The Same Old Arrogant Obama

President Obama's various remarks at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation CEO business summit in Honolulu over the weekend show he is simply incapable of growing in office. In just a few short statements, we saw many of the familiar practices through which he has alienated such a large percentage of the American people and damaged the economy.

Away from his teleprompter, he treated us to further insults of Americans, his unfriendly attitude toward business and the private sector, his narcissism, and his refusal to accept responsibility for his own actions.

In his Monday evening press conference from APEC, Obama showed that he can't shake his narcissistic impulses. One would think that with all that has been written about Obama's "me, myself and I" fixation, he would at least try to pretend to be other-directed on occasion, to show he has the capacity to think of his position as something larger than himself.

In his opening remarks, he didn't say that "we" or "Americans" want other nations to buy American-made goods, but "I want them to," and so "I've been doing everything I can to make sure" we stay competitive. He didn't say, "The United States was honored to host APEC this year," but "I've been proud to host APEC this year."

When NBC's Chuck Todd asked him to clarify his "hot mic" conversation with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, in which they both insulted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he refused to comment, which means he refused to deny, much less apologize for offending the leader of our staunch ally, Israel, when he told Sarkozy, "You're fed up with (Netanyahu), but I have to deal with him even more than you do."

Two days earlier -- on Saturday -- Obama had modified his comment in September that Americans had "gotten a little soft" in competing in international markets. At APEC, Boeing CEO Jim McNerney asked him to consider the Chinese perspective and their concern about impediments to investment in the United States. How, wondered McNerney, would he address their dissatisfaction over these obstacles?

Rather than addressing the question directly, Obama deflected any responsibility for the situation and said, "We've been a little bit lazy, I think, over the last couple of decades. We've kind of taken for granted - well, people will want to come here and we aren't out there hungry, selling America and trying to attract new business into America."

I happen to believe that comment is absurd on its face, as even my small hometown in Missouri has made great efforts to bring foreign businesses into the community, sometimes successfully. Other communities throughout the United States daily engage in a competitive effort to attract businesses into their cities and states, and for the president to characterize them as "lazy," demonstrates he is as out of touch with Americans as he is disdainful toward them.

He might consider responding to the question next time, which involved impediments to doing business that often put American companies and communities at a competitive disadvantage in attracting foreign businesses. Doesn't Obama owe us all an answer to that question?

But to answer would require Obama to account for his own deplorable economic record and his hostility toward business, the private sector and the free market. A fair, reasonable response would have included his acknowledgment of how much damage his policies have caused to the American business climate, instead of an indictment of every American besides himself.

With his accelerating mounds of regulations, his imposition of Obamacare, his increased taxes, his incessant spending and the resulting jobs-challenged economy, why would foreign companies be any more excited about the Obama business climate than American businesses are?

Obama's aptly titled "Regulatory Czar," Cass Sunstein, protests, "the annual cost of regulations has not increased during the Obama administration." But the Heritage Foundation has called Sunstein out on that, just releasing a study showing that the administration is churning out regulations at a significantly faster pace than previous administrations. Obama recently announced reforms to eliminate burdensome, obsolete rules, but they were more hype than substance. Our regulatory costs are continuing to increase with no end in sight.

While little austerity was practiced in the regulatory area during the George W. Bush era, Obama has easily outpaced his predecessor. Through the end of March 2011, Obama had piled on $40 billion in new costs to the economy, more than doubling Bush's additions. In fiscal year 2010, Obama added $26.5 billion in costs, making it the record year for increased regulatory costs.

With Obama at the helm, in economic terms, among others, we've got the worst of all possible worlds: a rigid commitment to policies that harm rather than help, and personality traits that prevent him from admitting, learning from and correcting his mistakes. We'll just have to wait a little longer.

SOURCE

Read More

Profiles in Countermoonbattery: Frank Miller

Source

Inspiring and producing the excellent movie 300 about the Battle of Thermopylae was enough to establish Frank Miller as a countermoonbat; the excoriation he recently inflicted on Occupy Wall Street punks puts him in the top tier:

The “Occupy” movement, whether displaying itself on Wall Street or in the streets of Oakland (which has, with unspeakable cowardice, embraced it) is anything but an exercise of our blessed First Amendment. “Occupy” is nothing but a pack of louts, thieves, and rapists, an unruly mob, fed by Woodstock-era nostalgia and putrid false righteousness. These clowns can do nothing but harm America.

“Occupy” is nothing short of a clumsy, poorly-expressed attempt at anarchy, to the extent that the “movement” — HAH! Some “movement”, except if the word “bowel” is attached — is anything more than an ugly fashion statement by a bunch of iPhone, iPad wielding spoiled brats who should stop getting in the way of working people and find jobs for themselves.

America has a serious enemy — and it isn’t the “greedy” capitalists who generate wealth.

Maybe, between bouts of self-pity and all the other tasty tidbits of narcissism you’ve been served up in your sheltered, comfy little worlds, you’ve heard terms like al-Qaeda and Islamicism.

And this enemy of mine — not of yours, apparently — must be getting a dark chuckle, if not an outright horselaugh — out of your vain, childish, self-destructive spectacle.

Absolute contempt — the Occupy movement and those who apologize for it deserve nothing more.

That’s right moonbats, Miller means you.

Read More

Why leftists want to take away your guns

Saw this comment somewhere, but I forgot where. If anyone knows who said it, please let me know so that I can put a reference.

Of course, all of this begs the bigger question: why is the Left so determined to circumvent the 2nd Amendment, to essentially disarm the American populace? The statistics the Left is so fond of citing when promoting their pet causes don’t support their argument for more restrictive gun laws.

Those cities with the greatest restrictions on gun ownership and carry are those with the greatest gun crime rates.

The Left isn’t invested in this issue to save lives. They’re in it because guns are not just symbols of power. Guns are power.

They know if, for example, a certain far-left Democratic Administration attempted to suspend elections in order to, say, maintain majorities in Congress, millions of private citizens with the means to resist would ensure those elections took place, one way or the other.

The American Left is authoritarian and elitist to the core. They envy the technocrats of Beijing and the bureaucrats of Brussels, who can make sweeping, top-down policy decisions unhindered by a pesky, know-nothing electorate.

So no, these aren’t the traditional Truman or JFK Democrats who actually loved freedom and hated socialism.

These are old-school Reds, and if they’re willing to engineer the murder of over 200 people (and counting), they’re capable of anything.

Read More

Prediction: Over the next 20 years, Lutherans and Episcopelians will be flooded with child abuse accusations

"with the embrace of homosexuality in its clergy, the Episcopalian and Lutheran churches will produce the major church-related child abuse scandals over the next twenty years."

Source

Some atheists appear to view homosexuals as comrades in the great struggle against Christianity. In light of this, MD wonders if Christians can be similarly considered to harbor disproportionate inclinations towards pedophilia on the basis of the Catholic priest abuse scandal:

Hmmm. Wonder what proportion of Christian clergy molest children cf general population? . . . Conclusion: Christians more likely to molest children?

To some extent, the answer depends upon your definition of clergy. But in the end, the inescapable conclusion by MD's metric is not only that Christians are less likly to molest children than the general population, but that gays should not be permitted in the clergy. Now, there are three significant caveats here which I will point out afterwards, but consider:

Clerical abuse
- 4,392 priests and deacons were accused of engaging in sexual abuse of a minor between 1950 and 2002.
- The Jay Report stated there were 10,667 reported victims of clergy sexual abuse younger than 18 years during this period. The RCC victims per abuser rate was 2.43
- The 4,351 priests who were accused amount to 3.97% of the 109,694 priests in active ministry during that time.
- There were 28,700 active priests in 2005. The historical/current rate is 3.72.

Teacher abuse
- It is reported that 290,000 students experienced some sort of physical sexual abuse by a school employee from 1991-2000.
- This indicates an estimated 1,508,000 cases of school children being abused by school employees between 1950 and 2002.
- There were 3.8 million school teachers in 2010. Multiplied by the 3.72 historical/current rate, we estimate 14.1 million teachers active from 1950.

Dividing the 14.1 million historical teachers by the 1.51 million victims, then dividing by the 2.43 victim/abuser rate, this means school children have a 4.4% abuse per teacher rate compared to 4.0% per Catholic priest.

Now, the three problems. The first is that this includes the abuse by school employees who are not teachers without including the non-teachers.

Currently, teachers only make up half of the PUBLIC school employees in the country, but that number was historically much lower. Nevertheless, we can safely assume that teachers historically made up about three-quarters of the school employee total, which would lower the teacher abuse rate to 3.3 percent. However, we don't know if teachers have a higher rate or a lower rate of abuse than janitors, counselors, and administrators. I suspect it is higher, due to low average teacher IQ and the larger amount of contact with children intrinsic to the job, but I simply have no information on this.

Second, the RCC abuse numbers include the victims of priests and deacons, but don't include the number of permanent deacons. This is because there were only 41 deacons accused of the 12,500 ordained during the period concerned. This gives a total of 122,194 clergy and reduces the RCC abuse rate to 3.6 percent.

And the third problem. 81 percent of the RCC victims were male. All of the abusers were male. This is an astonishing statistical outlier, since in the general population, girls are sexually abused three times more often than boys. The heterosexual abuse rate was therefore 0.7 percent for the clergy compared to 2.5 percent for the teachers.

The conclusion, therefore, is that Christian clergy are 3.6 times less likely to abuse children than the general population unless they are homosexual.

The larger part of the clerical problem is not the Church, but Teh Gay. In fact, four-fifths of the sexual abuse committed by Catholic priests could have been avoided simply by barring homosexuals from the clergy, just as Christian doctrine has always deemed necessary. And the increasing restrictions on homosexual seminarians is the obvious reason why the rate of clergy abuse has been significantly dropping since the 1980s.

However, due to the increased embrace of homosexual clergy by the Episcopalian and Lutheran churches, we can safely conclude that the chickenhawks will be gravitating to these organizations as well as to other gay-friendly institutions that are actively involved with children.

It should therefore be no surprise that the Sandusky scandal took place on a college campus and concerned a children's organization; twenty years before, Sandusky might well have decided he was "called" to the priesthood instead of setting up a "children's charity".

Read More

Dog Dies In Fire After Saving His Master

Source

Scott Dunn fell asleep on his sofa yesterday at his home in Marietta, Georgia with his devoted friend Duncan, a 3 1/2-year-old boxer by his side.

“Duncan was covered up with me, and I fell asleep, and the next thing I knew, he was poking at me and barking,” Dunn said. “Normally, that means he needs to go out, but when I woke up, I couldn’t see because there was smoke.”

Dunn quickly put on his pants and boots, found his truck keys and cell phone and grabbed Duncan by the collar, then ran out of the burning house.

Somehow Duncan slipped out of his collar and was trapped in the burning house, where he died after saving the life of his owner.

"Anyone that knows me and has ever met Duncan knew he was the best dog in the world, and he didn’t deserve that,” Duncan said. “I should be there, he shouldn’t, but he saved my life.”

Firefighters later found the dog's remains and buried them in the yard.

“They weren’t going to let me watch, but I refused that. I said, ‘that’s my dog and I want to say the final goodbye.’”

Dunn said Duncan had been badly burned in the fire.“You wouldn’t recognize him, but I still leaned down, gave him a hug and gave him a kiss, and four or five of the fire department guys started crying, but I wasn’t going to let my boy go out like that,” Dunn said. “That’s my boy.”

Read More

Don't go back to work for two years - if you want a happy baby

Pioneering 'active birth' guru DR YEHUDI GORDON introduced birthing pools to the UK in 1981. Since then he has helped Elle Macpherson and Cate Blanchett have their babies. Now 67, the leading obstetrician makes a controversial declaration.

The figures are stark. According to the Office of National Statistics, one in four of us will experience some form of mental health problem in any given year. But what does that have to do with me?

My 30 years of experience in the world of maternity care has given me a unique perspective on how we develop as babies and young children, and I believe there are deeper issues at play here.

Crucial bond: Babies separated early from their mothers produce stress hormones

Our increasing rates of stress, anxiety, panic attacks and even insomnia are, I believe, largely due to insecurities we first felt as babies when separated from our parents too soon.

Maternity policy places emphasis on the nine months leading up to birth and not enough on the years after. Big maternity units are like conveyor belts; their main concern is to get women and babies through safely and quickly.

At birth, humans are the least developed mammals on the planet, and what happens to us when the brain starts to develop has a marked impact on us during childhood and on into our adult years.

It isn't that surprising that if a baby is welcomed into the world, if it feels secure, if its needs are met and it feels accepted as part of a close family unit, particularly in the first two years, it will be happy and flourish. But babies who feel separated from their parents, and who do not have the opportunity to attach securely to their mothers, will suffer a range of problems in later life.

That detachment leads to a range of psychological problems as an adult. Many studies show that babies who are separated early from their mothers produce stress hormones. If the separation continues over weeks or months, stress patterns are established that stay with us.

To allow children to develop well, and for mother and baby to stay in tune with each other for as long as possible, a mother needs to be present for her baby, sleeping safely in the same bed or in the same room, up until the child is two, if that is what the baby wants.

Although I am the first to acknowledge that for many mothers going to work is a financial necessity, the fact is that when mothers return too early, babies are left at nursery too quickly and children are put in their own rooms to sleep before they are ready, the result is often stress and separation anxiety for the baby. Some babies are separated at night from birth.

Star patients: Dr Yehudi Gordon has helped Cate Blanchett and, right, Elle Macpherson have their babies

If a mother can leave it two years before she returns to work then this is the ideal. Dads are very important, too, but in the first year the father's role is to provide support.

If, however, circumstances dictate that the father has to take over the parenting role, if the mother is ill or the main breadwinner - as long as he comes in with a good, loving energy he can do the job really well.

What is ultimately needed is a fundamental change in the way we see our young. In Western culture, babies are perceived to be dependent and in order to create independence we push them away as much as we can.

But traditional societies view newborns as independently spirited and believe it is love and contact that allow independence to flourish. In Bali, for example, if a baby is laid down on its own in the first year of life, it is considered bad parenting.

I believe rigid baby behavioural programmes, such as Gina Ford's Contented Baby regime, do not work. Human babies are not like dishwashers that you can switch on and off.

There are babies who like strict routines but in my experience they are the minority. Routines don't work because a baby's needs vary from day to day, especially in the first year when they develop so quickly. Their needs and therefore the boundaries change from day to day and week to week.

The definition of a contented baby is not one that is seen but not heard. A contented baby is one who can express its needs and has a parent who responds to them. This is why 'controlled crying' - when a baby is left to cry without being comforted - is bad for them.

A baby who is ignored thinks it is not good enough to warrant its parents' attention and it doesn't make for a secure, confident human being. In fact, it creates angry human beings. That anger can manifest in later life as aggression or self-loathing.

Pioneer: Obstetrician Yehudi Gordon

I am often asked if this much attention might create a clingy, needy child, but a child who is secure will take to boundaries better than one who is insecure. An important part of a parent's role is to be aware of the baby's and the adults' needs and to negotiate and create boundaries.

For example, buy a cheap single bed and put it in your bedroom. Perhaps mum and baby will start off in the double bed and gradually the baby will spend more and more time in the single bed in the parents' room.

The same goes for them being in their own room. For some babies it may take four or five nights of getting used to; others may take two or three months. A gradual transition is so much better than suddenly leaving them on their own.

The best tool a mother has is her intuition but that can develop only if she is allowed to be with her child and learn about its needs. The biggest problem for first-time mothers is friends and family telling them they are making mistakes. It takes a lot of courage to follow your instincts.

When I became involved in the Active Birth Movement in the Eighties, women were warned that standing or squatting during childbirth was dangerous and were made to sign disclaimers absolving the hospital of responsibility.

The practice proved to be so controversial that my position at the Royal Free Hospital in North London soon became untenable, and I subsequently worked outside the NHS for many years.

But today, the same principles of active birth - the holistic approach to childbirth first fostered at the birth unit of London's St John & St Elizabeth Hospital where I work - and water births have become blueprints for units across the UK.

Although I recently delivered my last baby there, I am still actively involved in the hospital's family-centred Birth Unit.

We are committed to the groundbreaking programme Babiesknow, which aims to encourage bonding. And I hope that increasing research will allow us to better monitor infant stress levels throughout labour, negating the need for many of the caesareans that are being performed as a matter of caution.

How we are born and cared for impacts on who we are. The best way for a human being to be born is under soft lights in a peaceful room welcomed by loving people.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1191263/Dont-work-years--want-happy-baby.html#ixzz1d9j2wlrt

Read More

Navy Chaplain Sues After Being Dismissed for Praying 'In Jesus' Name'

Christian persecution.

---

Former Navy Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Navy in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, insisting his religious rights were violated when he was dismissed from his position for praying "in Jesus' name."

The chaplain claims in the lawsuit that the federal government violated his rights when his ship'' commanding officer punished him in 2004 by downgrading his evaluation because he quoted "exclusive" Bible verses during an optional Saturday Christian memorial service. In addition, Klingenschmitt is seeking restitution because he was subsequently punished with another downgraded evaluation by his shore commanding officer in 2005 when he wrote to Congress and the president claiming that the Navy violated the Constitution when it forbid public prayers in Jesus' name.

The lawsuit also claims Klingenschmitt was unlawfully punished for wearing his uniform while worshipping in public and praying in Jesus' name outside the White House. The judge enforced the religious policy SECNAVINST 1730.7C, the chaplain claims, which required non-Jesus prayers in public, and although Klingenschmitt had written permission to wear his uniform during any religious service or activity, the judge ruled that he was not engaged in a public worship service, though he was worshipping in public. Congress later rescinded the law, but the chaplain was still dismissed.

"As a chaplain I took a stand for the right to pray in Jesus' name, and was I vindicated by Congress, who restored that right for other chaplains, but it was not grandfathered back to my case," said Klingenschmitt in a statement. "Now I'm filing this lawsuit to establish case-law precedent that will, hopefully, stop the domestic enemies of the Constitution from censoring chaplains prayers, or punishing their sermons or whistleblower speech, ever again in the future."

Klingenschmitt is seeking the reinstatement of his position in the Navy as military chaplain with four years of back pay and lost pension benefits.

Allison Summers
Christian Post Contributor

Read More

The girl who was stoned to death for falling in love

Source

A teenage girl lies dead on the ground in a pool of her own blood.

Her once groomed hair is cast across her face like a rag doll's, her skirt pulled up to complete her humiliation.

In another image, she is seen lying on her side, her face battered and bloodied, barely recognisable.

The concrete block used to smash in her face lies next to her.

Du'a Khalil Aswad was beaten, kicked and stoned for 30 minutes at the hands of a lynch mob before one of her attackers launched a carefully aimed fatal blow.

Scroll down for more...

Du'a Khalil Aswad: Killed by a lynch mob for falling in love

The murder was carried out in public, watched by hundreds of men cheering and yelling. Du'a's crime? To fall in love with a Sunni boy. Her family practised the Yezidi religion.

The Sunnis and Yezidis hate each other. When Du'a ran away with her Sunni boyfriend, a sentence of death was passed on her.

This act of medieval savagery took place last month in a town in northern Iraq, in the fledgling 'democracy' created by Bush and Blair when they invaded the country in 2003 and 'freed' its people.

Scroll down for more...

Brutal images captured by onlookers or the barbaric stoning

The sickening scenes, which defy belief in every sense, were captured by some of the observers and participants who thought it would be proper to record these harrowing events as some sort of memento.

Perhaps they thought it would serve as a warning to other young people who dared to follow their hearts - not the strictures of a religion which will not brook dissent - and punishes adolescent impetuosity with the most brutal of public murders.

The killing was filmed on a number of mobile phones. The images were then - all too predictably - posted on the internet.

The Mail takes no pleasure in publishing these pictures. But we believe our readers should witness the depths of the depravity still being carried out in the 21st century in the name of 'honour'.

Perhaps, then, something can be done to prevent it happening again.

Of course, anyone who takes even a passing interest in news is all too aware of the tragedy that has engulfed the people of Iraq: the daily bombings, murders and kidnappings.

The subjugation of its women, however, has been largely ignored. Yet according to cultural observers, the number of so-called 'honour killings' has increased in Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein.

Campaigners say there is an 'epidemic' of such killings in the wartorn country. Autopsy reports in Baghdad often conclude with the verdict: "Killed to wash away her disgrace."

The filming of Du'a's death was just one more macabre element of her killing, but it has achieved something those bloodthirsty amateur filmmakers could not have predicted: it has brought such practices into the open and exposed them to the wider world.

It is, of course, too late for Du'a, a strikingly pretty young girl with long auburn hair. The 17-year-old must have hoped that the 'liberation' of her country would afford her opportunities she might otherwise never have had - for her education and a life of happiness free from oppression.

She lived with her family in the town of Bashika, near Mosul. They were neither rich nor poor.

It is believed Du'a met her Sunni boyfriend - whose name is not known - several months ago. They had grown up in an environment where hatred against rival factions is the norm.

The Yezidis - a Gnostic sect which combines Islamic teachings with Persian religions - despise the Sunnis; the Sunnis loathe the Yezidis.

Du'a and her boyfriend would have been all too aware that theirs was a forbidden love. But like so many teenagers before them, right back to the illicit love of Romeo and Juliet, they couldn't help themselves.

For a while, they met in secret. It was during one such highly charged meeting that they came up with a plan to run away together.

It is not clear whether this desperate measure was a result of their having sought and been refused permission to marry, or if they decided to do it knowing that such permission would never be obtained.

"Her family would never have agreed to such a marriage," says Diana Nammi, a leading Kurdish women's rights campaigner.

Some Muslim groups have claimed that Du'a converted to Islam shortly before her murder. According to other reports, her boyfriend denies this.

They ran away together to an address in Bashika. The girl's family alerted the police and Du'a and her boyfriend were found just a few days later.

According to Ms Nammi, who is calling for the girl's killers to be brought to justice, Du'a was arrested and put into prison.

A few days later, the police apparently received assurances from the leader of her tribe - who Ms Nammi believes is Du'a's uncle - that the girl would not be harmed.

What happened next is the subject of conflicting reports. According to some, the house of the tribal leader was stormed by a mob and Du'a dragged out and killed.

Ms Nammi, however, says she has information that it was the tribal leader who betrayed his niece to the mob. In this man's eyes, Du'a had committed an unforgiveable crime, punishable by death.

The family's 'honour' had been besmirched. The moment Du'a was placed in his house, her fate was sealed.

On April 7, Du'a was brought out of the house in a headlock to face the lynch mob. Hundreds of men were waiting for her - the excited atmosphere is said to have resembled a large sporting event - but no women.

On the video, Du'a's screams can be heard as she is dragged to the ground. In a further humiliation, her lower body has been stripped.

Instinctively, Du'a tries to cover herself; only later was a piece of clothing thrown over her.

She is surrounded by an enormous crowd jockeying for a good view of the ritualistic killing. About nine men take part in the attack, including, it is thought, members of the girl's family.

To any father of a daughter, that a helpless girl should be set upon with such cowardly savagery is beyond comprehension. One can barely imagine her terror.

It is a profoundly disturbing spectacle. One man kicks her hard between the legs as she screams in agony. Du'a tries to lift herself up, but someone hurls a concrete block into her face.

Another man stamps on her face. Someone kicks her in the stomach. Police officers stand idly by, some of them apparently enjoying the spectacle as much as anyone else.

Meanwhile, some observers film the execution on their mobile phones - the modern world intruding on a spectacle that belongs more in the Roman arena than in an apparently civilised society.

After half an hour of this savagery, Du'a is finally - mercifully, perhaps - dead. In a final humiliation, a man tries to lift her up, but drops her again, and her bloodied body is rolled face down into a puddle of blood. The family has had its 'honour' restored.

According to Ms Nammi, Du'a's parents did not want her to be stoned, though it is not clear whether they might have agreed for her to be killed in some other way.

After her murder, according to Ms Nammi, two men were arrested by Iraqi police, but she has heard they were subsequently released without charge.

Reports suggest that two of Du'a's uncles and four other people fled the town as investigators began to search for the culprits. It is thought these included her brother, who appeared in the video of the murder.

As for Du'a's boyfriend - who has lost the girl he loved in the most awful circumstances imaginable - he went into hiding for a while, but it is believed that no action has been taken against him.

Du'a was buried in a simple unmarked grave. Later, says Ms Nammi, her body was exhumed by the Kurdish authorities, who have autonomous control of the region, and sent to the Medico-legal Institute in Mosul.

There her body was examined to find out whether she had been a virgin or not, before being returned to the Sheikh Shams cemetery.

To our Western eyes, this posthumous assault on Du'a's body is the final insult. But according to Ms Nammi, it did at least establish that she was still a virgin and innocent of the 'crime' of which she had been accused.

However, Ms Nammi believes the mere fact that Du'a had run off with a Sunni boy would have been enough to have her sentenced to death.

Meanwhile, the cycle of tit-for-tat murders continues in Iraq. In this instance, in an apparent act of retaliation for Du'a's murder, 23 Yezidi workers were attacked and killed two weeks later, apparently by members of an armed Sunni group.

The men were travelling on a bus between Mosul and Bashika when their vehicle was halted by the gunmen, who made them disembark before killing them.

Tomorrow evening, Ms Nammi, founding member of the Iranian and Kurdish Women's Rights Organisation, will lead a group of women meeting in Shoreditch, East London, to remember Du'a Khalil Aswad and give back to her the dignity torn from her by her violent death.

The women are pledged to campaign against the entrenched beliefs which lead to such senseless deaths - and the fact that the people who commit these crimes are not regarded as murderers, but as heroes of the community.

According to Ms Nammi, there have been an estimated 10,000 cases of honour killings in the Kurdistan region in the past decade.

Under Iraqi law, the punishment for anyone found guilty of an honour killing is just six months in prison.

"Something has to be done to stop this," says Ms Nammi, who came to Britain in 1996. "There is an epidemic of so-called honour killings. It is almost routine and utterly unacceptable.

"We would greatly appreciate any contribution from the British Government in preventing these murders of women in Iraq."

Ms Nammi has the support of Amnesty International.

"This young girl's murder is truly abhorrent and her killers must be brought to justice," says Kate Allen, Amnesty International UK Director.

"Unless the authorities respond vigorously to this and other reports of crimes in the name of "honour", we must fear for the future of the women in Iraq."

For the sake of 17-year-old Du'a, an innocent girl who simply fell in love with the wrong man, it is all too little, too late.

Read More

OWS on sexual assault: "nobody should contact the police"

What could possibly go wrong?

Read More

Bullied into an abortion she bitterly regrets

By Alison Smith Squire

Link

Every morning when Marie Ideson wakes, her first thought is of a little girl called Lillie. Today, had she lived, Lillie would be six.

And although Lillie would have had Down’s syndrome, Marie is sure of one thing: ‘Despite any disability, my daughter would have been incredibly well loved. And whatever her future was, I would always have been there for her.’

Yet when she was a little over 16 weeks pregnant with Lillie — and having been told by doctors that tests showed her much-wanted daughter had Down’s syndrome — Marie did something that still torments her and which she blames for the breakdown of her marriage: she underwent a termination.

Devastated: Marie Ideson will always regret having her daughter aborted because she had Down's

‘Looking back, I was bullied into going ahead with an abortion,’ says Marie, 46, a GP surgery manager. ‘I only wish I could turn the clock back. I think of the daughter I never had every day. I will always regret it.’

Statistics show Marie is far from the only woman to terminate her baby due to Down’s syndrome.

In fact, the number of terminations for the condition has more than trebled in the past 20 years. In England and Wales, some 1,100 foetuses with it are being aborted each year.

Research by Queen Mary, University of London in 2009 found nine in ten women carrying a baby affected by Down’s opt for a termination.

But while no one doubts that for some, having an abortion is the only viable option, how many of these hundreds of women were bullied by medical professionals into ending their pregnancies?

Marie is in no doubt about what happened to her. ‘My husband Allan and I were sat down and told by a nurse, in no uncertain terms, that our baby had Down’s syndrome,’ she says.

‘When I said I wanted to keep the baby, I was told she could be born needing emergency heart surgery and have bowel and muscle tone problems — and that was if she survived.

‘At no time did anyone suggest we might keep our baby. A termination was presented as the only way forward.’

'I broke down in deep, angry sobs. What had I done? I'd been railroaded into taking the life of my own child'

Not only that, but Marie also thinks she was made to feel guilty about wanting to continue with her pregnancy.

‘A nurse said not aborting my baby would cause it to suffer, and she’d only become a burden on society if I went ahead,’ says Marie. ‘She even said: “Ninety-nine per cent of women in your situation wouldn’t want the baby.” ’

Marie, from North Yorkshire, was a 40-year-old with twin sons and a daughter from a previous marriage, and two more sons and another daughter with Allan, 50, when she got pregnant with Lillie.

‘Although life was chaotic trying to fit in my job managing a busy doctor’s surgery with having the children, both Allan and I wanted a big family, so we were thrilled when we discovered I was expecting again,’ she says.

Although she was 40, the pregnancy progressed normally and there was no indication to suggest anything was wrong until Marie received the result of a blood test.

This showed she had a one-in-28 chance of having a baby with Down’s.

So, due to her age, doctors suggested she underwent an amniocentesis — a test where a needle is inserted into the uterus to extract some amniotic fluid.

This fluid contains some of the baby’s cells, which are then analysed. If a baby has Down’s syndrome, the test will reveal an extra chromosome.

‘The consultant explained there was a less than 1 per cent risk of miscarriage from taking the test, but that was played down as very rare.

'But Allan and I talked it over, so if we were having a baby with a disability, we could be prepared. We decided to go ahead.’

Torn apart: Marie with husband Allen and daughter Laura. Their marriage broke down after the abortion

However, having already given birth to six healthy children, Marie was still shocked when, four days after the test, she received a call from the hospital.

‘A woman said: “I’m sorry to say your baby has Down’s.” It was devastating,’ she says.

‘Allan was at work and I broke down in tears. My first thought was: “How will we cope?” It wasn’t: “I can’t have this baby.”

‘When Allan came home, I broke the news to him and told him I wanted to keep the baby, and, although devastated, he agreed he wanted to keep it, too.’

The following morning, the couple headed to the hospital to discuss their options with the doctors. At no point did they think they’d be talked into aborting their baby.

‘Naturally, we were desperately upset — in hindsight, I was in total shock — but we believed the hospital would be able to offer us support and reassurance that, despite the diagnosis, with the latest medical help our baby would be OK,’ says Marie.

However, she says instead of discussing the issues, the consultant and a nurse immediately offered a termination.

'It destroyed us. Before the abortion we'd been a really happy couple, but now, we could barely communicate'

Marie adds: ‘Allan and I were both shocked. Allan was worried there might be a mistake, but the consultant said the test was 100 per cent accurate and that waiting would only make me another week along and a termination harder. The nurse said: “Why have the test if you don’t want an abortion?”

‘But I told her we had just wanted to be prepared for the fact we might have a disabled child. When I said I wanted to keep my baby, I was made to feel I was making everyone suffer. Having it would be a burden on our other children, she said, especially if, as she claimed, the baby was likely to need many operations throughout its life.

‘We’d taken the children along to the hospital and they were being looked after in another room, but at the point when another nurse returned with them, I was being persuaded by a consultant and a nurse that having this baby would be putting a burden on my existing children’s shoulders, too.

‘I looked at them and thought the medical staff must be right. In that moment, I decided to go ahead and terminate the pregnancy.’

As her consultant suggested, Marie took a pill to start her abortion that day.

‘I felt numb as I swallowed the tablet. This wasn’t how I imagined this pregnancy ending, but looking back, I was in shock, just operating on autopilot,’ she says.

‘I remember saying to Allan: “I just want to keep my baby.” But he’d been brainwashed, too. He just kept saying: “But they must think the baby’s really bad, Marie — it’s for the best.” ’

Three days later, having returned to complete the termination, and delivered tiny Lillie, Marie knew she’d done the wrong thing.

‘She was so small, but otherwise perfect. I broke down in uncontrollable deep sobs. What had I done? I realised in that instant that I’d been railroaded and bullied into taking that first pill. I felt overwhelmed by anger.

'I should have been sent home to think about all the options — and I should have been given more independent advice about having a Down’s baby.

‘It should have been pointed out that I could continue with my pregnancy, that having my baby was an option and that with medical advances most Down’s syndrome babies go on to live happy lives.

‘Instead, by the time I went home, I’d already taken a pill — the first step to having my termination — and there was no going back.’

Terrible choice: Marie thinks women who are carrying Down's babies should be given more support so they don't feel that abortion is their only option (posed by model)

Within a fortnight Marie was on antidepressants.

‘I felt so guilty and so upset. Even when the post-mortem examination confirmed Lillie had Down’s, I felt I should have kept her. And if she wasn’t going to survive, I’d have been happier letting nature take its course.’

The abortion became a huge issue between Marie and Allan.

‘I couldn’t stop crying,’ she says. ‘But, worse, I began to resent Allan for the fact I’d gone through with it. I knew he was devastated, too, and wanted to keep the baby, but I felt angry he’d allowed staff to rush me into getting rid of her. I kept thinking back to when I’d told him I wanted her to have a chance at life, and he’d insisted we go along with medical advice.

'Why hadn’t he stood up to the consultant? Why hadn’t he told them we wanted to keep the baby?

‘The feeling he didn’t support me when I needed him most festered like a cancer between us.

‘Allan insisted he’d felt as railroaded as me. But from then on, I noticed other trivial things he didn’t back me up on. And as the months went by, we began to argue more about the termination.

‘In hindsight, it destroyed us. Before the abortion we’d been a really happy couple, but now, we could barely communicate.’

The couple tried to get their relationship back on track by having Reuben, now four.

WHO KNEW?

Life expectancy for those with Down's has increased to an average of 60 in the past 30 years

‘I knew another baby wouldn’t ever take Lillie’s place, but I believed having another baby together would mend our relationship and that I could put what happened behind us. At the same time, I hoped it would bring back the closeness we once had,’ says Marie.

‘The final straw came when I was in labour with Reuben. The terrible experience of my termination with Lillie came flooding back.

‘I was at home and the midwives were telling me I had to go to hospital, but I told them I couldn’t go back to where I’d terminated Lillie.

‘Allan tried to persuade me to go and, in the end, I had no choice. I felt that again, he hadn’t spoken up for me when I was at my most vulnerable.

‘I knew deep down Allan wasn’t to blame, but I still couldn’t find it in my heart to forgive him.’

She adds: ‘It might sound unreasonable, but I blamed him as well as the doctors for the abortion. He knew I was anti-abortion and that I wanted to keep my baby.

‘I was upset that he had allowed me to take the pill and didn’t just take me home. I believed he’d sided with the consultant. And when Reuben arrived, I also realised nothing was going to bring Lillie back and a new baby couldn’t solve the issues in our marriage.’

By the time Reuben was two, the couple had split. Marie, who never signed a consent form for the abortion, spent thousands of pounds in legal fees in a bid to gain an apology from the hospital — although she was eventually forced to abandon legal action due to the expense.

Of her broken marriage she says: ‘I couldn’t get over what happened — neither of us could come to terms with it. The trauma was always there between Allan and I. The rift it caused just couldn’t be healed.’

She says: ‘My eldest sons are now aged 25. When pregnant with them, I knew of women having Down’s syndrome babies. But when I had Reuben, I heard of no one.

‘Today, I never see mums with Down’s syndrome babies. I can’t help feeling other women must be having abortions they don’t want. I can’t believe that everyone who finds out their baby has Down’s syndrome willingly chooses to abort it.’

Read More

Pedophilia more common among homossexuals

Source

Research purports to reveal 'dark side' of homosexual culture

---

By Jon Dougherty

© 2011 WND

Child molestation and pedophilia occur far more commonly among homosexuals than among heterosexuals on a per capita basis, according to a new study.

"Overwhelming evidence supports the belief that homosexuality is a sexual deviancy often accompanied by disorders that have dire consequences for our culture," wrote Steve Baldwin in, "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement," soon to be published by the Regent University Law Review.

Baldwin is the executive director of the Council for National Policy in Washington, D.C.

"It is difficult to convey the dark side of the homosexual culture without appearing harsh," wrote Baldwin. "However, it is time to acknowledge that homosexual behavior threatens the foundation of Western civilization – the nuclear family."

Though the homosexual community and much of the media scoff at such accusations, Baldwin – who chaired the California Assembly's Education committee, where he fought against support for the homosexual agenda in the state's public schools – says in his report that homosexual activists' "efforts to target children both for their own sexual pleasure and to enlarge the homosexual movement" constitute an "unmistakable" attack on "the family unit."

Baldwin's research is substantiated in a recently completed body of work written by Dr. Judith Reisman, president of the Institute for Media Education and author of numerous authoritative books debunking sexual myths, including "Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences."

In her thesis – also written for the Regent University Law Review – Reisman cited psychologist Eugene Abel, whose research found that homosexuals "sexually molest young boys with an incidence that is occurring from five times greater than the molestation of girls. …"

Abel also found that non-incarcerated "child molesters admitted from 23.4 to 281.7 acts per offender … whose targets were males."

"The rate of homosexual versus heterosexual child sexual abuse is staggering," said Reisman, who was the principal investigator for an $800,000 Justice Department grant studying child pornography and violence. "Abel’s data of 150.2 boys abused per male homosexual offender finds no equal (yet) in heterosexual violations of 19.8 girls."

Jay Heavener, spokesman for PFLAG – Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, counters that federal crime data refute claims that homosexuals molest children at higher rates than heterosexuals.

"According to data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), this claim is false," he told WND by e-mail. "The gay and lesbian community calls into question any dubious research which flies in the face of our own experience."

And Gary Schoener, a clinical psychologist who has been diagnosing and treating clergy abuse for 28 years, told Salon.com, "There are far more heterosexual cases than homosexual."

In terms of sheer numbers, that may be true. But in terms of numbers of children abused per offender, homosexuals abuse with far greater frequency; and boys, research shows, are the much-preferred target.

Baldwin says evidence he examined disproves the assertion that child molestation is more prevalent among heterosexuals. Both he and Reisman found that media coverage of adult homosexual abuse of minors is also slanted.

"The National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) recently boasted that although homosexuals are less than two percent of the population, three-fourths of the people who decide the content of the front page of the New York Times are homosexual," Reisman wrote.

That one fact is especially noteworthy, experts point out, given the recent child sex scandals taking place within the American Catholic church.

A survey by WorldNetDaily of recent news reports found that rarely did the media describe priestly sexual abuse as "homosexual" or "gay" activity – even though the worst incidents involved male-to-male contact, and a spate of investigative reports has revealed that the Vatican is concerned about an upsurge of homosexuals in seminary schools throughout the world.

Gay press promotes sex with children

Baldwin says his research not only "confirms that homosexuals molest children at a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals," but it found that "the mainstream homosexual culture" even "commonly promotes sex with children."

"The editorial board of the leading pedophile academic journal, Paidika, is dominated by prominent homosexual scholars such as San Francisco State University professor John DeCecco, who happens to edit the Journal of Homosexuality," Baldwin wrote.

During his research, he also found:

• The Journal of Homosexuality recently published a special double-issue entitled, "Male Intergenerational Intimacy," containing many articles portraying sex between men and minor boys as loving relationships. One article said parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son "not as a rival or competitor, not as a theft of their property, but as a partner in the boy's upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home."
  
  
• In 1995 the homosexual magazine "Guide" said, "We can be proud that the gay movement has been home to the few voices who have had the courage to say out loud that children are naturally sexual" and "deserve the right to sexual expression with whoever they choose. …" The article went on to say: "Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children's sexuality … we must do it for the children's sake."
  
  
• Larry Kramer, the founder of ACT-UP, a noted homosexual activist group, wrote in his book, "Report from the Holocaust: The Making of an AIDS Activist": "In those instances where children do have sex with their homosexual elders, be they teachers or anyone else, I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity, and perhaps even solicits it."
  
  
• In a study of advertisements in the influential homosexual newspaper, The Advocate, Reisman found ads for a "Penetrable Boy Doll … available in three provocative positions. She also found that the number of erotic boy images in each issue of The Advocate averaged 14.
  
  
• Homosexual newspapers and travel publications advertise prominently for countries where boy prostitution is heavy, such as Burma, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand.

Homosexuality 'youth-oriented'?

"Research on the homosexual lifestyle confirms it is almost exclusively a youth-oriented culture," Baldwin wrote. "Very few gays exhibit preference for older men."

"Some admit to focus on teenage boys," he said, "some on prepubescent boys, and many cross over between categories."

A 1988 study detailed in Baldwin's report found that most pedophiles even consider themselves to be "gay." According to the study, "Archives of Sexual Behavior," some 86 percent of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual or bisexual. Also, the study found, the number of teenage male prostitutes who identify as homosexuals has risen from 10 percent to 60 percent in the past 15 years.

When asked what he thought about critics who attempt to debunk his research, Baldwin said the results speak for themselves.

"For them to say this theory is false is to call many of the homosexual movement's leaders liars," he said. "Most of my evidence comes right from the gay community."

"I managed to find enough evidence that my thesis – child molestation is an integral part of the homosexual movement – is a valid thesis," Baldwin told WorldNetDaily.

Other experts have also found a distinct pattern between child sex abusers and the incidence of homosexuality.

"How long can psychologists be in denial about the significance of the dark side, and ignore what it implies about the homosexual condition? And there's a matter of even greater concern. How long will psychologists eagerly throw open the door to gay life for every sexually confused teenager?" writes Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D, on behalf of NARTH – the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality – a group that says it exists to "provide psychological understanding of the cause, treatment and behavior patterns associated with homosexuality, within the boundaries of a civil public dialogue."

The North American Man-Boy Love Association, or NAMBLA, is "a group that openly promotes sex with minor boys and claims that boy-lovers respond to the needs of the boys they love," Baldwin said in his report.

The group is often endorsed by "many of the homosexual movement's most prominent leaders," he said.

Advocacy moving to schools

Promotion of the "gay and lesbian lifestyle" is increasing in the nation's public schools.

A WND survey of homosexual-oriented websites found that almost every group has some sort of program to "educate" teachers, school administrators and other school employees about the homosexual lifestyle:

• GLSEN – the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network – bills itself as "the largest national network of parents, students, educators and others" specifically formed to end "discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in K-12 schools. Two recent press released boasted of the Broward County (Fla.) school board approving GLSEN-sponsored "training for teachers."
• A student activist working with GLSEN officials has managed to "give voice" recently to "gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered students" at California schools;
• PFLAG has created a national campaign called, "From Our House to the Schoolhouse," distributing to school officials – among other materials – a booklet entitled, "Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth: A Primer For Principals, Educators, & School Personnel. [Editor's note: Readers need the Adobe PDF reader to open and read this file.]

Though most school-related programs are sold to administrators and parents as programs designed simply to end persecution of homosexuals and lesbians, none disclose what Baldwin says is compelling evidence that homosexuality is harmful to children.

"What … does the academic literature say about the relationship between homosexuality and child molestation? Quite a bit, actually," he wrote, quoting data compiled by the Family Research Institute: "Scientific studies confirm a strong pedophilic predisposition among homosexuals."

The institute, after reviewing more than 19 studies and peer-reviewed reports in a 1985 "Psychological Reports" article, found that homosexuals account for between 25 and 40 percent of all child molestation.

"But this number is low," Baldwin says, "due to the fact that many reporters will not report if a child molester is a homosexual, even if he knows that to be the case."

Related story:

Pedophile lawsuit goes class action?

Read more: Report: Pedophilia more common among 'gays' http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=13722#ixzz1dQzwEpzP

Read More

The 19 Things Our Generals in Afghanistan Know Are True But Cannot Say in Public

Like Maetenloch says, many are plain common sense, but that doesn't stop politicians from avoiding the truth.

Source

---

As compiled by Thomas E. Ricks based on information he's received from insiders and Afghan veterans. Some of these I would quibble with but most seem seem straightforwardly obvious. After nearly a decade of fighting in Afghanistan we have a lot invested in the outcome, but I can't see a good ending when we're unable to speak honestly about the true situation and our long-term goals there.

• Pakistan is now an enemy of the United States.
• We don't know why we are here, what we are fighting for, or how to know if we are winning.
  
• The strategy is to fight, talk, and build. But we're withdrawing the fighters, the Taliban won't talk, and the builders are corrupt.
  
• Karzai's family is especially corrupt.
  
• We want President Karzai gone but we don't have a Pushtun successor handy.
  
• But the problem isn't corruption, it is which corrupt people are getting the dollars. We have to help corruption be more fair.
  
• Another thing we'll never stop here is the drug traffic, so the counternarcotics mission is probably a waste of time and resources that just alienates a swath of Afghans.
  
• Making this a NATO mission hurt, not helped. Most NATO countries are just going through the motions in Afghanistan as the price necessary to keep the US in Europe
  
• Yes, the exit deadline is killing us.
  

Read More

'Friday Rule 5': NOW Sharia-Compliant!

Source

Restrain yourself, infidel dogs...

RFI

evolvefish.com

burqini xxx burkini muslim burqa, swimsuit sharia rule five

Angry White Dude

smh

Katachasm

BizzaroBlog via Bilbo's

Pedro Churros

Read More

Media Attempt to Cover Up Obama Comments on Israel

The incident involving a live microphone that took place last week at the G20 summit in Cannes, France involving President Barack Obama, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, and the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, was an important revelation on several levels.

First, it revealed the true feelings that Obama and Sarkozy have toward Netanyahu, which is quite different from their public pronouncements and actions. No big surprise in either case. But the bigger story is how corrupt the media are to go along with the attempted deception.

What occurred is that the two presidents were speaking in what they thought was a private conversation. But what they overlooked was that the mics they were wearing were live, and a simultaneous translation of their conversation was being broadcast to the journalists outside the room. Those journalists were not to be given headphones until the session resumed, but a number of them had their own and were listening as a translator repeated the comments of the two men.

Initially, in the conversation, Obama was critical of Sarkozy for not letting him know in advance that France would be voting to allow the Palestinians membership in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). After they were voted in to the organization, the U.S. Congress voted to cut off its portion of the funding for UNESCO, as it is required by law to do if Palestine is admitted as a member of any international organization before it reaches a peace agreement with Israel. Obama, whose spokesmen have made clear that he once again will ignore Congress and do what he can to help UNESCO, was also reported to have asked Sarkozy to try to help persuade the Palestinians to stop their bid to gain full UN recognition as a state.

Sarkozy then said of Netanyahu, “I cannot bear him, he’s a liar.” To which President Obama reportedly said, “You may be sick of him, but me, I have to deal with him every day.”

A number of journalists heard this, but did not report on it after staffers from Sarkozy’s office went to the journalists and told them the comments were meant to be private. According to reports, French media tradition requires journalists to honor that privacy, and in keeping with that tradition, they were asked to sign agreements to that effect. Apparently many of them complied, “due to the sensitivity of the issue.” But it was a French website, Arret sur images, that first reported the conversation. Reporters from Reuters and the Associated Press confirmed the account of the conversation. Sarkozy’s and Obama’s offices have refused to comment.

There are a couple of excellent articles about this, though not much in the mainstream media. One is by Arnold Ahlert in Jewish World Review, in which he writes that “it is hard to decide which part of this story is more revealing: the incident itself, or the subsequent reaction by the Fourth Estaters whose commitment to the standards of journalistic integrity—or perhaps more accurately JournO-listic integrity—seemingly never reach the bottom of an apparently bottomless barrel.” And to the issue of reporters agreeing, after the fact, to keep this quiet, Ahlert writes, “What reporter in his right mind would sign anything that prevents him from reporting on a story made available, not by subterfuge or anything else resembling illegality, but by the carelessness of two world leaders? Since when did a legitimate ‘gotcha’ moment become off limits to the press?”

In a piece on FrontPageMag.com, Joseph Klein discusses some of the history between Obama and Israel that makes Obama’s comments unsurprising: “…we all know what Obama really thinks. This is a president who has gone out of his way to visit Muslim countries in the same region as Israel, but has yet to visit Israel itself since taking office. Obama had no trouble bowing to the Saudi king, while insulting the Israeli prime minister at every turn.”

Added Klein, “Obama’s latest blast at Netanyahu recalls his snub of Netanyahu during the prime minister’s first visit to the Obama White House in March 2010. Obama presented Netanyahu with a list of demands, including a halt to all settlement construction in East Jerusalem. When Netanyahu resisted Obama’s charms, Obama picked up his marbles. He stormed out of the meeting and declared, ‘I’m going to the residential wing to have dinner with Michelle and the girls.’ Obama also refused the normal protocol of a joint photograph with the Israeli leader.”

As I detailed in a recent AIM Report, Obama has made the situation much worse through his heavy-handed demands, and an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is more distant as a result. Obama raised the stakes enormously when he came to office in 2009 by demanding that Israel freeze all building of settlements, something they had never done before, and which had not been a pre-condition of the Palestinians. Then Obama pushed the 1967 borders issue, to make that a starting point for negotiations rather than one of many issues to be resolved through direct negotiations. And add to Obama’s missteps the so-called Arab Spring; Iran’s continuing efforts to possess nuclear weapons and to threaten Israel, both directly and through surrogates including both Hamas and Hezbollah; and the participation in the Palestinian government of Hamas, which controls Gaza. It is clear that Israel is less secure than at any time in recent years.

The timing of this incident has been bad for Obama. After barely a year in office, in April of 2009, the Republican polling firm McLaughlin & Associates released a survey that showed that only 42 percent of American Jews would vote to re-elect President Obama, after having won 78 percent of the Jewish vote in 2008. He has slowly won some of that support back by trying to convince Jewish voters that he really does support Israel. A key test in that process came in September when he reluctantly made it clear that the U.S. would veto the Palestinians’ bid for statehood.

But this recent “live mic” revelation will clearly set back the Obama PR campaign to win over more Jewish voters.

Source

Read More

Being a Dictator: More Physically Destructive than a Crack Habit

Fonte

****************

The great Oscar Wilde play Dorian Gray depicts an evil man whose sweet, innocent countenance remains untouched throughout his life while a painting of him hidden in his attic takes on all the marks of evil in his face due to his lecherous, wicked character. It does seem that in real life you can’t escape your character; one’s outsides eventually do match one’s insides. Never is that more apparent than with evil dictators (and methamphetamine or crack users, but that’s another article).

Case in point is the world’s most recent example. See this handsome man? Isn’t he charming looking? Can’t you see how a man with this much charisma took over a nation? Who is that handsome devil?

Don Draper's got nothin' on me!

Handsome is as handsome does!

Gah! Yes, it’s Gaddafi. Eventually, after 40 years of being a cruel and vicious dictator, Gaddafi went on to become one of the ugliest people on Planet Earth. His face looks like it’s melting. He looks like that Nazi in Indiana Jones when he opens the sacred arc and his face melts off. Or like that cockroach alien from Men in Black, except instead of wearing an Edgar Suit, he’s wearing a Gaddafi Suit that doesn’t quit fit.

Is my Michael Jackson wig on straight?

Apparently some of his last words were, “Don’t you know right from wrong?” Look in the mirror, Gaddafi, you surely didn’t.

Another guy who was recently captured in a hole was this guy:

When my MGM contract is up, I'm going to become an evil dictator.

Who is that? The handsome actor Errol Flynn?

Doh! No, it’s that crazy homeless lunatic looking guy, Saddam Hussein.

Down, Fang!!

I gotta be honest, I think Saddam came out better than Gaddafi, but still. After 24 years of torturing and murdering and launching chemical weapons, that once handsome youth turned into a Hagrid lookalike.

The good thing about writing this article is that it’s hard to run out of examples. There sure are a lot of dictators to choose from! Here is one that gives me a lot of personal satisfaction:

Okay, so Hugo Chavez never was very handsome. He kind of always looked like a petulant dictator. In fact, this is the youngest picture I could find of Chavez and he’s not really young in it. I guess he sprung fully formed as a bloated, baby-faced dictator. But now he looks like this:

I'll get you Han Solo!

His outsides are starting to match his insides, his body is starting to match his character. Oh s*it, am I making fun of someone with cancer? Yes, yes I am. Rot in hell, Chavez. Hopefully sooner rather than later.

Next there’s this cutiepatootie! Look at his happy, delightful, chubby-cheeked expression! Don’t you just want to take him home and feed him milk and cookies?

Better not. If you did he just might bite your fingers off. Too bad this cute kid’s father was insane, and left him a dictatorship to boot, because he turned out like this:

"Gimmie milk and cookies now dammit!"

Kim Jong Il is simply the epitome of the baby faced, evil-eyed dictator. Okay, so this picture is really of a puppet Kim Jong Il from the movie Team America. I could have easily included a real picture of him and gotten the same effect.

Europeans have had their dictators too, but they don’t seem to live long enough for their evil ways to catch up to their visages. There is at least one example, however; there’s Enver Hoxha, communist dictator of Albania for 41 years and best buds with Joseph Stalin. So, all around great guy! What a handsome youth!

Enver Hoxha eventually looked like this:

Wait, what!? Is that Ralph Lauren?

Okay, I guess those suave Europeans are immune to the effects. Although upon his death in 1985 they did find a portrait painting in Hoxha’s attic that could have been of him, except that it looked so evil.

Read More