Saturday, December 13, 2014

Faceless Dolls for Muslim girls launched in Britain

Deeni_DollPamela Geller / Atlas Shrugs

Faceless dolls. Like women in burkas. Faceless.

Little girl dolls can be sex objects, too, I suspect. Might arouse a savage.

These dolls are devoid of humanity — they are an affront to humanity. It makes my skin crawl.
Britain Surrenders to Islam Again, Now Selling Faceless, Sharia Compliant Dolls for Kids,” Bt Warner Todd Huston, Libery News, December 12, 2014

There is a reason that Britain is criticized by being called “Britanistan” and this is yet another example of how this western nation is allowing its own culture to be destroyed day by day, bit by bit, to be replaced by an Islamic culture. Now the Brits are selling “sharia compliant” dolls for little girls so that its local Muslims won’t get mad. ...


Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Via Allahpundit, a stark finding from YouGov's new poll released in the wake of Senate Democrats' deeply flawed report on CIA tactics after 9/11.  By a wide margin, Americans believe that airing this dirty laundry -- setting aside its accuracy -- is more harmful to US interests than the actual application of controversial 'enhanced interrogation techniques' or EIT's themeselves:

Take special note of which gender is more likely to pick option A on that menu.  Women, in this case, are more hawkish than men.  I suppose this overall result shouldn't be all that surprising, considering that seven in ten Americans believe that "torture" is at least sometimes justified, even when that loaded and debatable term is employed in the question wording.  YouGov also asked respondents whether or not certain forms of EIT's are acceptable, resulting in a yawning partisan divide on almost ever technique listed:

Majorities of Republicans favor every option, with the exceptions of (a) placing detainees in a coffin-sized box for days, and (b) the overwhelmingly-rejected practice known as, um, "rectal feeding."  Most Democrats reject every single option as unacceptable, including sleep deprivation.
Just so we're clear, four in ten Democrats furrow their brows and give a humanitarian thumbs-down to denying someone like 9/11 mastermind KSM adequate rest as we try to extract crucial intelligence from him -- yet almost six in ten Democrats are a-okay with instantaneously blowing KSM (and those around him) to kingdom come with a weaponized drone.  Because of "our values," or something.  Again, only about one-third of Democrats say slapping a terrorist is acceptable in the pursuit of actionable intel, but a strong majority are down with a summary execution, which provides no opportunity to glean valuable information.  
Just one-in-five Democrats support waterboarding, a rarely-used technique that 'broke' two of the highest-level AQ terrorists we've ever had in our custody.  Forcing Abu Zubaydah and KSM into compliance helped lead us -- finally -- to take out Osama Bin Laden, a raid for which Democrats have not been shy about showering praise upon President Obama. Honestly, the only explanation for this incoherent disconnect that I can muster is adolescent partisanship.  "Torture" = Booooosh.  Drones = O.  Ergo, door number one is bad, bad, very bad, while door number two is a tough, necessary application of American force.  Bravo, guys. Party of science.

The Pew poll we mentioned earlier found that seven in ten Americans say "torture" is justified at least in "rare" instances.  But in today's YouGov poll, a 47 percent plurality believe the US can successfully prosecute the war on terror without using EITs at all.  Hmm.  I'll leave you with a hypothetical scenario: If, God forbid, we get hit again, and we've got one of the attack's masterminds in custody, and we know that he knows a lot more than he's willing to volunteer on his own or under traditional interrogation might Americans feel?  Should that terrorist be waterboarded or Mirandized?  Reminder: EIT's, independent of their moral acceptability, do work.  Here's a man that Dianne Feinstein and company didn't bother to interview while assembling their "exhaustive" findings:
Click on link to see video,,,

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) recently suggested that she couldn’t interview a single CIA operative before the Senate Intelligence Committee’s findings were released vis-à-vis Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIts) because...the agency wouldn’t let her.

“The Department of Justice refused to coordinate its investigation with the Intelligence Committee's review,” she said on the Senate floor on Tuesday, referring to the already-completed DOJ investigation which partially overlapped with her own. “As a result, possible interviewees could be subject to additional liability if they were interviewed. And the CIA, citing the attorney general's investigation, would not instruct its employees to participate in our interviews.”

This excuse, Dr. Charles Krauthammer said last night on Special Report, is “total rubbish.”

Click on link to see video...
“The [DOJ] investigation ended in 2012. It’s now the end of 2014. They [the Senate Intelligence Committee] had over two years to interview and talk to anybody involved, including the highest officials…”
“They [ended] up releasing a report without any of that,” he added. “No rebuttal, no context, no statements -- which tells me they had a single intent hanging the CIA out to dry, and they went looking for the evidence that fit.”

Columnist Rich Lowry made a similar point in his Politico Magazine column earlier this week.

“The committee’s chair, Dianne Feinstein, says such interviews were made impossible by Justice Department investigations into the people responsible for the interrogation program, but those investigations ended years ago,” he wrote. “The reality is that the committee didn’t want to include anything that might significantly complicate its cartoonish depiction of a CIA that misled everyone so it could maintain a secret prison system for the hell of it."

On today's RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS on CPR Worldwide Media from 
11am-1pm EST, Craig and Diane will discuss the disaster known as the $1 trillion 'CRomnibus' spending bill that squeaked through the House (we might have a Senate vote by tomorrow's show), along with the Texas initiated lawsuit challenging Obama’s dictatorial amnesty plan.