact, two security officials who worked for the State Department in Libya at the time testified Thursday that they repeatedly requested more security and two State Department officials admitted they had denied those requests.
Paul Ryan fact checked Biden’s attempt to throw cold water on the charge that the HHS mandate is an assault on religious liberties:
Biden try to explain away the Obama administration’s pro-abortion assault on Catholics, evangelicals and other religious groups and businesses.
“With regard to the assault on the Catholic church, let me make it absolutely clear, no religious institution, Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic Social Services, Georgetown Hospital, Mercy Hospital, any hospital, none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact,” Biden falsely claimed.
“Now, I’ve got to take issue with the Catholic church and religious liberty,” Ryan retorted. “Why would they keep — why would they keep suing you? It’s a distinction without a difference.”
That’s all Ryan was able to get in before he was cut off. Shhhhh!!!!
The mandate compels religious employers to pay for and refer women for abortion-causing drugs, birth control, contraception and sterilizations.
The left has tried to turn the right’s objection to this into the phoney Republican War on Women™.
Like I said, Biden’s smirking and sneering got panned by almost everybody:
John Nolte, Big Journalism: Media Hits Biden: ‘Stop Smirking!’ ‘Weird,’ ‘Jerk’:
We’re about thirty minutes into the debate and already Vide President Joe Biden is receiveing pretty tough reviews for his bizarre smiling and smirking as debate moderator Martha Raddatz talks about issues as serious as Iran getting a nuclear weapon.
These aren’t exactly conservative media types, either.
Another huge lie caught by Washington Free Beacon. I somehow missed this this one (why didn’t Ryan call him out on it?): Biden Claims He Voted Against Afghanistan, Iraq Wars:
“By the way, they talk about this great recession like it fell out of the sky–like, ‘Oh my goodness, where did it come from?’” Biden said. “It came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card, at the same time, put a prescription drug plan on the credit card, a trillion dollar tax cut for the very wealthy.”
“I was there, I voted against them,” Biden continued. “I said, no, we can’t afford that.”
Then Sen. Biden voted for the Afghanistan resolution on Sept. 14, 2001 which authorized “the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.”
This was such an obvious, blatant lie. Ryan’s been in Washington long enough to know the truth. Why did he get Biden get away with it? The day after fact checks are not where the action is. You have to call them out on their lies when you have the chance, or most people will never know the truth.
Michelle Malkin: Vice President Jerk: The return of Smirky Malarkey McSmirk:
Pundits and news anchors are expressing post-debate shock at how smirky, condescending and arrogant Vice President Joe Biden was tonight. They buzzed on Twitter at his “malarkey” rebuke of Paul Ryan’s foreign policy criticism.
But this is all old, tired recycled behavior and rhetoric from the last election cycle. Remember? Go back and read my VP debate thread from 2008. It was titled: Sarah vs. Smirky. Go back to 2008, when Biden derided Sarah Palin for her “malarkey” about Bill Ayers.
Tonight, just as in 2008, Biden sighed.
But more significantly, Biden bald-facedly lied.
In other words: Biden was…Biden.
Fred Barnes, The Weekly Standard:Biden Bombed:
You don’t win a nationally televised debate by being rude and obnoxious. You don’t win by interrupting your opponent time after time after time or by being a blowhard. You don’t win with facial expressions, especially smirks or fake laughs, or by pretending to be utterly exasperated with what your opponent is saying.
That’s why Vice President Joe Biden didn’t win the one and only debate last night with his Republican rival, Mitt Romney’s running mate Paul Ryan.
In fact, though Ryan had several weak moments—one of them was on Syria—the only conceivable takeaway from the veep debate was Biden’s out of control conduct. It will be long remembered—and not favorably.
There’s one person who should be delighted with Biden. That’s Al Gore. He had the honor of having delivered the most over the top and weird performance in a presidential campaign debate when he sighed and frowned and acted frustrated in his first debate with George W. Bush in 2000. Now Biden has taken that crown—or dunce cap—from Gore.
Finally, via Twitchy, the Tweet of the night, as far as I’m concerned:
Governor Mitt Romney objected heatedly to an Obama spokeswoman’s dismissal of criticism of his Administration’s handling of the Libya crisis as a political issue driven by Romney and Paul Ryan. [...]
“No, President Obama, it is an issue because this is the first time in 33 years that a United States Ambassador has been assassinated,” Romney said during a campaign stop in Asheville, North Carolina. “Mr. President, this is an issue because we were attacked successfully by terrorists on the anniversary of 9/11. President Obama, this is an issue because Americans wonder why it was that it took so long for you and your Administration to admit this was a terrorist attack.”
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
And that’s not counting all the laughs, eye-rolling and goofy faces he made.
Vice President Joe Biden interrupted Paul Ryan 82 times in a 90-minute debate with rival Paul Ryan, while CNN reported that women preferred Ryan.
“FACT: Final Count: Biden interrupted 82 times during the entire debate,” the RNC’s Joe Pounder tweeted after the debate. CNN’s Gloria Berger said that she would have liked Biden to show less “condescension” and “eye-rolling.”
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
Via Fox Nation:
Fox News’ Chris Wallace speaking shortly tonight’s VP debate said, “I don’t believe I have ever seen a debate in which one participant was as openly disrespectful of the other as Biden was to Paul Ryan.” Wallace cited Biden’s facial gestures and phrases such as “malarkey” and “stuff.”
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
From Weasel zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
For anyone confused by the remarkable coincidence of the official unemployment rate finally but mysteriously dropping below 8%, even without a rise in the percentage employed, just as Romney emerged as a serious threat to Hope & Change, Patriot Post makes it simple with this graphic:
Mark Twain credited the great countermoonbat Benjamin Disraeli with an even simpler explanation:
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.”
At this point, any numbers coming out of the government and the “mainstream” media arm of the Obama Campaign should be taken not with a pinch of salt, but several scoops of it.
On a tip from Bergbikr.
No Wonder the State Department Could Not Afford to Protect The Libyan Consulate – They Were Spending a Fortune Buying the Failed Chevy Volt From “Guvmunt” Motors
Now I get why security was cut rather than increased despite the pleas of Ambassador Chris Stevens in the run-up to his horrific murder by terrorist savages. The State Department spent the money on other priorities:
In a May 3, 2012, email, the State Department denied a request by a group of Special Forces assigned to protect the U.S. embassy in Libya to continue their use of a DC- 3 airplane for security operations throughout the country.
The subject line of the email, on which slain Ambassador Chris Stevens was copied, read: “Termination of Tripoli DC-3 Support.”
Four days later, on May 7, the State Department authorized the U.S. embassy in Vienna to purchase a $108,000 electric vehicle charging station for the embassy motor pool’s new Chevrolet Volts. The purchase was a part of the State Department’s “Energy Efficiency Sweep of Europe” initiative, which included hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on green program expenditures at various U.S. Embassies.
In fact, at a May 10 gala held at the U.S. embassy in Vienna, the ambassador showcased his new Volts and other green investments as part of the U.S. government’s commitment to “climate change solutions.”
In case there are any liberals reading, I will type slowly. Islamic terror is a real threat. “Climate change” is not a real threat.
Meanwhile, in Libya…
Before the terrorist attack that took the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, there were more than 230 security incidents in Libya between June 2011 and July 2012.
If you voted to put irresponsible moonbats like Obama and Shrillary in charge, their blood is on your hands.
According to Eric Nordstrom, a regional security officer of the U.S. Mission to Libya from September 2011 to July 2012, the State Department not only refused his requests for greater security, but actually reduced the number of Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) agents assigned to foreign service officers based in Libya. Ironically, as the State Department withdrew security resources, it increased hazard pay for its employees based in Libya by 5 percent.
If the media gave Benghazi and its cover-up the weight they deserve, by now the concept of Obama’s reelection would make people burst out laughing.
From Moonbattery: http://moonbattery.com/
Muslim parasites cost British taxpayers a staggering £18+ billion ($29 billion) per year, while Muslim harems account for much of that
British citizens are sinking under the weight of astronomical welfare costs, a majority of which go to Muslim immigrants, both legal and illegal, many of them Islamic extremists, and even more of them the large families of suspected and convicted Muslim terrorists.
Muslim Issue Huge numbers of Muslims contribute nothing but live off the state. According to government statistics we spend a minimum £18 billion a year only to feed Muslims. And the majority of them don’t have even a basic College degree!
Daily Telegraph reported in 2012 statistics that 75% of all Muslim women are unemployed while 50% of all Muslim men are unemployed - rise from 13% for men and 18% for women in 2004.
Muslims are also on sick leave more than anyone else, with 24% of females and 21% of males claiming a disability (2001 figures). Muslims are the most likely among all religious groups to be living in accommodation rented from the council or housing association (28%); 4% live rent-free (2004 figures).
Money-wise it means that out of 5 million Muslims living in Britain (2012 demographics), 4.25 million Muslims, or 85%, live off tax payers. If we average this with the minimum benefit payment of £67 a week, at least £ 284,750,000 per week (£1.1 billion per month) is spent from taxpayer money to feed and care for Muslims who don’t contribute anything whatsoever to Britain’s revenues.
And that calculation doesn’t even include housing benefits, childcare support, medical care and other coverage utilized by the population. We can estimate that with housing, child subsidies and healthcare, Muslims cost the British government at least £1.5 billion a month, or £18 billion a year.
The Muslim population doubles every 7-years in Britain. By 2030 Britain will have a 40% Muslim population. And who will feed and house them? There is simply nowhere for the British economy to go but a complete collapse. 32 percent of Muslims on UK campuses believe killing in the name of religion is justified, 54 percent wanted a Muslim Party to represent their world view in Parliament, and 40 percent want Muslims in the UK to be under Sharia law (2004 report).
Polygamous Muslim marriages, recognized as legal under British immigration law, cost taxpayers a minimum of £5 million ($8 million) every year. And even that figure is two years out of date.
Muslim Issue The outrageous costs are calculated on the estimated 1,000 polygamous Muslim marriages which were in existence in Britain in 2007. Given the massive increase in “legal” Third World immigration — amounting to over half a million every year — this figure is likely to have dramatically increased.
Although polygamy is illegal for the indigenous population, the insane immigration policies pursued by successive Tory and Labour administrations have made an exception for Muslims.
Polygamous marriages are officially recognised in Britain provided the weddings were “legal in the countries where they took place.” This means that a Muslim male can marry up to the four wives he is allowed under Islamic law in a Muslim country such as Pakistan. He is then able to legally bring them all to Britain.
Here, the wives are all able to claim income support benefit at a special rate of £36.65 a week. In addition to this, they are able to claim child support for each baby produced, the one-off maternity benefit payment for each child and other benefits including housing, utilities payments and so on. A husband may claim housing benefit for each wife even if she is abroad, for up to 52 weeks, as long as the absence is temporary and for pressing reasons.
This scandalous situation is further evidence — if it was needed — that the British people are paying to be dispossessed of their country through systematic ethnic cleansing.
From Bare Naked Islam: http://www.barenakedislam.com/
MICHIGANISTAN: Students at Muslim-dominated ‘Edsel Ford’ High School in Dearborn protest Pastor Terry Jones’ First Amendment right to criticize Islam
How fitting. Students from a school named for the biggest failure in American Car history, the ‘Ford Edsel,’ want you to know how the ‘misunderstanders’ of Islam have hurt their wittle fweewings.
Florida pastor Terry Jones caused riots in the Muslim world back in 2010 when he set fire to a Quran, prompting the Obama Regime to enlist the help of CIA head, General David Petraeus, to warn Jones against exercising his first amendment rights because it might endanger our troops in Afghanistan. As if everything our troops do doesn’t already outrage Muslims anyway.
Detroit News Florida pastor Terry Jones and about a dozen supporters left Edsel Ford High School Wednesday afternoon after a protest against “Muslim gangs” that lasted about an hour. Jones, 60, a Florida pastor, said he came to Dearborn to meet with school officials about Muslim students bullying other kids as well as to defend the First Amendment by speaking out against what he sees as a threat from “radical Islam.”
“We cannot have a ban on free speech,” Jones said. He offered to speak with local Muslim leaders but defended his tactics. ”I believe in dialogue, but I also believe in my way, which is in your face,” Jones said. Jones, 60, was denied a meeting with the school’s principal about what he says is a problem with Muslim teens beating up other students. Dearborn schools spokesman David Mustonen has said Jones’ claims of bullying by Muslim students are unfounded. Jones has been a frequent visitor to Dearborn, where he has criticized what he calls “radical elements of Islam.” Jones’ critics say his protests have been nothing but “hate speech.”
Students at the school are fighting back against Jones’s attacks. Several of them have started the Intergroup Dialogue Student Leadership Team, which will begin student-led workshops and host guest speakers to help “facilitate dialogue to celebrate different cultures.” They outlined some of their goals in this video. (It’s uncanny how these kids have adopted the exact same woe-is-me victimization rhetoric perfected by CAIR and all the fascists on the Left)
FSM National Award Peace winner Malala Yousafzai was injured along with two other women when Taliban gunmen opened fire on a bus in Swat. Yousufzai, who studies at Khushal Public School, was on her way home when the vehicle came under attack on Haji Baba Road. One of the other injured has been identified as Shazia and sources say the third was a teacher.
Taliban spokesman Ehsanullah Ehsan said his group was behind the shooting. ”She was pro-West and she was speaking against Taliban,” Ehsan said by telephone from an undisclosed location. ”She was young but she was promoting Western culture in Pashtun areas,” he said, referring the main ethnic group in northwest Pakistan and southern and eastern Afghanistan.
DPO Swat Rasool Shah said that a search operation has been initiated in the area and a number of suspects have been arrested. Malala was shifted to Saidu Sharif Medical Complex in Mingora immediately after the incident and later she was moved to Peshawar in an Army helicopter. Doctors at the Medical Complex said that Malala was out of danger after the bullet penetrated her skull but missed her brain.
From Bare Naked Islam: http://www.barenakedislam.com/
Posted on | October 10, 2012 | 11 Comments
What if you’re registered to vote in a swing state, but you’ve moved to a state that’s not in play for the presidential election? No problem, according to Stephanie Caballero, a DNC employee who is also a regional field director in Texas for Obama’s Organizing For America:
“So I spent some time in Florida, and I got my voter registration card for Florida. So and I know that we have you know it’s a battleground state there,” the Project Veritas reporter said to Caballero.
“Keep it, keep it… so you’re going to vote by ballot?” Caballero responded. . . .
The videographer responded: “Yeah, I don’t want to get in trouble. But like I said, if no one’s going to know I don’t have a problem with it, yeah. So anyway, but…”
Caballero then said: “Oh, my God. This is so funny. It’s cool though.” . . .
After Caballero sets the videographer up to vote in Florida, she asked the Project Veritas investigator: “Are you going to do what I think you’re going do?”
The videographer responded: “Well, I mean, if no one’s gonna know…”
Caballero audibly laughed, then said: “You’re so hilarious!”
(Hat tip: Memeorandum.) Darn that James O’Keefe and his crafty hidden cameras! How dare they catch Democrats telling the truth about their indifference to vote fraud.
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
Posted on | October 10, 2012
The State Department is now telling a new story about the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11. It’s completely different than what we heard from President Obama and other officials in the days after the terrorist attack.
It’s amazing the things you can learn when you start issuing subpoenas and requiring people to testify under oath under penalty of perjury.
UPDATE: Hard-hitting new ad on the Libyan scandal:
UPDATE II: If you’ve seen a few cover-up scandals like this over the years, you know that the next thing that happens — once it becomes obvious that the liars won’t get away with it — is that the administration finds a Designated Scapegoat to take the fall.
Whose résumé will get updated with the unfortunate “resigned in disgrace” entry? I nominate the odious disgrace that is Susan Rice.
Trust me: Hillary is waaayy too powerful to take the fall for this.
UPDATE III: The pattern of such scandals makes the course of events fairly predictable. First of all, the people who did the right thing — the honest, competent professionals — have an inherent interest in establishing the fact that they weren’t the ones who screwed up. Take, for example, former State Department security officer Eric Nordstrom:
[N]ot only did Nordstrom repeatedly request more security for the diplomatic mission, the State Department didn’t even bother to respond to his last two requests
UPDATE IV: Joel Engel at Legal Insurrection:
In yet another story that you won’t find in the New York Times, Charlie Spiering in the Washington Examiner reported that Hillary Clinton was scheduled to meet President Obama at the White House today “as more damaging details about the terrorist attack against a United States consulate in Libya emerge.” . . .
Their story is unraveling, and only the acquiescence of the mainstream press has kept it from becoming a full-blown scandal. So what did the president and his secretary of state discuss today? Foreign affairs? Or better lies? My guess is better lies.
Clinton’s State Department, and therefore in all probability the White House, had forewarning of at least a growing danger when“foreign fighters” began flooding over the Egyptian border prior to the attacks. And, worse than doing nothing, they actually prevented security from being beefed up, though they had been warned that the level was “inappropriately low.”
Don’t expect this story to go away. There is a limit to the media’s ability to ignore such a scandal, when people like CNN’s Anderson Cooper and ABC’s Jake Tapper are so clearly fed-up with the administration’s routine incompetence and brazen dishonesty.
UPDATE V: Despite months of constant practice, Jay Carney still isn’t very effective in his capacity as Official White House Liar:
- Oct. 8: ‘THE MANTLE OF LEADERSHIP’ – Text of Mitt Romney’s Speech at VMI
- Oct. 2 EXPOSED: Obama Administration Had Advance Warning of Libyan Terror Threat
- Sept. 23: You Don’t Say, Kirsten Powers!
- Sept. 23: Classic: State Department Attacks CNN for Reporting Inconvenient Facts on Libya
- Sept. 20: Obama Talking Point: ‘Opportunistic’
- Sept. 17 The Disgrace That Is Susan Rice
- Sept. 13 SAVAGES: Did Libyan Mob Sodomize U.S. Ambassador Before Killing Him?
- Sept. 12: SHOCKING: Libyan Mob Attack Kills Four, Including U.S. Ambassador UPDATE: ‘Full-Blown … Crisis’ UPDATE: Hey, MSM, No Fair Shouting Questions at President Gutsy Call
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
Ex-Embassy Security Officer In Libya: “The Taliban Is On The Inside Of The Building” At The State Department…
During a hearing of the House Government Oversight Committee: The Former Security Officer for the embassy in Libya says that as far as he was concerned, the Taliban were inside the building (October 10, 2012).
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
Message to Black People: The Past is Over and Gone – Get Over it and Live Your Life to Your God Given Potential.
MSNBC’s Michael Eric Dyson On Affirmative Action: White People “Have To Pay The Price For It – Acknowledge What You Did For 250 Years”….
It has been 250 friggen years and we still have to “pay the price?” What is the statute of limitations on this?
Cable news race commentator Michael Eric Dyson went on an extraordinary rant on MSNBC’s “Now with Alex Wagner” about the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case relating to affirmative action. Dyson was responding to criticism that President Obama’s road was paved for him and how whites view affirmative action.
“What is the complaint here? The complaint is when we mess up and we acknowledged that we’ve messed up, we have to pay the price for it. America tells us as black people, ‘Pull yourself up by your bootstraps.’ Then acknowledge what you did. For 250 years, you got free on the dole. You got free labor, black intellectual power was used for your advantage. Now we’re saying, ‘let’s hook it up,’ and I find it ironic that a white woman who has benefited — white women have benefited more than anybody else from affirmative action — you’re not going to talk about your gender, you’re going to talk about your race. And when you put together the aggregate, white women and other able-bodied people, white people benefit more from a policy ostensibly aimed toward African-American uplift than anybody else. I just tell you that’s the sheet calling the rice white,” Dyson ranted.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
Pakistan: Doctors Say Teenage Girl Shot By Taliban For Promoting Girls’ Education Condition “Improving”…
Update to this story.
(CBS News) – Doctors in Pakistan have managed to pull a bullet from the neck of a 14-year-old girl who was shot by a Taliban gunman Wednesday for speaking out in favor of girls’ education.
Malala Yousufzai remains in critical condition at a military hospital in Peshawar, however, following the shooting in her hometown of Mingora, in Pakistan’s Swat Valley – a former stronghold of the Taliban.
“She is improving. But she is still unconscious,” a regional Pakistani official told the Associated Press. “I can’t say a final word about her condition. A board of doctors is constantly examining her condition.”
A senior Pakistani official later told CBS News that Malala was “semi-conscious,” and had shown some level of response to doctors.
The Taliban came for Malala as she boarded a bus to go home from school. The gunman sought her out and shot her in the head and neck and wounded two other girls.
There is no doubt that Malala was the target. The gunman actually asked for her by name when he boarded the school bus.
Malala lived with the fear of being a Taliban target. That fear was evident in a Jan. 3, 2009, diary entry: “On my way home from school I heard a man saying…’I will kill you’. I hastened my pace and after a while I looked back if the man was still coming behind me. But to my utter relief he was talking on his mobile and must have been threatening someone else over the phone.”
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
Obama’s Wedding Ring is Inscribed With – “There is No God But Allah” – Only a mooslim Would Wear Such a Ring
As a student at Harvard Law School, then-bachelor Barack Obama’s practice of wearing a gold band on his wedding-ring finger puzzled his colleagues.
Now, newly published photographs of Obama from the 1980s show that the ring Obama wore on his wedding-ring finger as an unmarried student is the same ring Michelle Robinson put on his finger at the couple’s wedding ceremony in 1992.
Moreover, according to Arabic-language and Islamic experts, the ring Obama has been wearing for more than 30 years is adorned with the first part of the Islamic declaration of faith, the Shahada: “There is no god except Allah.”
The Shahada is the first of the Five Pillars of Islam, expressing the two fundamental beliefs that make a person a Muslim: There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is Allah’s prophet.
Sincere recitation of the Shahada is the sole requirement for becoming a Muslim, as it expresses a person’s rejection of all other gods.
Egyptian-born Islamic scholar Mark A. Gabriel, Ph.D., examined photographs of Obama’s ring at WND’s request and concluded that the first half of the Shahada is inscribed on it.
“There can be no doubt that someone wearing the inscription ‘There is no god except Allah’ has a very close connection to Islamic beliefs, the Islamic religion and Islamic society to which this statement is so strongly attached,” Gabriel told WND.
“Dreams from My Real Father” producer Joel Gilbert, an Arabic speaker and an expert on the Middle East, was the first to conclude that Obama’s ring, reportedly from Indonesia, bore an Islamic inscription.
Photographs published last week by the New Yorker from Obama’s time at Occidental College, taken by fellows students, indicate that the ring Obama wore three decades ago is the one he is wearing in the White House.
As WND reported in July, previously published photos have shown Obama wearing a gold band on his wedding-ring finger continuously from 1981 at Occidental, through graduation at Columbia in 1983, in a visit to Africa in 1988 and during his time at Harvard from 1988 to 1991. But none, until now, have displayed the ring with enough detail to identify it as the one he currently is wearing.
WND reported a satirical edition of the Harvard Law Review published by students in 1990 contains a mock Dewers Scotch profile advertisement poking fun at Obama. Among a list of Obama’s “Latest Accomplishments” is: “Deflecting Persistent Questioning About Ring On Left Hand.”
The comment suggests the ring was a subject of student curiosity at the time and that Obama was not forthcoming with an explanation.
He still has not explained why he wore the band on his wedding-ring finger before he married Michelle.
Gabriel, born to Muslim parents in Upper Egypt, grew up immersed in Islamic culture. He memorized the Quran at age of 12 and graduated in 1990 with a Masters degree from the prestigious Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the pre-eminent Sunni Muslim institution of learning.
He explained that on Obama’s ring, the declaration “There is no god except Allah” (La Ilaha Illallah) is inscribed in two sections, one above the other.
On the upper section, “There is no god” is written in Arabic letters, from right to left: Lam, Alif, Alif, Lam, Ha.
On the lower section is “except god,” written in Arabic letters from right to left: Alif, Lam, Alif, Alif, Lam, Lam, Ha.
In the lower section, the word “Allah” is written partially on top of the word “except,” noted Gabriel, the author of “Islam and Terrorism” and “Journey Inside the Mind of an Islamic Terrorist.”
It is common in Islamic art and Arabic calligraphy, especially when expressing Quranic messages on jewelry, to artfully place letters on top of each other to fit them into the allotted space.
The exhibit below shows how the Arabic inscription fits over the two parts of the Obama ring.
In an interview during the 2008 presidential campaign, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof questioned Obama about his Islamic education in Indonesia, where he lived from 1967 to 1971.
After acknowledging that he once got in trouble for making faces during Quran study classes in his elementary school, Obama recited for Kristoff the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, the Adhan.
The prayer incorporates the Shahada, the expression of Islamic faith, with each line repeated twice:
Allah is supreme! Allah is supreme!
I witness that there is no god but Allah
I witness that Muhammad is his prophet
Kristof noted Obama recited the prayer in Arabic “with a first-rate accent.”
“In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as ‘one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset,’” Kristoff wrote.
Gabriel told WND that a person wearing a ring with “There is no god except Allah” demonstrates the significance of Islam in his life.
“Christians never use the statement,” he pointed out. “By wearing the Shahada on jewelry, a person communicates that Allah is in control of all circumstances. Allah controls you; Allah is the one and only one.”
Obama, who attended Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago for two decades, has repeatedly insisted he is a Christian.
‘Blessed statement in Islam’
Gabriel emphasized the importance of the Shahada in the profession of faith in Islam.
“Muslims recite the Shahada when they wake up in the morning and before they go to sleep at night,” he said. “It is repeated five times every day in the call to prayer in every mosque. A single honest recitation of the Shahada in Arabic is all that is required for a person to convert to Islam.”
Gabriel believes it would be impossible for Obama not to be aware of what is written on the ring, calling it a “blessed statement in Islam.”
“By wearing this religious statement on one’s hand, it connects the person to Islam,” he said. “It is worn in hopes that Allah’s protections would be with the person, in hopes of gaining favor with Allah.”
He affirmed that Muslim men do wear gold rings, despite prohibitions in Islamic law.
“Though Islamic law prohibits the wearing of gold jewelry by men, it is a widely accepted custom, even in strictly Muslim countries,” he said. “The wearing of gold rings is even more acceptable when it contains a religious message, such as ‘There is no god except Allah.’”
He noted there is also widespread acceptance of men wearing gold jewelry in non-Arab Islamic societies such as Indonesia, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Pakistan, where Muslims generally understand that Muslims are subject to strong influences of local non-Arab cultures.
“Therefore, even though technically prohibited, a Muslim man wearing a gold ring is not looked down upon, especially if the jewelry reflects a love of Islam and a connection to Islamic society,” he said. “An even greater level of acceptance is for businessmen who deal with infidels, because such a person would be regarded as a person of influence.”
‘I have known Islam on three continents’
Filmmaker Joel Gilbert, an expert on Islamic history, noted Obama wore the ring during his high-profile speech in Cairo on June 4, 2009, in the first months of his presidency.
“Now we have a new context for what Obama meant when he told the Islamic audience in Cairo that he has ‘known Islam on three continents,” Gilbert said. “He also told the Cairo audience that he considered it part of his responsibility as president of the United States ‘to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.’ All religious Muslims are by definition required to defend Islam.”
Gilbert’s most recent documentary films on the Middle East are “Farewell Israel: Bush, Iran and The Revolt of Islam” and “Atomic Jihad: Ahmadinejad’s Coming War and Obama’s Politics of Defeat”
The Occidental ring
The photographs published last week by New Yorker magazine indicate Obama was wearing the ring at Occidental College.
One photo shows Obama sitting alongside Occidental roommate Hasan Chandoo in 1981, apparently waiting for a meal to be served.
Obama’s extended left hand clearly shows the ring, as seen below.
The second of the recently released photos shows Obama reaching for a book from an Occidental College library shelf.
A close-up of the library photo can be seen below.
In the above photo, the ring’s design can be seen, including a series of parallel bars that distinguish its outer circumference.
The Obama wedding ring
The ring was mentioned in a New York Times article in 2009 recounting the Obamas’ wedding.
In the story, Jodi Kantor described its “intricate gold design,” noting it came from Barack Obama’s boyhood home of Indonesia and was not traditional, like Michelle’s.
Just before the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. pronounced Barack Obama and Michelle Robinson man and wife on the evening of Oct. 3, 1992, he held their wedding rings – signifying their new, enduring bonds – before the guests at Trinity United Church of Christ. Michelle’s was traditional, but Barack’s was an intricate gold design from Indonesia, where he had lived as a boy.
There was no mention in the article that Obama already had been wearing the ring for more than a decade.
The photos of the ring from the 1980s can be compared with more recent photos, such as the ones published by the Huffington Post in 2010 in an article by Anya Strzemien, “Obama’s ‘Intricate’ Indonesian Wedding Band: A CLOSE-UP,” seen here.
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
From The Daley Gator – Great stuff Ed!
Found at The Daley Gator
Found at The Daley Gator
Found at The Daley Gator