http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3234/muslim-polygamists-welfare-benefits “Treating second and subsequent partners in polygamous relationships as separate claimants could mean that polygamous households receive more under Universal Credit than under the current rules for means-tested benefits and tax credits.” — House of Commons legal brief, July 19, 2012 Muslim immigrants with more than one wife will see an increase in their […]
October surprise: Obama runs out of cash
Here is a possible ‘October Surprise…
Read more: http://times247.com/#ixzz22CfshXSe
Norwegian police seal off area near U.S. Embassy
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Norwegian police seal off area near U.S. Embassy
Norwegian police found a suspicious package under a car parked at the U.S. Embassy building in Oslo on Tuesday and cordoned off a large part of the city’s downtown area as a precaution. Read more…
Read more: http://times247.com/#ixzz22Cg1JvEA
Ahmadinejad mocks Romney: ‘Kissing foot’ of Israel
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is calling a visit to Israel by U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney as “kissing the foot” of the Jewish state to boost his bid for the White House. Read more…
Read more: http://times247.com/#ixzz22CgRPjPU
GOP fingers ATF officials for Fast and Furious
Los Angeles Times
Monday, July 30, 2012
GOP fingers ATF officials for Fast and Furious
Republican congressional investigators have concluded that five senior ATF officials are collectively responsible for the failed Fast and Furious gun-tracking operation that was “marred by missteps, poor judgments and inherently reckless strategy.” Read more…
Read more: http://times247.com/index?page=2#ixzz22CgqOehC
“La Marseillaise, France’s National Anthem, got its name when volunteer revolutionaries from Marseille sang the song. Now Marseille is at the center of a new revolution. The Islamic Revolution. Muslim volunteers from France have been identified training with the Taliban and after Mohammed Merah’s massacre at a Jewish school, a group of Jews in Marseille were attacked by Muslim men shouting, “Vive Mohamed Merah, F— the Jews, Palestine will win.”As in 1994, Allah Akbar has become the new Marseillaise, replacing the song of the Army of the Republic, with the guttural cry of the Caliphate eager to be born.”
When foreigners think of the French city of Marseille they think of the national anthem, of Renoir sketching the old port in slashes of yellow and blue, and of castles and cafes overlooking the water. But the old port will now be overshadowed by a Grand Mosque.
The Grand Mosque project has cast a shadow over Marseille since 1989; its location on the site of a former slaughterhouse where pigs were once butchered and the Saudi money going into the project has only given the whole affair a more ominous air. The prolonged legal battle over its construction has gone on through the years even as Islamic terrorism in Marseille has grown to dangerous proportions.
In 1994, Marseille was where the Christmas Hijacking of Air France Flight 8969 came to its bloody end. Muslim terrorists from the Armed Islamic Group had hijacked the plane on Christmas Eve shouting “Allah Akbar” and informing the passengers that this particular deity had chosen them to wage war in his name. The terrorists forced the stewardesses to veil themselves with cabin blankets, recited verses from the Koran and murdered a number of passengers.
But the Armed Islamic Group had bigger plans than a few burkas and a few murders. Their plan was to ram Air France Flight 8969 directly into the Eiffel Tower. Marseille was supposed to be a refueling stopover before a final fatal flight to Paris, but with no sign of the extra fuel that would allow them to inflict maximum damage, the terrorists tried to kill a member of the crew who had told them he was an atheist. Instead French authorities took down the terrorists and prevented an earlier French version of September 11.
Barring unforeseen and unlikely circumstances—the bite of economic sanctions, another popular revolt, a change of heart on the part of the mullahs, a weakening of Western and especially Israeli resolve—it is at least imaginable that Iran will be attacked before the American election in November of this year. The on again, off again talks between the Iranian leadership and the P5 + 1 nations, aimed at arriving at a modus vivendi, are clearly nothing more than a reciprocal stalling tactic. The West wishes to defer military intervention, China and Russia wish to prevent it, while Iran continues to enrich uranium, add centrifuges to its nuclear facilities, and steadily progresses toward the acquisition of a thermonuclear weapon.
Further, given its declared purpose to incinerate the Jewish state, its possession of advanced delivery systems, and the belief of its leaders in the radical, Twelver version of Shi’a theology which envisions the return of the “Hidden Imam” in a millenarian conflagration, the bruited American policy of “containment” is doomed to failure. In a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on March 3, 2012, President Obama rejected the principle of containment of a nuclear-armed Iran, but did not rule out containment of a nuclear-capable Iran—a sly distinction that does not inspire confidence. Who is to judge precisely when capability morphs into capacity?
Joseph Puder, who heads the Philadelphia-based Interfaith Taskforce, puts little credence in Obama’s putative resolution. In an article titled “Obama, Like Carter, Will Not Act Against Iran,” Puder writes: “Obama much like Jimmy Carter is proving to the Iranians and to the Islamic world in general, that America is on the decline, and lacks the will to fight for its global security interests. The Obama administration has already invoked containment of a nuclear Iran as a default option for the U.S.” The fact is that Iran cannot be “contained.” A nuclear Iran is a game-changer, both politically and militarily, able to exert its will at the world’s expense by threatening nuclear blackmail. At the very least, it will change the face of the Middle East for the worst, as if things were not already bad enough.
How could Romney praise Israel’s culture over the Palestinians’? Is he not aware of Palestinian poetry, music and art? Let’s take a closer look at Palestinian culture, shall we?
At a fundraiser at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on Monday, U.S. presidential contender Mitt Romney made a few statements that got Palestinians’ blood boiling. It was bad enough, as far as they were concerned, that the Republican candidate had asserted, at the previous day’s press conference, that Jerusalem was the capital of the Jewish state. But when he had the gall to praise Israel as an economic wonder in the face of adversity, well, that was going way too far.
“As you come here and you see the GDP per capita … in Israel … and compare that with the GDP per capita just across the areas managed by the Palestinian Authority… you notice such a dramatically stark difference in economic vitality,” Romney said. “And as I come here and I look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things.”
These “other things” included Israel’s being a “Start-Up Nation” (the title of Saul Singer’s and Dan Senor’s big best-seller); the Jewish tendency historically to thrive even when faced with difficult circumstances; and the “hand of providence.”
Palestinian Authority bigwig — and “peace” negotiator — Saeb Erekat, couldn’t stomach these statements, calling them “racist.” How in the world could the man who might become the president of the United States in a few months say such an “ignorant” thing?
First of all, an official at the Al-Quds Institute of Research and Documentation, Ibrahim Al-Fani, maintains that the opposite is true. In an interview on PA TV in December 2010, Al-Fani explained the situation as follows: “He [the Israeli] has stolen my culture, turned it into technology, burned my customs and traditions, and taken what I have, leaving me devoid of initiative. … We must put together a cultural team and prevail over the Israelis in disseminating [our] culture, for they have no culture. You know that the Hebrew language is not [really] the Hebrew language, since it is taken from Aramaic. All the universities in the world know this. They stole the Aramaic language and codified it, and it became Hebrew.”
Secondly, the PA takes the arts very seriously. Let’s take a look at some examples, provided and translated by Palestinian Media Watch.
Poetry is the perfect place to start. The following verse was recited by a young girl on PA TV this spring.
“… The occupier stole my land and my grandfathers’ land …
Where is your sword, Khaled (Arab warrior)?
Where is your courage, Saladin (Muslim conqueror)?
But no one answered me.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is under attack for speaking an important truth about the Arab-Israeli conflict. At a fundraiser in Jerusalem on Monday, Romney made the obvious, even banal, point about the economic disparity between nations. Speaking of Israel and the Palestinian-run West Bank, Romney said, “Culture makes all the difference.” Rejecting the geographic determinism that claims geography, climate, and species distribution account for the greater power and wealth of the West, Romney added, “you look at Israel and you say you have a hard time suggesting that all of the natural resources on the land could account for all the accomplishment of the people here.” Romney’s point was part of a larger discussion of global economic disparity that he has brought up previously in numerous speeches and in his book No Apology, and that scholars like David Landes and Thomas Sowell have developed in their work.
When it comes to Israel, however, no comment, no matter how sound its scholarly pedigree, that challenges the orthodox narrative favored by the Arabs and their Western shills will be allowed to pass without attack. Saeb Erekat, an aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, responded, “It is a racist statement and this man doesn’t realize that the Palestinian economy cannot reach its potential because there is an Israeli occupation.” Hanan Ashrawi, a Palestinian legislator and official in the Palestine Liberation Organization, claimed the Palestinians “have to build an economy when they have no freedom of movement, no human rights, no fundamental freedoms.” International reporting on the remarks backed up the Palestinian interpretation by citing the “occupation” and “blockade” as the real explanation for why the Palestinians are failing economically.
These reactions are drearily predictable, including the incoherent charge of “racism” against somebody making a cultural argument. More important, once again Palestinian revanchist obsessions, anti-Semitism, and the jihadist death cult are ignored, and the reasons for Israeli defensive measures passed over, while Western materialist obsessions like “racism” “colonialism,” and “national aspirations” are used to explain destructive behavior the origins of which lie in cultural and religious dysfunctions.
Thus if you want to explain Palestinian economic backwardness, start with the Arab rejection of Israel’s legitimacy, one grounded in Islamic doctrine and culture. For all the duplicitous talk of the “two-state solution,” a critical mass of Arabs simply does not recognize Israel’s right to exist. Nor is this rejection a consequence of an “illegal occupation” of an “Arab homeland” by neo-colonialist Jews abetted by Western imperialists. When four Arab armies invaded Israel in 1948, its purpose was not to create a Palestinian nation, something that has no historical reality. Rather, after they destroyed Israel, the aggressor nations planned to carve up among themselves what was left of mandatory Palestine. This rejection of Israel has been a constant over the last 60 years, as historian Efraim Karsh points out: “Had Arafat set the PLO from the start on the path to peace and reconciliation, instead of turning it into one of the most murderous terrorist organizations in modern times, a Palestinian state could have been established in the late 1960s or the early 1970s; in 1979 as a corollary to the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty; by May 1999 as part of the Oslo Process; or at the very latest with the Camp David summit of July 2000.”
The fact is, Israel was and is an abomination to Muslims not because there is no Palestinian state, but because it is a country comprising what Muslims consider dhimmi, a conquered inferior people whose lands and lives are forfeit to Muslims by decree of Allah. Nor does it help that Muslims especially loath Jews, hatred based on the authority of the Koran, Hadiths, and 14 centuries of Islamic theology and jurisprudence. Hence the rank anti-Semitism rampant among Palestinian Arabs, who routinely and publicly indulge invective and genocidal rhetoric redolent of Der Stürmer. The continuing existence in the Middle East of an economically and militarily powerful Israel, populated by despised dhimmi, is a daily humiliation for the peoples who consider themselves the “best of nations” destined to rule the world. Ending the “occupation” or lifting the defensive blockade of Gaza wouldn’t change this irrational, religiously sanctioned hatred.
This deep-seated hatred, justified by religion, is also manifested in Palestinian culture by the cult of martyrdom, murder, and death that has legitimized terrorist attacks on Israelis for decades. Rather than promoting secular education, the acquisition of entrepreneurial skills, and the creation of a legal system conducive to economic development, too many Palestinians have instead financed, idolized, and reinforced with public honors the “martyrs” who blow up themselves and innocent Israelis on the promise of paradise. A people who dress up preschoolers as suicide bombers and make heroes out of murderers have other priorities than increasing exports, growing new businesses, or increasing GDP. Nor is this sickening death-cult the preoccupation of a fringe. A few years ago, alleged “moderate” Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas named a public square in Ramallah after a terrorist who in 1978 killed 38 Israelis, including 13 children. Such hatred is a cultural dysfunction inimical to the cosmopolitan tolerance necessary in a globalized economy.
THE EDITOR OF VOGUE ANNA WINTOUR MADE A VIDEO FOR OBAMA …..RSK
It’s now 17 months since Vogue published its cover-story paean to the first lady of Syria, “Asma al-Assad: A Rose in the Desert.” Readers were treated to a profile of Asma up close, “the freshest and most magnetic of first ladies,” a dazzling paragon of understated style and philanthropic works, “on a mission to create a beacon of secularism and culture in a powder-keg region — and to put a modern face on her husband’s regime.” Asma, “glamorous, young and very chic” was featured playing with her kids, whipping up home-cooked fondue with her jeans-clad husband, “the off-duty president,” and urging millions of Syrian youth to engage in “active citizenship.”
That was February of 2011. The following month, Syrians began engaging in a lot more active citizenship than the Assad regime evidently had in mind, rising in rebellion against the dynastic tyranny in Damascus. For 16 months now, abetted by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Syrian regime has been fighting back — with heavy weapons, arrests, torture and butchery, mutilating and murdering even children. To date, an estimated 19,000 or more Syrians have been slaughtered, and the killing continues.
Now, at long last, comes a recantation of sorts from the author of Vogue’s “Rose in the Desert,” Joan Juliet Buck. To call it a full-throated apology would be inaccurate. Buck appears genuinely appalled by the carnage with which the Assad regime itself so swiftly and utterly discredited her labors to give it a fashion-plate human face. But her deeper sympathies seem reserved for herself, and her woefully bad luck that her Asma profile — which closed with President Bashar al-Assad, surrounded by singing children, ringing a peace bell — came out just before the monstrous character of the Assad regime hove into full view in the international headlines. (After a blitz of criticism last year, Vogue scrubbed the article from its web site, though you can still find a copy here.)
“Joan Juliet Buck: Mrs. Assad Duped Me” is the headline of Buck’s new take on Asma al-Assad, published in the current edition of Newsweek, with an accompanying essay by Tina Brown on “Syria’s First Lady of Hell: The real story behind the notorious interview.”
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/obama-canceled-bin-laden-kill-raid-three-times-at-jarretts-urging?f=must_reads http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/29/obama-canceled-bin-laden-kill-raid-three-times-valerie-jarrett/?print=1 At the urging of Valerie Jarrett, President Barack Obama canceled the operation to kill Osama bin Laden on three separate occasions before finally approving the May 2, 2011 Navy SEAL mission, according to an explosive new book scheduled for release August 21. The Daily Caller has seen a portion of the chapter in […]
An enraged madman kills a dozen people and injures many others in a carefully planned mass murder in an Aurora Colorado movie theater. What can one possibly say? So desensitized by stories of brutality on the nightly news, my emotions are muted. It seems to me that on first blush the nation is becoming more coarse, more susceptible to the inner beast, that evil lurking in the hearts of men.
Was there a time of innocence? Perhaps not, but surely there was a time not so long ago when people helped their neighbors, left their doors unlocked and didn’t listen to rap songs that encourage rape and the killing of cops. A dark cloud has moved over the culture that avoids any taboos. It pushes past normative standards so that violence through video games and television programming is in the cultural ambiance.
The world is different with an emotional apocalypse seemingly in our midst each day. Nightly news is filled with horror stories; the more lurid, the more likely it will be aired. Audiences are told “If you are squeamish, you shouldn’t watch the next few scenes.” For many this is cultural catnip. Push that envelope to new and more extreme positions and then contend that the issue is guns. Surely even Mayor Bloomberg, the arch defender of gun control, must realize a gun in the hands of St. Francis is not a weapon. Guns don’t fire on their own; someone must pull that trigger.
The one word that won’t be employed in all the accounts of mass murder is “evil.” We rationalize. The fiend must have had a relational set-back. His parents mistreated him. School officials took his scholarship away. Who knows? The one thing we do know is “evil” will not cross the lips of the talking heads. After all, we are now all psychologists seeking fundamental answers for the inexplicable.
Recently on FOX News Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu adroitly sidestepped host Chris Wallace’s question about Israel’s interest in the upcoming American presidential election. And rightly so. Whatever the outcome of the election here in the United States, the long-standing relationship Israel maintains with this country is of singular importance that has a direct bearing on Israel’s safety and security. And while the values and principles shared by the people of both countries will continue to be all important, it doesn’t mean that Israelis don’t have a preference, but that preference might be better for the sake of the long term relationship remain unstated. The hypothetical question then of how Bibi Netanyahu might vote if he were a US voter is one that’s interesting to ponder for in effect, it is a question that also speaks to how the Israeli polity feels about the United States at this point in time.
I have not talked to the Prime Minister about this, but in my years of serving him as his Chief of Staff, I feel that there are some of the issues that would particularly resonate with him if he were focused on a personal vote instead of being charged with a national mandate. The fact is that Obama Administration policies developed and implemented over the past three years have raised serious doubts about the direction and depth of the this Administration’s commitment to Israel. Here are some which I think are notable, warrant concern and might have a bearing on how Bibi and most Israelis feel about the Presidential campaign here.
* Two weeks ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in Egypt and listened to the new Egyptian Foreign Minister declare his belief that the Camp David Accords of 1978 conferred upon Palestinians something he called a “right to have their own state on the land that was – the pre-June 4, 1967, borders with Jerusalem as its capital”. There is no such provision in those documents and Secretary Clinton, as a party to those agreements, ought not have let those comments stand without comment. It is hard to believe that a Kissinger, or Eagleburger or Shultz or Powell, or Rice would have allowed those assertions stand unremarked.
* The Obama Administration just convened its very own “Global Counterterrorism Forum” and invited 29 nations to meet on this subject, but Israel was not one of them. Bowing to Turkey’s insistence to exclude Israel from the conference, the US further insulted Israel by not even mentioning her as a victim of terrorist violence in her representative’s prepared remarks. U.S. Undersecretary of State, Maria Otero, failed to mention Israel as a country that has experienced terrorism while reading a long list of other nations that did. This was a US sponsored event, not a UN one where behavior of this type is expected as a matter of course.
* The Obama defense budget for Fiscal Year 2013, excludes funding for the promised US-Israeli initiative “Iron Dome”, a jointly built missile defense shield designed to secure Israel from Iranian missiles. This despite the platitudes spoken by both Obama and Clinton in the weeks leading up to the budget submission that the U.S. budget would continue to ensure Israel’s ability to defend herself. This brings into question the long-standing predisposition of the United States to guarantee Israel’s qualitative military edge in the region.