Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Reza Aslan and Hussein Ibish debate at UCLA on how best to destroy Israel

From: Jihad Watch

Ibish_Aslan_pic.jpg
Aslan (left) with Ibish (right): Did Aslan tell all his best fat and gay jokes?



Aslan is so immature, psychologically stunted and intellectually bereft that he responds to criticism of his position only by regaling his opponents with geeky abuse about being fat and gay -- did he shower the mountainous Ibish with this kind of "analysis"?

Two Islamic supremacists debate the jihad against Israel while never bothering to mention the jihad against Israel. "UCLA’s ‘one state or two’ debate," by Jonah Lowenfeld in the Jewish Journal, May 15:
For anyone who missed the debate on May 15 at UCLA between Reza Aslan and Hussein Ibish over whether the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be resolved by creating a Palestinian state alongside the Jewish one or by creating a single bi-national state, here’s the basic report of what went down.
As expected, Aslan argued that the two-state solution is “dead and buried,” and that everyone (the Israelis, the Palestinians, the Americans and other international bodies) should instead start investing resources and energy to create a single bi-national state with “soft borders.”
Ibish, meanwhile, rejected the idea that the window to create two states for two peoples has closed, and instead held out hope for the possibility that such a conflict-ending resolution could be reached in the region.
While they disagreed about what final resolution to aim for, a careful listener would have realized that Aslan and Ibish agreed on almost everything else about the conflict.
"Final solution" would be more apt than "final resolution" to describe what these two are aiming for.
Both scholars assigned blame for the failure of the peace process to many parties, but set the lion’s share of the blame at Israel’s feet. Both Ibish and Aslan saw the Israeli policy of settlement expansion as the primary reason for the failure of the peace process to progress in the nearly 20 years since the Oslo Accords were signed. Both acknowledged that, while most Israelis and most Palestinians (and most Americans, for that matter) want to see a two-state solution achieved, the likelihood of it being achieved anytime soon is very slim. 
As one student in the audience put it afterward, “They’re on the same page, but they have different views.”
Of course. The idea of Ibish and Aslan debating anything is like holding an election in a one-party state: there may be plenty of choices, but in the end they're all the same choice anyway. In blaming Israel for the persistence and insolubility of the conflict, they ignore the jihadist intransigence of the "Palestinians," and the repeated aspiration, frequently enunciated on official PA TV, to destroy Israel utterly. Ibish and Aslan must know that Israel has made concession after concession (notably the withdrawal from Gaza) in hope of bringing about peace, but these concessions have never been reciprocated or even met with good will. And of course they do know this. That they ignore and try to obscure it, and ignore the role of jihad in the conflict altogether, reveals their true agenda, which is in service of that jihad.
But confronted with the question of how the parties should proceed in resolving this seemingly intractable conflict, the two Muslim scholars [sic] parted ways. 
“I’m advocating the one-state solution for one simple reason: there is no other solution,” said Aslan, calling the prospect of two states for two peoples “a sham” and “a charade."
Pointing to the 600,000 Israelis who are currently living beyond the so-called green line that divides pre-1967 Israel from the territories it conquered during the war that year, Aslan argued, in no uncertain terms, that the infrastructure of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank had simply crowded out any possible space for a second state.
“There will never be a Palestinian state,” he said. “Ever. That is the truth.”
Ibish disagreed. “The majority of Israelis are, rather strongly, in favor of two state solution; the majority of Palestinians are in favor of a two-state solution,” he said. “So it’s a question of political will.”
With that political will, Ibish said he believed that the Israelis would dismantle West Bank settlements in order to achieve peace, and cited the examples of Gaza and the Northern West Bank as evidence of their willingness to do so.
“Walls go up and walls come down,” Ibish said.
Throughout the debate, Ibish sounded both hopeful and pragmatic when compared with Aslan, and never more so than when Aslan described the bloody process by which he believed a single, bi-national state could actually come about.
“If you want me to be honest with you,” Aslan said,
That would be a first.
“I think that what we are going to see is a process through which the demographic balance [between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea] tips into apartheid, ethnic cleansing, until finally you have international mediation that leads to confederacy.”
If there is one state in the way Aslan imagines there will be, it will be a Palestinian Sharia state that will massacre Jews wholesale and press the survivors into dhimmitude. And Aslan must know this, also.
“If,” Ibish responded, “I wanted to exercise a radical dystopian imaginative leap of that kind, if I wanted to be Hieronymus Bosch of Israel and the Palestinians, sure, I can arrive at your conclusion after all this horror. Well I’m not willing to go there.” 
“Even if it turns out you were right,” he continued, “I would be proud to stand here and tell you that I am not going to acquiesce to making that happen.”...
Aslan repeats jihadist propaganda about Israel practicing apartheid and ethnic cleansing, but ignores the Palestinians' repeatedly stated genocidal aspirations. Ibish, for his part, supports the establishment of a Palestinian state that would, like Gaza, immediately become another base for jihad attacks against Israel.

Neither discussed Israel's right to exist or acknowledged the jihad doctrine that makes the conflict endless.

And this is what passes for reasoned analyses on campuses across the U.S. these days.

What our media didn’t report about the woman on the U.S. Airways flight who claimed to have an implanted device in her stomach



The UK Daily Mail is reporting that passengers on the US Airways flight out of Paris had to wrestle the crazed woman to the floor after she claimed to have a bomb surgically implanted inside her. And why aren’t they releasing the name of the woman who immigrated to France from Cameroon where there is a significant Muslim population?

 

UK DAILY MAIL  The terrifying incident forced the pilot of U.S. Airways flight 787, traveling from Paris to Charlotte, North Carolina, to divert and make an emergency landing. Fighter jets were scrambled to intercept the the troubled plane and guided it into land at a Maine airport, where passengers were evacuated and the woman arrested.

 

In video footage below, passengers can be seen wrestling with the woman following her potentially fatal claim, initially made in a note to cabin crew.

 

http://barenakedislam.com/2012/05/23/what-our-media-didnt-report-about-the-woman-on-the-u-s-airways-flight-who-claimed-to-have-an-implanted-device-in-her-stomach/

 

AFP  Coming on the heels of a thwarted airline bomb plot by Al-Qaeda’s Yemen  branch, the incident has laid bare US worry over shifting tactics of extremists  as they seek new ways — and new technologies, including non-metallic bombs —  for landing a deadly blow against an American target.

 

Last year, US officials warned airlines that terror groups were studying  how to surgically hide bombs inside humans to evade airport security —  precisely the threat that emerged when the US Airways passenger made herself  known to the cabin crew.

 

The Cameroon-born woman was traveling alone with no checked baggage and  visiting the United States for 10 days.

 


An FBI joint terrorism task force, accompanied by a bomb squad, local  police and other security agencies then met the aircraft upon arrival, and “FBI  agents and members of a joint terrorism task force interviewed the passenger  and others on the plane,” FBI spokesman Greg Comcowich said.

 

“At this time, there is no indication the plane or its passengers were ever  in any actual danger.”    A US official told AFP that the suspect was unlikely to be part of a  broader international terror plot linked to groups such as Al-Qaeda. (Isn’t that what they always say?)  But it served as a blunt reminder of the ongoing efforts by groups like  Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) to eventually break through tight US  security with a functional bomb. And it came after news emerged earlier this month of a foiled plot to blow  up a US-bound airliner.

 

(Don’t forget to thank the next Muslim you see for making flying such a miserable experience for the rest of us)

Look who else confused about Obama birthplace: U.S. government questioned citizenship when president was 5

By: Aaron Klein / The Western Center for Journalism

 

President Obama’s literary agent is not the only one who was confused over the politician’s birthplace.

The U.S. government is on record questioning President Obama’s citizenship status as early as when he was 5 years old, stating it lacked documentation to determine his citizenship.

The citizenship inquiry dated back to 1966, when Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was attempting to secure a waiver so her second husband, Indonesian citizen Lolo Soetoro, could return to the country after his visa had expired.

Dunham separated from her first husband, Barack Obama Sr., in 1963 when the future president was 2 years old. Dunham and Obama Sr. are reported to have divorced in 1964.

In 1965 in Hawaii, Dunham married Soetoro, an Indonesian, and moved to Indonesia in October 1967.

Soetoro had been studying at the University of Hawaii as part of a State Department-initiated student exchange program.

Soetoro’s student visa had been sponsored by the University of Hawaii’s Center for Cultural and Technical Interchange between East and West. The program enforced strict visa limitations, requiring foreign students to return to their home countries after two years.

According to U.S. immigration files obtained and reviewed by WND, Soetoro was approved for a 21-month study grant beginning Sept. 1, 1962, at the East-West Center.

A memorandum from the center dated July 7, 1965, relates how Soetoro had his Class J visa briefly extended after he married Dunham due to a claimed illness on the part of Dunham. His visa had been set to expire June 15, 1964.

“He gave his wife’s illness as the reason for his visa extension request,” stated the center’s memo.

The memo said Soetoro claimed Dunham had been “suffering from a stomach ailment which may, according to her physician, require surgery.”

“When I pressed Mr. Soetoro for more information regarding the name of the physician, etc., he claimed that he could not remember exactly,” continued the memo, signed by Robert Wooster of the University of Hawaii’s exchange program.

Further notes from the exchange program that year related how Soetoro worked at the time for Hawaii-Pacific Engineers Surveyors.

An additional memorandum, from July 13, 1965, advised that Soetoro no longer was associated with the East-West Center, and that the University of Hawaii exchange program could not further help him renew his U.S. visa.

Soetoro had turned to the center to make a special exception in his case and to hold his return travel for another year, or until June 22, 1966.

“I gather that he intends to make every attempt to remain indefinitely with or without East-West Center approval although his manner throughout our interview was polite and cordial,” stated a memo from the center.

The memo, from Robert Zumwinkle, executive director of the East-West Center’s Institute for Student Interchange, relates how the program received a special cable from the Indonesian government that Soetoro, a civilian employee of the Indonesian army, must “immediately terminate his studies and return to Djakarta, Indonesia.”

Soetoro apparently was expected to devote four years of service to the Indonesian government in return for its subsidizing geography studies at the country’s Gadjah Mada University, as well as for his participation in the student exchange program.

The memo made clear the East-West Center would not help Soetoro extend his U.S. visa.

It complained Soetoro did not comply with its previous instructions to return to Indonesia at the end of his studies.

Soetoro departed the U.S. for Indonesia on June 20, 1966. Once back in his home country, Soetoro attempted to secure a waiver from the U.S. immigration authorities for his immediate return to Hawaii, according to immigration files reviewed by WND.

Dunham and Soetoro both filed petitions with U.S. Immigration in hopes of persuading the American government to grant a waiver allowing Soetoro to return.

The petitions claimed Dunham would suffer undue “psychological hardship” because of Soetoro’s departure.

Some petitions referenced hardship that may be suffered by Obama, then aged 5.

In a Nov. 22, 1966, interview with Robert Schultz, immigrant inspector in Honolulu, Dunham talked about financial hardships for her son.

“I buy personal things for my 5-year-old boy. I also pay $50.00 a month for a babysitter from 2:30 to 5:00 p.m,” she wrote, referring to Obama.

That petition was denied, with immigration authorities determining that according to remarks from her own interview, Dunham made enough money to support both herself and her son.

A document to the Assistant Region Commission Travel Control in Honolulu from December 1966 specifically stated, “It was also determined that the applicant’s spouse is now employed and can adequately maintain both herself and her 5-year-old child by a former marriage.”

Facing repeated denials, Dunham decided she would apply for a visa to Indonesia to live with Soetoro.

‘Nothing on file’ to document Obama’s citizenship

Before that, immigration authorities exchanged queries about Obama, with one noting questions about Obama’s citizenship.

One critical exchange is dated August 21, 1967, from Sam Benson, an officer at the Southwest Immigration and Naturalization Service office in San Pedro, California.

Benson’s query stated, “There is nothing in the file to document the status of the spouse’s son. Please inquire into his citizenship and residence status and determine whether or not he is the applicant’s child within the meaning of Section 101(b)(1)(B) of the Act, who may suffer exceptional hardship within the meaning of Section 212(a).”

The reference is to the Immigration and Naturalization Act, which defined a “child” as an unmarried person under 21 years of age who, among other qualifiers, could be a “stepchild,” whether or not born out of wedlock, provided the child had not reached the “age of eighteen years at the time the marriage creating the status of stepchild occurred.”

A response to Benson’s inquiry came from one “W.L. Mix” of the central immigration office, who determined Obama was a U.S. citizen.

Mix replied: “Pursuant to inquiry from central office regarding the status of the applicants’ spouse’s child by a former marriage.”

“The person in question is a United States citizen by virtue of his birth in Honolulu, Hawaii, Aug. 4, 1961. He is living with the applicants’ spouse in Honolulu, Hawaii. He is considered the applicant’s step-child, within the meaning of Sec. 101(b)(1)(B), of the act, by virtue of the marriage of the applicant to the child’s mother on March 5, 1965.”

The files do not state how the office determined Obama was born in Honolulu.

With research by Brenda J. Elliott
Op-ed:
Too bad Obama’s mom didn’t practice birth control
By: Diane Sori

Section 2713 of the Public Health Service Act, enacted by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) provides that “A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall, at a minimum provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for— . . . (4) with respect to women, such additional preventive care and screenings . . . as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration . . . .”

And so says the abomination known as ObamaCare.

Even while we wait with baited breath for the Supreme Court’s ruling on the individual mandate section of ObamaCare, and thus really the entirety of ObamaCare, this administration is rightfully facing yet another challenge to its overwhelmingly NOT wanted health care plan, and this one comes from the Catholic Church, a move highly unusual for them.

Since the mandate was first made public this past January, in response to public and Church outcry and to try and ward off lawsuits he knew would be coming, Obama offered to dilute the wording somewhat so that insurers rather than religious groups paid for birth control, but that changed nothing as it just shifted who paid for what but kept the basic mandate itself in place. 

Barack Hussein Obama tied to pull a ‘bait and switch’ on the Church but thankfully the Church didn’t bite.

So knowing that nothing really changed, The University of Notre Dame, Catholic University of America, Franciscan University of Steubenville, the Archdiocese of New York and 41 other Roman Catholic institutions, schools, social services and organizations from across the country, filed lawsuits in 12 federal courts this past Monday challenging ObamaCare’s provision that all Church employees must receive coverage for contraception in their health insurance policies whether they want it or not.

With specific wording in the mandate saying that “...all Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity” be offered to all Church employees, Obama has stepped over a very dangerous line as this goes against the very doctrines, tenets, policies, and beliefs of the Church and its followers as he tries to force birth-control pills, morning-after pills, and sterilization procedures on those that find them morally reprehensible.

And all this is being done by a man who professes to be a Christian, who professes to follow Christianity’s teachings but whose actions prove he is anything but.

While it will indeed be an uphill battle going against the Federal Government, the Catholic Church knows this and as such is basing its lawsuit on the fact that this mandate is a violation of their core beliefs, the First Amendment, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act .*  They claim, and I concur, that the mandate wrongly gives the Federal Government the power to decide which institutions and groups will be deemed a religious order and which will not, allowing some to qualify for an exemption while some will not, with Obama holding that decision power.  

This goes against the Constitution, as our Founders never intended for one man to wield that kind of power.

While Obama has said (and as he still holds firm to his words even with the lawsuits now having been filed) that the Catholic Church will NOT be exempt from the contraceptive mandate, want to bet he gives exemptions to his muslim brethren as this will give new meaning to the words 'stealth jihad'...if you can’t out fight them, you can win by outnumbering them.  I think that’s a bet we sadly can all take.

Oh how I wish Obama's mom had practiced birth control...we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today if she had.


*The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012 - Amends the Public Health Service Act to prohibit any guideline or regulation issued relating to the coverage of preventive health services under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) or any other provision of PPACA to: (1) require any individual or entity to offer, provide, or purchase coverage for a contraceptive or sterilization service, or related education or counseling, to which that individual or entity is opposed on the basis of religious belief; or (2) require any individual or entity opposed by reason of religious belief to provide coverage of a contraceptive or sterilization service or to engage in government-mandated speech regarding such a service.