Yuck! Pro-Islam Ads On My Site! «

Gross. If you want to know the true Islam, see the below pic-this ad here we DO NOT endorse!!

Ads by Google

(And dont tell me the Jews from Israel did it.  They cant even stop giving land away, and their government does ZERO while their people are MURDERED by bloody savages from the “Religion of Peace”)
THIS IS ISLAM:

via themadjewess.wordpress.com

the only way to do advertising is to call people. NEVER TRUST GOOGLE!
I regret trusting Blogger to do the site I use. They CENSOR. I know they do. They did it to me. They CENSORED the Israeli government during Cast Lead and you should see the things they leave up there that are murder threats to me.

Brooklyn teacher Sabrina Milo held on $100K bail, threatened it would be 'Columbine all over again'

for crying out loud... have mercy and let the lady go. have you been to school? she cracked, but I doubt she is a bad person. This is why you don't want our government money going here. Should she be punished? No. She needs to not teach again. I've seen this kind of thing happen before with teachers where they go rouge. Sadly there is a lot of truth in their insanity. via nydailynews.com

Libya... WTF are we doing there?

should our army do something? yeah... probably a good idea to secure the Sea. Then let these people kill each other if they really want to. These nice Muslims were doing us a favor by killing each other off. Why stop them?

Once again Steyn simply nails it.

If I recall correctly, we went into Libya — or, at any rate, over Libya — to stop the brutal Qaddafi dictatorship killing the Libyan people. And thanks to our efforts a whole new mass movement of freedom-loving democrats now has the opportunity to kill the Libyan people. As the Los Angeles Times reported from Benghazi, these democrats are roaming the city “rousting Libyan blacks and immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa from their homes and holding them for interrogation as suspected mercenaries or government spies.” According to the New York Times, “Members of the NATO alliance have sternly warned the rebels in Libya not to attack civilians as they push against the regime of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.” We dropped bombs on Qaddafi’s crowd for attacking civilians, and we’re prepared to do the same to you! “The coalition has told the rebels that the fog of war will not shield them from possible bombardment by NATO planes and missiles, just as the regime’s forces have been punished.”
So, having agreed to be the Libyan Liberation Movement Air Force, we’re also happy to serve as the Qaddafi Last-Stand Air Force. Say what you like about Barack Obama, but it’s rare to find a leader so impeccably multilateralist he’s willing to participate in both sides of a war. It doesn’t exactly do much for holding it under budget, but it does ensure that for once we’ve got a sporting chance of coming out on the winning side. If a coalition plane bombing Qaddafi’s forces runs into a coalition plane bombing the rebel forces, are they allowed to open fire on each other? Or would that exceed the U.N. resolution?

Read it all.

via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

JEWS IN SPACE! The Mel Brooks Movie that was NEVER MADE!

...and no... SPACEBALLS doesn't count. besides... BARF is dead. HA!...no dumb ass... I'm not saying John Candy was a Jew.

If all goes according to plan, by December 2012 a team of three young Israeli scientists will have landed a tiny spacecraft on the moon, explored the lunar surface, and transmitted live video back to earth, thereby scooping up a $20 million prize (the Google Lunar X Prize), revolutionizing space exploration, and making the Jewish State the third nation (after the U.S. and Russia) to land a probe on the moon. And they’re doing it in their spare time.
The three engineers – Yariv Bash (electronics and computers), Kfir Damari (communication systems), and Yonatan Winetraub (satellite systems) all have high-level day jobs in the Israeli science and technology world, and also both teach and study. They all had heard of the Google Lunar X Prize independently, before being introduced by mutual friends who, as Yonatan puts it “thought we were all crazy enough to do it, so we should meet each other.”
By the end of November 2010 they had sketched together a novel plan to win the prize and submitted it to organizers. Only on December 21 (10 days before the December 31 deadline) did they set about raising the $50,000 entry fee. “Like good Israelis we left it to the last minute,” Yonatan laughs.
Since then they’ve recruited around 50 volunteers from across the Israeli science and technology community and have gained support from academic institutions, including the prestigious Weizmann Institute of Science (founded in 1933 by Chaim Weizmann, himself a successful chemist who went on to become Israel’s first president). They’re operating as a non-profit (“we’re looking for stakeholders,” says Project Coordinator Ronna Rubinstein), and any winnings will be invested in promoting science among Israeli youth.
The X Prize’s organizers say their competition is intended to attract “mavericks” who “take new approaches and think creatively about difficult problems, resulting in truly innovative breakthroughs.” They see the moon as a largely untapped resource, and believe that “inexpensive, regular access to the Moon is a critical stepping stone for further exploration.”
Maverick and creative thinkers the Israeli trio appear to be: According to the X Prize organizers, the 29 competing teams will spend between $15 million and $100 million on the project, with the earliest launch not scheduled until 2013. The Israelis aim to spend less than that (around $10 million) and to launch before 2013.
“One of reasons that we’re able to do this,” Kfir (who started programming aged six and wrote his first computer virus aged 11) explains, “is because of our different perspective. Most space missions aim to last many years and so have to be built in a certain way. Ours doesn’t have to last as long. This saves cost.”
Another way the team intends to keep costs down involves utilizing existing technology that just hasn’t previously been linked up for this purpose, rather than spending a new fortune. Naturally the team isn’t releasing specific details of the technology they’re using, but they’re confident that they’ve got what they need.
And once they’re on the moon? “The actual robot will be something the size of a coca-cola bottle,” says Yonatan. “Think about it – a cell phone has most of the capabilities necessary for communication and imaging, and to that we need to add a hopper” to move around the moon. “Simple” really. And the impact of this? “Once we do this it will break the glass ceiling,” Yonatan adds, “and show that space exploration doesn’t have to be expensive.”
As to why they got involved? “Three reasons,” say Yonatan,  “Creating national pride, really putting Israel on the map as a start-up nation by doing something only the superpowers have done, and reigniting Israeli interest in science.” And it’s the third – rejuvenating interest among Israeli youth in science – that’s closest to these young scientists’ hearts.
In the 1960s and 1970s, they say, many young Israelis pursued careers in science, in part inspired by the American space program. Today that isn’t the case, and the number of high school seniors majoring in science is constantly declining. “We want to show that science isn’t just about sitting in a lab all day,” says Kfir.
In 1919 French hotelier Raymond Orteig offered $25,000 for the first non-stop flight between New York City and Paris. Eight years later Charles Lindbergh, considered an underdog, won the prize by making the crossing in his “Spirit of St. Louis.” That not only changed the way people saw flying, but how they saw the world.
The X Prize was inspired by the Orteig Prize, and if the “Spirit of Israel” is successful they can certainly count on changing how young Israelis see science and how others see Israel. They may also change how we all see the universe.
Daniel Freedman is the director of strategy and policy analysis at The Soufan Group, a strategic consultancy. His writings can be found at www.dfreedman.org. He writes a fortnightly column for Forbes.com.

via blogs.forbes.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Muslims and Moral Handicaps

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wants an investigation into Koran burning. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that this form of free speech could be banned. Senator Lindsey Graham is also looking for ways to limit free speech, saying, "Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war".

Free speech is more than a great idea, it's a fundamental freedom untouchable by legislators. But all it takes is a few Muslim murders-- and Reid, Breyer and Graham eagerly hold up their lighters to the Constitution. Free speech has been curtailed before in the United States during a time of war-- but only free speech sympathetic to the enemy. During WW1 a suspected German propagandist filmmaker was jailed. But could anyone have imagined anti-German propagandists being jailed? The Wilson administration was behaving unconstitutionally, but not insanely.

Today we aren't jailing filmmakers who traffic in anti-American propaganda in wartime. If we did that half of Hollywood would be  behind bars. Instead Democratic and Republican Senators are discussing banning speech offensive to the enemy. Because even though they're killing us already-- we had better not provoke them or who knows how much worse it will become.

Traditionally it's the victors who give their laws to the defeated. But massive immigration at home and nation building occupations abroad mean that the defeated of failed states are imposing their Sharia law on us. We're asked to trade in our Constitutional freedoms out of fear of Muslim violence. And so the murderers impose the terms of peace on us. And then don't abide by them.

Violence in the Muslim world is a constant. We have been fighting Muslim violence since George Washington's time. And we have been subject to it even longer. Whether it's Muslims killing Hindus, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians or any and every religion under the sun-- there is a pattern here. It's a story as old as time. And it's not one that we can stop by ladling out honeyed words of appeasement.

Senator Graham warns us to shut up in a time of war-- but is there any foreseeable future in which we won't be fighting in a Muslim country? Democrats elected the most anti-war candidate of the bunch only to see him begin his 2012 reelection campaign by bombing another Muslim country. And what's surprising about that. Most of the trouble spots in the world that directly or indirectly affect us are located in Muslim countries. The major threat to the United States comes from the Muslim world. And that means we're going to be tied up dealing with the Muslim world in one way or another, whether as soldiers, diplomats or aid workers. And even if we weren't-- there are hundreds of thousands of Americans still living and working in Muslim countries. Hostages to the latest Muslim temper tantrum.

As Muslim terror has gotten worse, we have started treating the Muslim world like a ticking bomb-- tiptoeing around them to avoid setting them off. Whatever they don't like about us, we're willing to change. The paradigm of the angry dog or the ticking bomb means that we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. Whatever you do, the dog mauls you and the bomb blows up. But by pretending that you control the situation, you can feel better about your role in the outcome.

When a man teases a dog on the other side of a chain link fence-- we blame the man for provoking the dog, not the dog for being provoked. Animals have less of everything that makes for accountability. And so don't hold them accountable. Instead we divide them into categories of dangerous and harmless, and treat them accordingly.

Our response to Muslim violence in Afghanistan, supposedly touched off by a Koran burning in Florida, uses that same canine logic. The Muslims are dangerous and violent, so whoever provokes them is held accountable for what they do. Don't tease a doberman on the other side of a chain link fence and don't tease Muslims on the other side of the border or the world. That's the takeaway from our elected and unelected officials.

But the Muslim rioters are not dogs, they are human beings whose moral responsibility is being denied by treating their violence as a reflexive act. Their violence is not unconscious or instinctual-- it emerges out of a decision making process. There is nothing inevitable about what happened in Afghanistan. If Muslims had some sort of hair trigger, then why was the violent rioting confined to a very specific part of the world. For the same reason that the reaction to the Dutch cartoons took so long. And why was it directed at the UN and not the US. The Koran burning was not the cause of Muslim violence-- but a rationalization for existing violence that would have occurred anyway for reasons having nothing to do with Terry Jones. And by treating Muslims like the 'Morally Handicapped' who have no choice but to kill when something offends them, we are not doing any favors for them or us.

It is far more insulting to treat Muslims as if they have no ability to control themselves and have no responsibility for their actions-- than it is to burn their Koran. That is an assessment that even many Muslims would agree with.

To blame Jones for their actions, we must either treat murder as a reasonable response to the burning of a book, or grant that Jones has a higher level of moral responsibility than the rioters do. There are few non-Muslims who could defend the notion that burning the Koran is a provocation that justifies bloodshed. And virtually no liberal would openly concede that he believes Muslims are morally handicapped-- but then why does he treat them that way?

If a Christian had torched a mosque in response to the Muslim arson of churches in Africa-- is there any liberal columnist or pundit who would have directed the lion's share of the blame at the original Muslim arsonists? No. The mosque burning would be treated as an independent act with no linkage to the church arsons. That is the attitude of Western jurisprudence which does not allow one crime to justify another, let alone one provocation to justify a crime. Individuals are treated as responsible moral actors-- not shooting balls in a pinball machine. Why then does this standard fly out the window when it comes to Muslims? Why does the press so easily sink into the rhetoric of 'retaliation and 'provocation', treating Muslim terrorism as a reflex, rather than a chosen act.

Is it not because for all their fanciful prose about the Religion of Peace, they do indeed see Muslims as dogs on the other side of a chain link fence. "Don't tease the dog, son, and it won't hurt you."

Liberalism begins as condescension toward lower class violence and culminates in complicity with it. Class warfare treated the poor as less morally responsible than the rich because of their deprivation and persecution. By treating physical deprivation as equivalent to moral deprivation, they became guilty of a far worse prejudice than those they were combating. They had declared that the poor were subhuman. When class warfare gave way to race warfare, they repeated the same ugly trick, romanticizing the Black Panthers and empowering thugs and rioters who destroyed black and white communities. The discriminated against were not bound by the same moral code as the discriminators. Their violence was 'purer' because it was a reflex against their conditions that they could not control. And so liberals who lectured ceaselessly about racism, were treating minorities as less than human.

Now in the age of Globalism-- Muslims are the new oppressed, exempted from the norms of civilized society. The morally handicapped who cannot be expected to turn the other cheek, the way we're supposed to.

But Muslims are not morally disabled-- they are immorally enabled. Muslim violence is a choice. Their choice. It is not a reflex or a reaction or a pinball bouncing off the cycle of violence. It is not something that we are responsible for. It is something that they and only they are responsible for. By pretending otherwise, we are immorally enabling them. Treating them like mad dogs or ticking time bombs just guarantees that they will play their part and fulfill our expectations by mauling or exploding.

We have never held Muslims morally accountable for anything they do. Not as a religion or as countries or individuals. Instead we pretend that Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi are the problem. A handful of extremists and a few bad leaders somewhere. Not the people themselves. Never them.

Instead we have treated Muslims as the morally handicapped, too morally feeble to understand that violence is not the answer to everything from your daughter sneaking out with a boy to a pastor torching the Koran for a BBQ. And they have reacted exactly as people do when they know they will not be held accountable for their actions.

Treating someone as dangerous gives them power over you. They will test that power and then use it. Allowing yourself to be intimidated is the first step to being defeated. For many it is also the last step. We treated Muslims as dangerous and then we insist loudly that we love them very much and aren't afraid of them at all. Guess who we're fooling? Only ourselves. Every time there's a terror alert or American politicians talk about the wonders of the Koran-- the Muslim world sees it as evidence of their power over us. And when a Koran is burned, that just means we need further intimidating. It's a cycle of violence, but we're not the ones driving it except through our appeasement.

Muslims have stifled their own moral development-- but we haven't helped either. And the only way we can do that is to push them toward a moral reckoning. Instead we have bought into their genocidal narrative, enabled their violence and empowered the murderous aspects of their ideology. It's time that stopped. Lies and flattery will not prevent the violence. Only the confrontation of truth can force a moral reckoning.

Senator Graham wishes there was a way to hold Koran burners accountable for violence carried out by Koran readers, but what we really need is a way to hold Koran believers accountable for their own violence.

0 comments Permalink

via sultanknish.blogspot.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Muslim student defends Israel at UN? Still Taqqiyya to me. The PROBLEM is ISLAM!

Amran Hussain spoke at the UN on behalf of the European Union of Jewish Students. I still think he should take a look at his religion and decide if the words of a genocidal maniac whose entire purpose was to turn G-d into a get rich scheme at the expense of those who questioned him is worth identifying with.

(h/t אורי פלג) via elderofziyon.blogspot.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

James Dean and Ronald Reagan: RARE Not Seen in 50 Years

Ronald Reagan -in 1948 a liberal Democrat - campaigns on the radio for President Truman who approved Israel. He also supports Hubert Humphrey for Senator from Minnesotta. This footage is Ronald's first evolution into the Conservative that we know him as

The Muslim Brotherhood in America: Part III--'The Settlement Process'

Thus far in our journey towards better understanding the threat from the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in the United States, we have laid the foundation of their global strategy, their foundational beliefs, and their arrival in the U.S. in the 1960’s.  As we have discussed, the Brotherhood established their first organization in 1963 at the University of Illinois in Urbana – the Muslim Students Association (MSA) – and from the MSA, nearly every major Islamic organization in the United States was formed – all MB front groups.

But how did the Brotherhood actually insinuate itself into the fabric of America?  How is it possible that today the most prominent Islamic organizations in North America are controlled by the Brotherhood and actually seek to subordinate the individual liberties of Americans (and Canadians) to the slavery of Shariah (Islamic Law)?  In Part III of this series, we set out to help clarify the way the MB “settled” here in America.  Please note the MB did so with their objectives clearly at the forefront of their minds – (1) re-establish the global Islamic state (Caliphate) and (2) implement Shariah (Islamic Law).
For this exercise I will use two extremely useful Muslim Brotherhood documents.  The first is a speech given by Zaid Naman (aka Zeid al Noman), a member of the MB’s Board of Directors and the “Masul” (Leader) of the MB’s Executive Office in the United States.  Naman was speaking in the early-1980’s to a group of Muslim Brothers in the U.S.  A recording of this speech was discovered in the 2004 FBI raid of the Annandale, Virginia residence of Hamas/MB official Ismail Elbarasse, where the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. were found.  The English transcript of this speech was entered into evidence at the US v HLF trial in Dallas 2008 – the largest successfully prosecuted terrorism financing and Hamas trial in U.S. history.  This speech is so powerful because this group of Muslim Brothers shared the history and strategy of the Brotherhood here in the U.S. with the expectation their comments would never see the light of day.
The second source is the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategic document – An Explanatory Memorandum – dated 1991 and also seized during the Elbarasse raid in 2004.  This document was written by Mohamed Akram, a senior Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood official in the U.S. at the time, and approved by the MB’s Shura Council and Organizational Conference – the two governing bodies within the MB structure here.  (The third part of the MB structure is the “General Masul” or Leader of the MB for the entire U.S.)
Both of these documents were entered into evidence at the HLF trial and stipulated to by the defense, which means they are legally what they purport to be.
As you read this, consider the MB’s entire effort as a massive Influence Operation – or for the professionals,  a massive counter-intelligence operations – not “terrorism.”
Naman acknowledges that after the formation of the MSA in the U.S. in the early 1960’s, there was not a lot of organization, and he describes this period as a “Gathering or a grouping for Islam activists without an organizational affiliation.”  But the MSA was the center of the activity: 
“As for Recruitment in the ranks of this Movement, its main condition was that a brother…must be active in the general activism in the MSA.”  As Muslim Brothers came from various countries, they settled in small groups or “usras” (families), sometimes hundreds of miles apart.  They were called to recruit other arriving Muslims into the Brotherhood, and do what they could with what they had.  The object was to grow these usras  into large groups of Muslim Brothers so, eventually, the growing concentric circles of influence covered large areas.
As Naman puts it:  “The first generation of Muslim Ikhwans in North America composed of a team which included he who was Ikhwan in his country or he who was a member of the Worshipers of the Merciful Group or he who doesn’t have a direction but who is active in Islamic activism.  This was the first point or group which gave or planted the Muslim Brotherhood seed in America.”
By the 1970’s, arriving Brotherhood members were upset with the lack of activism and recruitment in the U.S. by the MB already here.   Saudi Muslim Brothers and others came to America and joined the ranks.  They demanded clearer commitments and “Ikhwan formulas” of how to accept Muslims into the MB ranks of “this Dawa’a and to make work secret.”
The MB established 5-year plans, the first of which, from 1975-1980 was the period of “General work and dedication to general work organizations.”  During this time the Brotherhood went through infighting and turmoil as it sought to organize and agree on strategies and tactics.
By 1980, the Brotherhood emerged with strong leadership and a more focused commitment to the long-term strategy.  1981-1985 was a period of “Regional Planning and Growth.”  Over time, the Brotherhood organized regionally in the U.S. and formed “Coordination Councils” which had leadership and committees to begin better organizing their efforts. Plans were developed, and the Brotherhood came up with primary and secondary goals for the Movement at that time.
“The main goals which were approved by the executive office were five…First of all:  Strengthening the internal structure; second, administrative discipline; third, recruitment and settlement of the Dawa’a; four, energizing the organizations’ work; five, energizing political work fronts.  Also, it adopted eight of the secondary goals on top of which were:  finance and investment; second, foreign relations; third, reviving women’s activities; four, political awareness to members of the Group; five, securing the Group; six, special activity; seven, media; eight, taking advantage of human potentials.” (emphasis added)
Later in the Q & A session, Naman is asked about the aforementioned statement.  An unidentified Muslim Brother asks, “By ‘Securing the Group’ do you mean military securing?”  Naman responds with:  “No, Military Work is listed under ‘Special Work.’  Special work means military work.  ‘Securing the Group’ is the groups security, the Group’s security against outside dangers.  For instance, to monitor the suspicious movements…which exist on the American front such as Zionism and Masonry…etc.  Monitoring the suspicious movements or the sides, the government bodies such as CIA, FBI, etc, so that we find out if they are monitoring us, are we not being monitored, how can we get rid of them.  That’s what is meant by ‘Securing the Group.’”
The aforementioned comment needs little reinforcement, except to add that inherent to the MB structure is the “Special Section” which conducts “special activity” or activity more commonly known to us as “terrorism.”  This includes assassinations, bombings, kidnappings, etc.  And that’s what makes it “Special Work.”
Additionally, during the speech Naman mentions the differences between Muslim Brothers coming to the U.S. from various nations, and how difficult it is in those nations to partake in certain activities.  He offers one pertinent example for us:  “…if the asking brother is from Jordan, for instance, he would know that it is not possible to have military training in Jordan, for instance, while here in America, there is weapons training at many of the Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) camps…”
When later asked by an apparently irritated Brother as to why some Brothers in the U.S. get weapons training and others do not, Naman responds with, “By God, the first thing is that you thank God and praise him because you found a camp to meet in.  You know that, for instance, Oklahoma has become a blocked area for you.  You cannot meet in it in the first place right?  …My brothers, according to what I learned in Oklahoma they started to be strict about letting Muslims use the camps.  They would ask them, for instance, to submit their name and would ask you to bring and ID or something to prove your name…In some of the regions when they go to a camp, they take two things, they would request a camp that has a range, a shooting range and one which has a range to shoot, one which has a range which they use for shooting.  You would find that in some of the camps.”
These comments by Naman are in line with the MB’s “Phases of the World Underground Movement Plan,” a five phase plan to overthrow the United States which includes the comment under Phase IV:  “Training on the use of weapons domestically and overseas in anticipation of zero hour.  It has noticeable activities in this regard.”
Interestingly, Naman assesses that the Muslim Brotherhood’s efforts in the U.S. – and the West – are more cohesive than elsewhere in the world.  “Except in America and in Europe, we do not find unified movements which work in that way, to be able to try to melt all of the Ikhwans (Muslim Brothers’) experiences into one pot…under one umbrella…Here in America we find the practical application for this…idea which is the Group’s unity in one movement.”
Just prior to this speech, in early 1981, the MB created the Shura Council here in the United States whose role is “planning and monitoring executive (MB) leadership.”  “The current Shura Council  came on board to finish what its brothers started on the span of the past seven years to lead this Group to new horizons, God willing, keeping its eyes on huge goals among which is the settlement of this Group.”
“By ‘settlement of the Dawa’a’, the Muslim Brotherhood Dawa’a is meant.”
Dawa’a is the “call to Islam.”  In Muslim Brotherhood doctrine, this Dawa’a is the process by which the MB works to achieve its primary objectives.  It is the foundation for the “Settlement Process.”
Per their strategic document, the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Movement in North America are:  (1) Establishing an effective and stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood; (2) Adopting Muslim causes domestically and globally; (3) Expanding the observant Muslim base; (4) Unifying and directing Muslim efforts; (5) Presenting Islam as a civilization alternative; (6) Supporting the establishment of the Islamic State wherever it is.
Furthermore, this strategic document states:  “It must be stressed that it has become clear and emphatically known that all is in agreement that we must “settle” or “enable” Islam and its Movement in this part of the world.  Therefore, a joint understanding of the meaning of the word settlement or enablement must be adopted.”
“The Concept of Settlement…Settlement:  That Islam and its Movement become a part of the homeland it lives in.”
“The Process of Settlement:  In order for Islam to become ‘a part of the homeland’ in which it lives…the Movement must plan and struggle to obtain ‘the keys’ and the tools of this process in carry (sic) out this grand mission as a “Civilization Jihadist” responsibility which lies on the shoulders of the Muslims and – on top of them – the Muslim Brotherhood in this country.”
Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America:
The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack.
Putting It Into Practice
The above paragraph IS the MB strategy.  Civilization-Jihad “by their hands” – OUR hands.  The Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy for destroying the United States is to get us, specifically our leadership, to do the bidding of the MB for them. The Muslim Brotherhood intends to conduct Civilization Jihad by co-opting our leadership into believing a counterfactual understanding of Islam and the nature of the Muslim Brotherhood, thereby coercing these leaders to enforce the MB narrative on their subordinates. Be assured they are doing this with great success.
Political, military, law enforcement, media, and religious leaders are being duped across America by the MB leadership.  The approach tactics differ depending on the targeted organization – ie for media the approach may be a “civil rights” basis, while for Christian leaders it will be based on the Muslims’ claiming they are “also followers of Jesus” without the explanation that to the Muslims, Jesus was a Muslim prophet.
Here is how it works:  a leader of an MB front, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) for
instance, who has been a Muslim Brother for 40 years, is a classically trained intelligence officer from a foreign nation, has been in the U.S. for 20+ years, and is a naturalized U.S. citizen, approaches a senior government official (usually with zero counterintelligence training).  The Muslim Brother says he is from the largest and “most prominent Muslim organization in America” or words to that effect.  He explains he has come to help the official discern fact from fiction about Islam and help deter “radicalization” as well as “Islamaphobia” in the local community.  The Brother says he has experience in “building bridges” between the U.S. government and the Muslim community, and even produces photographs with other senior government officials and community leaders.  The official, unaware ISNA is a MB and Hamas support entity, an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest successfully prosecuted Hamas case in U.S. history, and the “nucleus” for the Islamic Movement here, begins working with this Muslim Brotherhood leader.  They have discussions in the government office building where the senior official works, and the Muslim Brother tells the official ISNA is “moderate” (because he says so) but if he or any of the Muslims at ISNA hear of any “radicals” in the area, they will be sure to let the official know.  They also talk about the Brother’s concern about how “aggressive” the U.S. government is perceived in the local Muslim community, and the “fear of backlash” against them.  “We want to help you,” the Hamas/MB leader will say, “but we need assurances from you that you will not unnecessarily target Muslims for investigation or go into our Mosques unannounced.  In exchange, we will be sure to tell you if there is anything nefarious going on in the Muslim community.”  The government official buys off on this and, in the interest of deepening the relationship with the Muslim and the community-at-large, the government official complies with the MB’s request and eases off.  The two men have lunch weekly and develop a relationship – the government official thinks the Muslim Brother actually likes him.  The Muslim Brother is actually quite likeable.  He was trained to be “likeable” during his counterintelligence training in his home country, which he has perfected during his last 40 years of operating for many of those years in hostile countries before coming to the U.S.
Over time, the government official establishes policies and procedures based the advice given to him by the Muslim Brother, which the official has never backstopped to determine if it is factually accurate.  A year later, evidence comes to light identifying the Muslim Brother and the true nature of his intentions.  The government official must now make a choice.  Does he cut off his relationship with his “Muslim friend” and, therefore, admit he was duped and created policies and procedures for his agency based on disinformation fed to him by a Muslim Brother?  Or does he silence his subordinates who have brought facts forward clearly identifying the enemy?  Sad to say, around the country today, the latter is occurring at a exponentially higher rate than the former.
This is Civilization-Jihad “by their hands,” and evidence of it can be seen in:  our universities – many of which have MSA chapters and host Hamas and MB speakers on a regular basis with the support of university Presidents and Boards who silence students challenging the school or Hamas; our intelligence and national security apparatus where analysts and agents on the ground who understand the Muslim Brotherhood threat are disciplined, subject to internal investigations, and threatened with termination for doing their jobs, going after the MB, and speaking up about this threat; our war colleges – at which Muslim Brothers serve as Distinguished Professors or Chairs of Middle Eastern studies programs and pollute the dialogue and suppress any attempt to speak truth into the threats from the Islamic Movement;  our financial institutions – many of which are “Shariah Compliant” per the MB’s request and at the direction of the U.S. Treasury Department; our churches and synagogues – which only seem to outreach to Muslim Brotherhood front groups (note: ISNA is the certifying authority for all Muslim Chaplains in DoD and in the U.S. Bureau of Prisons) and which join the MB in protests against government investigations of anything “Muslim” or “Islamic” (e.g. Congressman King hearings); and the list goes on.
The MB Settled in America to subordinate the Constitution to Shariah.  The “Process” by which they did it is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process.”  Their methodology is to subvert the primary/foundational institutions in our nation and co-opt our leadership.  At a quick glance it appears the score at halftime of this football game is 200-0 in their favor.  Time for us to take off the baseball uniforms and engage the MB on the football field.

by John Guandolo via humanevents.com

image via moderntokyotimes.com

The Muslim Brotherhood in America: Part I: Understanding the Threat

The Muslim Brotherhood in America: Part II: MB History & Their Arrival in America

 

Facebook sued for negligence over "Third Intifada" page

Facebook's Official Response on Facebook Intifada Page

...facebook said it started"peacefully"?...image was from some newspaper in...Seattle

Less than a week after Facebook removed a "cause" page calling for a "Third Intifada,"the social networking website and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg were hit with a lawsuit seeking more than $1 billion in damages, AFP reported Saturday.The suit, which AFP acquired from technology blog TechCrunch, was filed in the Washington DC Superior Court by Larry Klayman, a self-described "American citizen of Jewish origin" who is "active with matters concerning the security of Israel and all people." Klayman claimed that Facebook showed "negligence" bu not quickly responding the the calls to shut down the "Third Intifada" page. via jpost.com

Larry Klayman, a renowned American activist, former Justice Department prosecutor, former U.S. Senate candidate and book author, says he has sued both Facebook and founder Mark Zuckerberg for over $1 billion after the social networking giant failed to remove a page calling for a third intifada against Israel’s Jewish population swiftly enough.

The suit was filed yesterday in Washington by Klayman, himself of Jewish origin. The complaint is embedded below.
Klayman, who founded controversial law firm Judicial Watch as well as political advocacy group Freedom Watch, alleges that Zuckerberg and Facebook willfully kept a page calling for a third Palestinian intifada against Jews online to “further their revenues and the net worth” of the company. The page, which was removed on March 29 because, according to Facebook, it indeed made “direct calls for violence” in violation of its policies.
...
The removal of the page, which according to Klayman was “begrudgingly” ordered after increased pressure was exerted by himself, the Israeli government and organizations like the Anti-Defamation League, did not stop him from filing suit against the company.
The activist argues that damage has already been done, and that he fears for his life since he’s been “called a Zionist publicly by radical Palestinians and other such Arabic interests” and is “thus a target of this call to kill Jews” along with other prominent public figures.
The complaint alleges assault and negligence, gross negligence and recklessness on Facebook’s part. It reserves the right to be amended into a class action suit and prays for damages in excess of $1 billion, plus an award of attorneys fees and costs.

Can we call this the mother of all SLAPP suits? Heh.

via israelmatzav.blogspot.com
 ...this blogger would like in on the class action

...Seriously! Violent Intifada page Removed
...................................via challahhuakbar.blogspot.com

Pity the folks in Washington's 7th District. Sadly their actions effect the rest of us

It's good to see these people have maintained their sense of proportion.

And since there is no overt threat of violence, this will remain on Facebook indefinitely.
No, this is not an April Fools Day joke.

Mark Zuckerberg is the next dictator to Go |ثورة على مؤسس الفيسبوك

About	Reopen the Third Palestinian Intifada Page now ! Freedom for all ppl مطالبنا اعادة فتح صفحة الانتفاضة... الحرية ملك للجميع

Description	This page is established by a group of Arab and International activists who support the Palestinain cause calling for revolution against Mark Zukirberg founder and director of Facebook after closing a page which calls for Palestinian uprising.
General Information	Reopen the Third Palestinian Intifada Page now ! Freedom for all ppl مطالبنا اعادة فتح صفحة الانتفاضة... الحرية ملك للجميع

Maybe they should just stick to that all-Muslim boycott of Facebook they promised

Hat tip: ES

via daledamos.blogspot.com

Another Look At Colonel Richard Kemp--The Man Goldstone Purposely Ignored

There was no reliance on Col. Kemp mainly because the Report did not deal with the issues he raised regarding the problems of conducting military operations in civilian areas and second-guessing decisions made by soldiers and their commanding officers in the fog of war. The Mission avoided having to do so in the incidents it decided to investigate.“
Richard Goldstone in letter to Maurice Ostroff

Of course, anyone who has had even a cursory look at the report knows that that is exactly what the Goldstone Report did: deal with the issues he raised regarding the problems of conducting military operations in civilian areas and second-guessing decisions made by soldiers and their commanding officers in the fog of war.
Let's face it. Goldstone is not saying anything in his Friday mea culpa that we didn't already know.
If he had listened to Colonel Richard Kemp in the beginning instead of ignoring his testimony, Goldstone could have avoided having to backtrack now.
Here are 2 videos of what Kemp said:

BBC: Former British Army Colonel Richard Kemp Discusses IDF Gaza Ops

British Colonel: "The IDF Did More to Safeguard Civilians Than Any Other Army"

via daledamos.blogspot.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Texas Gang Rapes 11 year old Girl- Muslim Activist is Defending the Rapist

1- The New York times itself drew attention more towards the victim actions then the Rapist
2- I would like to KNOW why THis MUSLIM LEADER is Protecting the RAPIST
3 -The UK blames Blacks and ASIANS for Gang Rapes that are perpetrated by MUSLIM -- are we now doing the same?
4-How are people to protect themselves when the assaults are not Identified - It is FACT that Gang rapes on Non muslims are happening- IT IS FACT that in Islamic Nations Rape of NON MUSLIMS go unpunished

The Quran list it as bootie of War--So should this assault that is spreading to UK EU US AUSTRALIA not be Report on and Explained with FACTS
--------------------------
Who is this Muslim Leader ??? - this News seems like Pre 1960
Texas: Eleven-Year-Old Gang Rape Victim Blamed for Crime (Them boys didn't rape her)
At a Thursday night meeting to discuss concerns about a gang rape investigation has degraded into allegations that the eleven-year-old victim is to blame.
Many who attended the meeting in Cleveland, Texas support the group of men charged with the crime.
More than 130 people attended the meeting led by Quanell X, a Houston activist in the black community, who insisted that his goal was not to "jump on an 11-year-old girl" but to question the police investigation.
His concern centered around the fact that only young black men were arrested, and although he believes some charged are guilty, others are not.
After the meeting, Fox News reports that many people believe she had sex with the boys, but was not raped. They mentioned her manner of dress, and said she "must have lied about her age."
Angie Woods, who grew up in Cleveland, doubts the claim also, saying she lied about her age. "Them boys didn't rape her. She wanted this to happen. I'm not taking nobody's side, but if she hadn't put herself in that predicament, this would have never happened."....



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quanell X And The Cleveland, Texas Gang Rape Circus

This one comes courtesy of the notorious Quanell X (whose real name is Quanell Ralph Evans), who’s the Al Sharpton/Louis Farrakhan of Houston. He’s a New Black Panther sleazeball.
He’s also a Muslim. As in, he’s a Nation of Islam Muslim. Which means he probably knows less about Islam than you do other than the parts about how Jews are bad. Which he now says he was wrong about, and this was his apology to Holocaust survivors, heartfelt as can be…

“I seek the forgiveness of every survivor who has heard the words I've said. I did not say them in the proper manner to make the point I was trying to get across. I can see and understand how they might be utterly paranoid (of) a person such as myself.”
Anyway, a while back about 20 black kids gang-raped a pre-teen Hispanic girl in a town 40 miles east of Houston called Cleveland. It took forever, but arrests were finally made a few days back. And as soon as they were, Quanell showed up to have a rally in the black community in order to supposedly raise money for the legal defense of the accused.
To the video…

Quanell X Stages Rally in Cleveland: MyFoxHOUSTON.com

Since becoming a leader of the New Black Panthers, Quanell X has made himself and his views heard through public demonstrations and assistance with the surrender of outstanding suspects to law enforcement agencies. In 1999, at the trial of John William King for the 1998 slaying of James Byrd, Jr., Quanell X and his entourage briefly disrupted proceedings.

Jeffrey Battle served as a bodyguard for Quanell X in Houston during the late 1990s. Battle was notable as one of the Portland Seven, a group of American Muslims who tried to aid the Taliban in Afghanistan following the events of September 11, 2001. In October 2002 Quanell X traveled to Portland, Oregon, to attend a court hearing for October Lewis, Battle’s ex-wife. Lewis was released at the hearing. Battle was convicted of sedition, and is currently serving an 18-year prison sentence.

On March 30, 2004 Quanell X took the podium at a Houston City Council meeting and demanded that reparations for slavery be put on the council agenda. This demand had previously been denied by mayor Bill White. The exchange escalated enough that Houston police were called to remove Quanell forcibly from the chamber.

In June 2004 Quanell X was charged with evading arrest. He was on the phone with a Houston Police Department assistant police chief (Charles R. McClelland – now the HPD chief since 2010) when arranging the surrender of cop shooter Derrick Forney.

Quanell X is credited with helping officers in the March 2007 murder investigation of Texas A&M University student Tynesha Stewart. He helped obtain a confession from Timothy Wayne Shepherd, the suspect in the murder. He also criticized the Harris County sheriff’s decision not to search for Stewart’s body in a Humble, Texas area landfill, which was later discovered to be unrecoverable due to suspect burning remains in two barbecue pits.
Quanell X called for Chuck Rosenthal resignation following the email scandal that showed that he had sent and received racist messages, and organized a rally to take place outside the county courthouse January 24, 2008. On October 16, 2008, KTRK-TV reported that Quanell X was paid $20,000.00 to arrange these protests and to pack the courtroom during the related Ibarra trial.
He was instrumental in having a murder suspect, Randy Sylvester Sr., reveal the locations of his missing children. After initially giving Sylvester the benefit of the doubt, he was convinced otherwise when he went with Pasadena police and Sylvester to an apartment he maintained separately from his family’s that he called his “dog house.” There, Sylvester engaged in drugs and pornography. Quanell X would not go into detail, but other things he learned in that apartment changed his mind about Sylvester. He convinced the suspect to “Do the right thing” and lead Quanell X and police to a location just outside of Pasadena, Texas in Houston, where the charred remains were located
Source
  ABOUT THE LEFTIST NEW YORK TIMES AIDING DHIMMI TUDE
When an 11-year-old girl said she was raped multiple times by more than a dozen men in an abandoned trailer in Texas, the story made national headlines.
Just how the story of her alleged rape should be told, however, has proved to be an explosive issue, one that has exposed critical fault lines in the way society thinks about rape and the way journalists write about it.
Much of the controversy has centered on The New York Times. The newspaper's first take on the disturbing crime provoked outrage from critics who said the Times seemed to be blaming the victim for her own rape.

The first story, "Vicious Assault Shakes Texas Town," published on March 8, focused on the girl's 18 accused attackers. The article cited members of the small, impoverished community in Cleveland, Texas, who said the victim "dressed older than her age" and "would hang out with teenage boys at a playground." Those descriptions drew fire from readers, bloggers and activists who said the language was offensive to the victim.
"Why is it necessary to conjure up the image of this 11-year-old child as some tart who was asking for it?" wrote The Frisky, a women's blog. "There is no ... reason I need to know how this 11-year-old victim, or any other victim of sexual assault, dressed and wore makeup before or during the time she was physically threatened and forcibly raped."
The Times' public editor, Arthur Brisbane, agreed. "My assessment is that the outrage is understandable," he wrote March 11. "The story dealt with a hideous crime but addressed concerns about the ruined lives of the perpetrators without acknowledging the obvious: concern for the victim."

The story also sent the ever-volatile issues of gender, race and class surging to the surface.
The journalism site poynter.org, run by the Poynter Institute, accused the Times of using voyeuristic language that didn't enrich readers' understanding of the facts but instead imposed prejudices about rape in impoverished communities. "Combined with the one-sided nature of the information presented, [James] McKinley [the author] paints a voyeuristic picture that makes the rape look like a terrible event in a desolate, poor part of town -- part of the cost of living in an impoverished area," LaToya Peterson wrote on the site.
Monday, the Times published a second piece on the story, one that focused primarily on the victim and was, for the most part, better received. New York Times spokeswoman Danielle Rhoades Ha told AOL News that the second story hasn't elicited much of a response from readers.

But some criticism remained, particularly around the issue of race. The 11-year-old girl, whose identity has not been made public because of her age, is reportedly Hispanic, while many of her attackers are black, details that have heightened racial tensions in Cleveland, according to news outlets there, but failed to make a debut in either New York Times story.
Poynter spoke to Philip Corbett, associate managing editor of the Times, and explored whether the decision to omit race from the Times story was a good one. "So why weren't these racial tensions addressed in the follow-up?" Poynter asked. "Corbett said it came down to a change in focus. "The new information shifted the focus of the story somewhat away [from] the community reaction," he said, according to Poynter.
Joel Brinkley, a journalism professor at Stanford University, says it's not clear that discussing race would be helpful to readers in this case. "I'm not sure that race is relevant here," he said. "And mentioning it without reason can be harmful."
Bruce Shapiro, the executive director of the Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma, said the controversy extended far beyond The New York Times, and should make the public question the way rape and crime are covered in general.
"It's not about some reporter being an overt racist. And it's not about a reporter setting out to consciously blame a girl for being assaulted," he told AOL News by phone. "It's about, what are the assumptions we don't know we have or what are the presumptions by our sources that we're perhaps unthinkingly accepting? I think that really was probably the issue in this story."
At least one observer said the original story may have elicited such a fierce reaction because it dared to bring skepticism to accusations of rape, something that makes many readers uncomfortable.
Sponsored Links"It seemed to me that there was a lot of bending over backward [in the original Times story] to look at other possibilities or to bring the accused and their point of view into the story, and that's rare," said Bill Drummond, a UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism professor. "The tendency has been to assume that everything the victim claims is true. So more skepticism in reporting these charges of rape is about due."
He said such skepticism is especially important if the crime -- or the accusation -- touches upon the issue of race.
Shapiro said it's possible to give balance without blaming the victim.
"There are always going to be people looking to blame how a victim dressed or blame the victim's behavior," he said. "That's wrong. That's just always wrong. And I think that as journalists, we have a big responsibility to not blame the victim and instead look at how families, communities and systems either support or don't support women's expectations of safety."
Source

via 9-11domorethenneverforget-stopislam.blogspot.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Luke Russert blames free expression for deaths. Islam is innocent of course

Here’s Reuters on the savage attack of UN workers in Afghanistan:

At least eight foreign United Nations workers were killed, two of them beheaded, on Friday in the northern Afghan city of Mazar-i-Sharif after a demonstration against the burning of Korans by a United States preacher, a regional police spokesman said.
“Eight foreigners were killed and two were beheaded,” said Lal Mohammad Ahmadzai, a police spokesman for the northern region.

Over a thousand protesters had flooded into the streets of the normally peaceful city after Friday prayers, and after two or three hours violence broke out.

Luke Russert, son of St. Tim.
St. Tim--the man
who helped destroy TV news. 
It was Luke's daddy.
That's Tim's baby boy,
training in TV investigative
reporting at UVA
--in a pool. 
via natturnersrevenge.blogspot.com

Then American journalist, Luke Russert, in a perfect example of the stunning capacity of those in the West to deny moral agency to Islamists who engage in brutal violence, Tweeted the following:

Then, a bit of moral sanity form Washington Times correspondent, Eli Lake:

via cifwatch.com

H/T Challah Hu Akbar

What's a little mustard and nerve gas among friends?

US and Israeli intelligence agencies have tracked the WMD consignments from eastern Libya as far as Sudan in convoys secured by Iranian agents and Hizballah and Hamas guards. They are not believed to have reached their destinations in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, apparently waiting for an opportunity to get their deadly freights through without the US or Israel attacking and destroying them.  Word of the capture touched off a scramble in Tehran and among the terrorist groups it sponsors to get hold of their first unconventional weapons.  According to our sources, the rebels offloaded at least 2,000 artillery shells carrying mustard gas and 1,200 nerve gas shells for cash payment amounting to several million dollars.  It is also not clear whether the shells and gases were assembled upon delivery or were travelling in separate containers. Our sources report that some of the poison gas may be intended not only for artillery use but also for drones which Hizballah recently acquired from Iran.

NO GAS MASK FOR JEW: Homefront Commander Yair Golan told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that there are only enough of a budget for kits against unconventional warfare to cover 60 percent of the population. The general said that 12 percent of the gas masks have been distributed and the rest will be distributed by the end of 2011.

 

Senior Libyan rebel “officers” sold Hizballah and Hamas thousands of chemical shells from the stocks of mustard and nerve gas that fell into rebel hands when they overran Muammar Qaddafi’s military facilities in and around Benghazi, debkafile’s exclusive military and intelligence sources report.

Tehran threw its support behind the anti-Qaddafi rebels because of this unique opportunity to get hold of the Libyan ruler’s stock of poison gas after it fell into opposition hands and arm Hizballah and Hamas with unconventional weapons without Iran being implicated in the transaction.

Why, it was just about a month ago that

A senior administration official said ... that the White House had no reason to believe the current turmoil in Libya has made its chemical weapons stockpiles more vulnerable to

theft....
.... “We believe that whatever they have at this point is not in weaponized form,” said State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley.

Two weeks later Crowley was forced to resign... for calling Wikileaks leaker Bradley Manning "stupid and counterproductive."  You decide.

DEBKA reports: via bokertov.typepad.com

The Gas-Mask Community

image via ahrcanum.wordpress.com
via afana.org  via growabrain.typepad.com

More brilliance from our friends in the Pacific Northwest: Predictable:

What the hell is wrong with these so called "Progressive" witches in the North West?

Salem News didn't have a problem with his South African credentials when he was attacking Jews.
Anti-semites now attack Goldstone:

From the nutty-far-left Salem News:

Many of us knew something wasn't right with Richard Goldstone from the beginning. His seeming honesty was too good to be true.
He is the experienced former judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa and former Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, who investigated the extended attack on Gaza's civilian population in the winter of 2008 and 2009 that left more than 1400 dead, most of whom were civilian, known as 'Operation Cast Lead'.
Considering the bond that ultimately exists between Zionist Jews, the selection of Goldstone as the man to head an investigation of Israel's Gaza War Crimes was a little like having Newt Gingrich investigate Republican wrongdoing.
...And this leads to the ultimate point about Goldstone and that is that no Zionist Jew from a country that practices apartheid so recently, should have been allowed to head the investigation.

via elderofziyon.blogspot.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Robert Bernstein's new baby

Some of you may recall that a few months ago Robert Bernstein attacked Human Rights Watch - an organization that he founded - for going off course in the Middle East.
A lot of people thought that was the end of Bernstein and that he'd never be heard from again. But at 88, Bernstein has the energy of a much younger man. He's starting a new human rights organization that will do it his way.

In late February, Bernstein launched Advancing Human Rights, a new organization meant to act as a corrective, one that hopes to return human rights to what Bernstein thinks are its forgotten fundamental principles. Among its board members are Yelena Bonner, the Soviet dissident and wife of Andrei Sakharov, and Irwin Cotler, the former Canadian minister of justice.
Natan Sharansky, the onetime jailed refusenik and human rights activist who is now chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel, is an old friend of Bernstein’s. When Bernstein was head of Random House, he published Sharansky’s memoir, “Fear No Evil.” And the two share the assessment that human rights organizations have gone astray.
“It’s not every day when someone at the age of 88 realizes that the child he brought up has betrayed him, and decides to raise a new child,” Sharansky said.
The stated mandate of the new group is broader than Bernstein’s initial complaint, though it stems from it. AHR will be focused on the struggles of dissidents in closed, autocratic societies, like those in the Middle East and China. Bernstein wants the group to more closely promote those rights enshrined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights — specifically women’s rights and free speech — as opposed to the Geneva Convention and the other laws of warfare, which he thinks should be outside the purview of a human rights organization.
But underneath this new mandate, the clear motivating factor for Bernstein’s new initiative is his concern for Israel. It rises to the surface as soon as he is asked about the point of starting yet another human rights organization: Israel, as a democratic, open society, should not be under constant investigation by human rights groups, he said. The country and the way it wages war need to be better explained and defended.

Read the whole thing. Note that in this post, I don't have to talk about human rights in scare quotes.

via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Vanity Fair Blames Capitalism after Syrian Public Relations Vanity

...but seriously... the fact that "VANITY FAIR" is against CAPITALISM should be all you need to know about SOCIALIST influenced ideas. There is an elite in government and they are a hell of lot more VAIN then the rest of us!!

Vanity Fair fails to mention that they were the Vanity behind the Repressive regimes... in Syria. our American wealth that is mentioned in the "Vanity Fair" article as 1% would not pay for one year of our debt. In fact all the richest Americans would not build a city like Dubai. If you take the money away from the 1% of America... then the middle class fails to reap the benefit of the 1% which is jobs and Research and Development. It is very sad to see Vanity Fair obscuring the issue... when they were the public relations of Syria.

THE FAT AND THE FURIOUS The top 1 percent may have the best houses, educations, and lifestyles, says the author, but “their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live.” via vanityfair.com

Google/YouTube Hall of Shame

...,.JIDF_Guide....

roaches are out on YouTube....
___________________________________________________________read more via undhimmi.com