Why does Youtube keep on deleting the proof that Khader Adnan is a terrorist?

On the left is a video where CNN tries to sell the public that Khader Adnan is denied due process and that he supposedly is being held without evidence that he is a threat to the public. Notice how unfriendly the woman is to Regev who is quite professional. On the right is a video of Khader Adnan that Youtube keeps on censoring.

Seems like there is a conspiracy to hide the truth here... doesn't it? Can anyone explain how the media gets away with this? should this video get censored... I just uploaded another copy of it here.

NJ Dem Primary Gets Ugly - How is @ArefAssaf a power mover in the Democratic party? #BillPascrell #SteveRothman

(freebeacon.com) A prominent Arab supporter of New Jersey Democrat Bill Pascrell invoked the “Israel firster” specter over the weekend when he accused the state’s Jewish voters of being more loyal to Israel than America.
@ArefAssaf, president of the New Jersey-based American Arab Forum, opined Sunday evening in the New Jersey Star-Ledger about a Democratic primary that the state’s pro-Israel community is closely watching. The race pits Rep. Steve Rothman, a veteran pro-Israel stalwart, against Bill Pascrell, a well-liked Democrat who boasts a solid voting base.
Assaf accused New Jersey’s Orthodox Jewish voters of transforming the race from a domestic duel between local lawmakers into a proxy war between the state’s Jewish and Muslim communities.
“Unquestionably, this primary election is pitting two otherwise harmoniously coexisting communities: the Muslim and Jewish communities,” Assaf wrote in an article headlined “Rothman is Israel’s man in District 9.”
“As total and blind support for Israel becomes the only reason for choosing Rothman, voters who do not view the elections in this prism will need to take notice. Loyalty to a foreign flag is not loyalty to America’s,” Assaf added. (MORE)

It is frightening to think how stupid some people are if they think that guys like Mr. Assaf are merely part of an inclusive pattern in the Democratic party. This is the power base.

Tunisia heading towards a constitution based on Sharia

(EOZ) From Egypt Independent:

The third-largest party in Tunisia's constituent assembly, charged with writing a new constitution, proposed on Monday a draft document based on Islamic law which will likely alarm the country's secularists.
The moderate Islamist Ennahda party won a 40 percent share in the assembly, or 89 seats, in Tunisia's first election since the ouster of Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali a year ago sparked the Arab Spring uprisings across the region.
The non-religious Conference for the Republic won 29 seats in the 217-seat assembly and Aridha Chaabia, or Popular List, came in third. Should the proposal win the support of more than 60 percent of parliamentarians, it would pass without a referendum.
Popular List said in a statement that its draft document "stipulates in its first article that Tunisia is a free, independent and sovereign country, Islam is its religion and the principal source of its legislation, Arabic is its language and its system is a republic."
"Using Islamic Sharia as a principal source of legislation will guarantee freedom, justice, social equality, consultation, human rights and the dignity of all its people, men and women."
The proposal is certain to inflame political tensions in Tunisia, where secularists already fear that the Ennahda-led government will slowly Islamize Tunisian law and society.
Ennahda has sought to assure secularists that it has no intention of enforcing Islamic rules, but it has struggled to control more conservative Islamists who have been outspoken in their demands that religion play a greater role in public life.
The Arab Spring is catapulting the Arab world into the seventh century.

(cia.gov) The country's first president, Habib BOURGUIBA, established a strict one-party state. He dominated the country for 31 years, repressing Islamic fundamentalism and establishing rights for women unmatched by any other Arab nation. In November 1987, BOURGUIBA was removed from office and replaced by Zine el Abidine BEN ALI in a bloodless coup. Street protests that began in Tunis in December 2010 over high unemployment, corruption, widespread poverty, and high food prices escalated in January 2011, culminating in rioting that led to hundreds of deaths. On 14 January 2011, the same day BEN ALI dismissed the government, he fled the country, and by late January 2011, a "national unity government" was formed. In late October 2011, elections for a Constituent Assembly were held. The Constituent Assembly is charged with appointing a new interim government, drafting a new constitution, and preparing for legislative and presidential elections.

I'm getting a bit tired of pointing out how Obama's foregin policy is crap. It isn't fun always being right.

Incestuous twin brothers wonder if they should reveal their secret relationship.

(Gemini)(Slate)Dear Prudence,

My fraternal twin and I (both men) are in our late 30s. We were always extremely close and shared a bedroom growing up. When we were 12 we gradually started experimenting sexually with each other. After a couple of years, we realized we had fallen in love. Of course we felt guilty and ashamed, and we didn't dare tell anyone what we were doing. We hoped it was "just a phase" that we’d grow out of, but we wound up sleeping together  until we left for college. We knew this could ruin our lives, so we made a pact to end it. We attended schools far apart and limited our contact to family holidays. But we never fell out of love with each other, so after graduation we moved in together and have been living very discreetly as a monogamous couple ever since. I'm not writing to you to pass moral judgment on our relationship—we're at peace and very happy. Our dilemma is how to deal with our increasingly nosy family and friends. They know we’re gay, and we live in a state where same-sex marriage is legal, so we’re getting pressure to settle down. I feel we should continue being discreet for the rest of our lives and blow off their questions. It's nobody's business, and I fear they would find our relationship shocking and disgusting. My brother, though, is exhausted with this charade. He thinks that if we get the family together with a therapist to talk through the issues, they'll eventually accept it. I think he's out of his mind, but I also want to make him happy. Is this one of those times when honesty is not the best policy? If so, how do we get everyone to stop worrying we will die alone? I'm also concerned about the legal implications of this—would the therapist be required to report us to the authorities? Could we go to prison?

ahem

Gingrich: Obama Is Most Dangerous President In American History

{Fox News/Matzav} Tulsa, Okla. - Blasting President Obama the “most dangerous president in modern American history,” Newt Gingrich accused the White House of having an attitude towards violent Islamic extremism that puts political correctness above national security.
“Someone was arrested over the weekend for trying to blow up the US Capitol, they happened to be from Morocco,” Gingrich said, referring to the FBI arrest of Amine El Khalifi Friday while he was allegedly en route to commit a suicide bombing. “Under the Obama administration’s willful dishonesty, it would be highly inappropriate to describe what motivated him, because that would somehow be politically incorrect.”
He referred to the Defense Department’s summary report of the Fort Hood shootings, which characterized Major Hasan’s killing of 13 Americans as workplace violence rather than an attack by radical Islam. “Across the planet today, the forces of religious repression are on the march and this administration has intellectually disarmed, it has morally disarmed, it is incapable of describing what threatens us.”
Gingrich said, “Imagine in 1946, we had tried to describe the Soviet Union and the government said you aren’t allowed to used the word communist. Now any honest person knows what motivated somebody who came here. This is not smearing everybody, this is not Islamaphobia.”
The presidential contender characterized the administration of being “willfully dishonest” and then adopting a defense budget “based on that dishonesty.” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is meeting resistance from lawmakers after putting forth at $614 billion budget proposal for next year, which is nearly $32 billion less than the current budget.
“The president wants to unilaterally weaken the United States, he wants to cut the aid to Israel for its anti-ballistic missile defense, he refuses to take Iran seriously,” Gingrich said, addressing the 4000 people at Oral Roberts University. “We are in a world that is very dangerous, and I say this to those of you who represent the next generation because you’re going to bear the consequences. We are really at risk someday in your lifetime of losing an American city. We should be very sobered by the threats that are around the world. When Ahmadinejad the dictator of Iran gets up an says Israel can be eliminated from the face of the earth, we should assume he means Israel can be eliminated from the face of the earth.” The audience applauded in agreement.
“Defeating Barack Obama becomes in fact a duty of national security because the fact is he is incapable of defending the United States,” Gingrich said.

Amen

Gay activists continue to boycott only state in Middle East that doesn't execute them

Try this experiment. Pretend you are gay and walk into a gay bar... and ask the gay folks what they think of Jews. Hold your politically correct vizors aside for one second and try a little objective honesty. What does the gay community think of Jews? ...never mind Israel. I've had such brutal moments of enlightenment from the progressive community. The truth is that it wasn't this individual Progressive or Homosexual... it is the bottom line of the entire community of LGBT individuals that is rooted in Anti-Semitism. I was dealing with it my whole life and was told that I was a Homophobe for pointing out the truth... but it is the truth.

(Carl) Gay activists apparently don't know how to tell their friends from their foes. In a region where only one country in the world doesn't execute gays, gay activists have chosen that country to boycott. Yes, of course, it's Israel. Ronn Torossian got it right:

It seems that Jew-haters will always find a reason to hate the Jewish state, and will use something asinine to mask that hatred. Peter Tatchell, a leading gay activist, signed a letter this week criticizing Israel for “pinkwashing,” trying to use the acceptance of LGBTs (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community) as a “smokescreen” of supposed human rights violations of the Palestinians. In a recent letter to the media, activists from the Gay Liberation Front, Stop Clause 28, and others, stated support for the Palestinian “boycott, divestment and sanctions” campaign against Israel. It added that it is “ironic” that Israel, “in an attempt to gain a veneer of respectability by promoting itself as a liberal,” has grown tolerant towards gay people while the “oppressive regime routinely violates human rights.” So, Israel, the sole country in the Middle East which supports gay rights, is also boycotted by the gay activist community.
One wonders what these gay rights activists can possibly know about these supposed human rights violations and the on-the-ground situation in Gaza or the West Bank. Surely, they haven’t traveled or spent time there, because they would know that they wouldn’t be safe with the Hamas/Palestinian government. Of course, they haven’t spoken out about the violence Jews face in these regions. One wonders what justification Tachtell and other gay activists can have to boycott Israel, their strongest supporter in the Middle East. Tachtell’s boycott started a few months earlier when he criticized the IGLYO – the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Lesbian Youth and Student Organization for accepting an invitation from its Israeli chapter to hold its general assembly in Tel Aviv. He was among the first to criticize IGLYO for agreeing to a conference in Israel and said that he “fears that Israel may not be accessible to delegations from Arab countries.” They neglect the fact that Arabs can visit Israel, unlike Jews that seek to visit Arab countries.
Tachtell was successful in having the meeting moved from Israel, despite the fact that there is not a single member from the Arab world on the general assembly of this organization (for obvious reasons). Just as I wonder where the flotilla for peace to Syria is, so too am I amazed as gays and others pretend there’s a reason for hating Israel other than anti-Semitism. The heroic defender of human rights, Martin Luther King said it right when he said, “Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.”

Don Surber thinks this is about socialism:

Gay rights is about socialism. Maybe Israel’s biggest crime is not so much that it is a Jewish state, but that it is a refuge for so many Jewish Russian dissidents. The Soviet Union may have fallen 20+ years ago, and many people on the left are bitter over its demise.
As for Peter Tatchell specifically, I never met the man and I don’t intend to. I have no idea what he thinks of the Soviet Union. I do know that gay rights is just window dressing for his real agenda. Instead of fighting for the lives of gay Arabs, Peter Tatchell is fighting for the men who would hang them.

I disagree. I think it's about priorities. Jew hatred above all else.

if this post somehow manages to make it onto a hipsters wall on facebook... it will be deleted immediately. hipster you say... is that like artists and bohemians... ahem? They will continue to attempt to take the rights away from heterosexuals (no you have no right to be recognized by the state as a marriage with breeding potential)... but the hate just comes out of the gay communities mouth so easily.

Harvard under fire over Israel

I'm very curious. What Jewish "One State Solution" advocates were invited to the conference? It was insinuated by Moor that they were. Also Moor argues that Walt isn't even for a one state solution. So is the conference really against Jewish autonomy or is it for one state? It is hard to see this conference as being what it claims and it is also hard to swallow that the Harvard academic community is too stupid to get this.

Student-run conference eyes one-state solution (h/t Doc) By Leah Burrows
A controversy has arisen over a student-organized conference at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government focused on a one-state solution to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. Pro-Israel groups and the Kennedy School dean have criticized the conference agenda for lacking balance.
The conference’s purpose is to consider the feasibility of a single state that could encompass Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, according to organizers. It would result in the end of Israel as a Jewish state and, depending on its borders, eventually leave Jews in the minority.
The One State Conference, which is scheduled for March 3 and 4, is co-sponsored primarily by graduate-student groups, including Justice for Palestine, the Palestine Caucus and the Association for Justice in the Middle East.

Scheduled speakers include Stephen Walt, co-author of the controversial book, “The Israel Lobby”; llan Pappé, an Israeli historian who has accused his nation of ethnic cleansing; and Diana Buttu, a former spokesperson for the Palestinian Liberation Organization.
“This is a who’s who of the anti- Israel crowd,” said Rob Leikind, director of the American Jewish Committee Boston chapter. “If the organizers had invited people from a range of points of view to talk about the merits of the one-state solution, that is one thing. But there is a common thread among those present in that they have all been strong opponents of Israel, and they think that Israel should not exist in the way it does.”
Combined Jewish Philanthropies, CAMERA, Harvard Students for Israel and the Israeli Consulate to New England have also raised concerns about the conference.
In response, David Ellwood, dean of the Kennedy School, released a statement distancing the university from the conference.
“I want to emphasize once again that Harvard University and the Harvard Kennedy School in no way endorses or supports the apparent position of these student organizers or any participants they include. We hope that the final shape of the conference will be significantly more balanced,” the statement read.
Ahmed Moor, a graduate student at the Kennedy School who has been planning the event for the past year, rejected the notion that the conference should include two-state supporters.
“If I was holding a two-state conference, I wouldn’t be asked to invite people who are Kahanists, for instance, or Greater Israel types or one-staters for that matter,” Moor said. “One thing we are allowed to do as individuals, as groups of people, is circumscribe the range of the conversations we choose to have. And that’s what we’ve done here. We want to talk about one state.”
Moor said he did not expect conference participants to whitewash the challenges of the onestate solution. Several of the speakers, including Walt, do not view a one-state solution as viable, Moor said.
“In putting forth any kind of positive political program on the horizon, I think it’s important to grapple with the realities of the situation,” he said.
The university said that the event has received support from “modest” funds set aside for student conferences. Beyond that, neither Harvard nor Moor would detail other sources of funding.
“Students typically come forward with general ideas in many circumstances long before they have invited specific people or finalized a program, and generally administrators try to be supportive of student ideas for events that they are planning,” said Melodie Jackson, associate dean for communications at the Kennedy School.
Jackson noted that the conference was one of several studentorganized events at the Kennedy School this semester. Others include the Jewish Caucus Seminar Series, and The Israel Conference scheduled for April, organized by Israeli students from around the university.
Harvard Students for Israel, an undergraduate group, said it planned to write letters and op-eds in student publications against the one-state conference. However, the group said it had no plans to protest at the event.
“We want to make it clear that [the one-state solution] is a minority opinion,” said Joshua Lipson, co-president of Harvard Students for Israel. “[The conference] is presenting the one-state solution as something mainstream, when what we are seeing is something that is genuinely radical. Whether we are dovish or hawkish, we think is pretty radical to think that a sovereign state should be dismantled without discussing why it should not.”
Lipson and many of the conferences critics, emphasized that the student groups had every right to discuss a one-state solution, but expressed hope they would include a diversity of viewpoints.
“We all understand and respect academic freedom, but this is really not doing good to anyone,” said Shai Bazak, consul general of Israel to New England. “To put an end to the Jewish homeland and the Jewish people in the state of Israel, it’s something that no one with clear mind really endorses.”
For Moor, the one-state solution is an avenue for equal rights, not the destruction of the Jewish people – and that is worth a conversation, he said.
“It seems like there is a lot of pressure to abort the conversation perhaps before we’ve had a chance to engage with one another in good faith,” Moor said.