Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Barbaric bast*rds!

Female genital mutilation on the rise in the United States

From Jihad Watch /  Posted by Robert Spencer

Western news articles about female genital mutilation routinely assert that it is solely a cultural practice, not justified by any religion. Yet again and again we see Muslim clerics justifying it, and it is sanctioned in Islamic law.
"Circumcision is obligatory (for every male and female) (by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male, but circumcision of the female is by cutting out the bazr 'clitoris' [this is called khufaadh 'female circumcision'])." -- 'Umdat al-Salik e4.3, translated by Mark Durie, The Third Choice, p. 64
"Islamic law permits by definition, by prophetic statement and by practice female circumcision" -- Australian Imam Afroz Ali.
"Female genital mutilation on the rise in the United States-report," by Lisa Anderson for TrustLaw, March 11 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):
NEW YORK (TrustLaw) - The ancient, brutal practice of female genital mutilation (FGM), once considered primarily a problem of the developing world, is a growing threat to girls and women in the United States, according to a new report
The United States has longstanding laws against the practice of FGM on U.S. soil and in January, passed a federal law against sending young women outside the country for so-called "vacation cutting". However, girls living in America increasingly are at risk of the procedure both at home and abroad, according to research by Sanctuary for Families.
The New York City-based non-profit organisation, which specialises in gender-based violence, said up to 200,000 girls and women in the United States are at risk of FGM and that the number is growing.
"People in the United States think that FGM only happens to people outside of the United States, but in all actuality, people here all over the country have been through FGM," said Jaha, 23, formerly from Gambia and now a survivor and advocate against FGM.
"Kids that were born in this country are taken back home every summer and undergo this procedure," she was quoted as saying in the report.
The study cited analysis of data from the 2000 census that found between 1990 and 2000 the number of girls and women in the United States at risk of the procedure - which involves the partial or total removal of external female genitalia - increased by 35 percent.
Most prevalent in immigrant African and Middle Eastern communities, FGM generally originates in the belief by some cultures that it preserves a girl's virginity before marriage and discourages her from promiscuity after she is wed. In many communities, a girl is deemed unfit for marriage if she has not undergone FGM.
The report said FGM has been performed in the United States by health care providers who support FGM or do not want to question families' cultural practices.  
Whether performed covertly on U.S. soil or in ceremonies held in ancestral homelands during school vacations, the procedure often is done by traditional practitioners using crude implements, such as razor blades and broken glass.
They often operate in unsanitary conditions, far from medical facilities, without anaesthesia, antiseptics or antibiotics.
The physical and psychological effects can be devastating and even fatal. FGM can cause severe pain during sexual intercourse, haemorrhage, shock, complications in childbirth and fistula. It can also lead to depression and anxiety.
"FGM has affected me emotionally throughout my entire life. Those terrible moments stay with me and I just cannot forget them," a 53-year-old woman named Nafissatou, originally from Guinea, told researchers.
"When I went to the hospital to give birth to my children, my experience with FGM was what I remembered most. Every time I shower, I think about it. There is a sadness and emptiness I fell every day because of what FGM took from me," she said.
The United Nations last December called for a global ban on FGM, but, as with laws in the United States, implementation is extremely difficult and, to date, prosecutions have been rare.
The United States has had a law against FGM since 1996 and 20 states have passed their own statutes. But, according to the report, as of 2012, there have been no prosecutions under federal law, and only one criminal case has been brought forward under a state statute.
One problem is that families in the United States, even those who oppose FGM for their daughters, often find themselves under severe pressure from their extended families to subject girls to the procedure.
Another obstacle is a lack of reporting of FGM either by victims, girls at risk or their families. Part of the reason may be due to ignorance of the law, the report found.
"However, reasons for underreporting likely also include reluctance on the part of the girl or her family to come forward, precisely because they know and fear the legal penalties for doing so," it said.
"Many girls fear that innocent family members, especially their mothers, will be considered complicit in their family’s efforts to force them to undergo FGM, or worry that if they report their relatives, they will be arrested, prosecuted, and possibly deported," it added....

Did senator drop Benghazi bombshell?

christopher-stevensCould explain why murdered ambassador was in attacked facility

by Aaron Klein / WND

TEL AVIV – Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., may have dropped a bombshell in an interview with Fox News in which he stated that murdered U.S Ambassador Christopher Stevens was in Benghazi to keep weapons caches from falling into the hands of terrorists.

Until now, no official explanation for Stevens deployment to Libya has acknowledged any such activity.

Stevens reportedly died from smoke inhalation as a result of the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the U.S. special mission and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya.

The official State Department probe into the Benghazi attacks stated Stevens was sent to Benghazi to “establish a U.S. presence in Libya.”

“The State Department had been absent from Libya since the Embassy in Tripoli suspended operations and evacuated its American personnel on February 25, 2011, amidst an escalating campaign by Muammar Qaddafi to suppress violently a popular uprising against his rule,” continued the report.

The report stated Stevens made the decision to travel to the Benghazi mission on Sept. 11 on his own, “independently of Washington, per standard practice.”

The report did not state the specific purpose of Stevens’ visit to the mission other than to later mention he held a meeting there with a Turkish diplomat.

Neither the State Department probe nor any other official government explanation previously mentioned securing weapons caches as part of Stevens’ mission in Libya.

However, in an interview Friday with Fox News, host Bret Baier asked Graham why Stevens was in the Benghazi mission despite the many known security threats to the facility.

Click here to see and hear the interview:

Graham replied, “Because that’s where the action was regarding the rising Islamic extremists who were trying to get their hands on weapons that are flowing freely in Libya.”

The senator stated, “We were desperately trying to control the anti-aircraft missiles, the man pads that were all over Libya, that are now all over the Mideast.”

WND has filed numerous reports quoting Middle East security officials who described the mission in Benghazi as a meeting place to coordinate aid for the rebel-led insurgencies in the Middle East, including the transfer of weapons to rebels.

Two weeks after the Benghazi attacks, WND also broke the story that Stevens himself played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, according to Egyptian security officials.

In November 2012, Middle Eastern security sources further described both the U.S. mission and nearby CIA annex in Benghazi as the main intelligence and planning center for U.S. aid to the rebels that was being coordinated with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Many rebel fighters are openly members of terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida.

Among the tasks performed inside the Benghazi facility was collaborating with countries, most notably Turkey, on the recruitment of fighters – including jihadists – to target Assad’s regime, the security officials said.

Stevens served as a key contact with the Saudis to coordinate the recruitment by Saudi Arabia of Islamic fighters from North Africa and Libya, Egyptian security officials told WND. The jihadists were sent to Syria via Turkey to attack Assad’s forces, said the security officials.

The officials said Stevens also worked with the Saudis to send names of potential jihadi recruits to U.S. security organizations for review. Names found to be directly involved in previous attacks against the U.S., including in Iraq and Afghanistan, were ultimately not recruited by the Saudis to fight in Syria, said the officials.

With additional research by Joshua Klein.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/did-senator-drop-benghazi-bombshell/#0553Wx5GWIfq4ocQ.99

The Scandal of the Jewish Pope

One of the first official acts of the newly installed Pope Francis was to reach out to the Jewish community of Rome, as his predecessor Pope Benedict had done, and he is being greeted warmly by many Jewish leaders worldwide. For most of the last 1,500 years, though, Catholic-Jewish relations have not been so warm. In fact, there was a time when the Catholic Church was rocked with a scandal: It was alleged that the Pope himself was Jewish.

But that was almost 1,000 years ago, and the first order of business is to note how well received Pope Francis has been by Jews around the world.

The Religions News Services reported on March 14th that “Jews worldwide see an ally in Pope Francis,” pointing “in particular to his sympathetic and strong reaction to the 1994 bombing of a Jewish center in his native Argentina -- the deadliest bombing in the country’s history.”

Riccardo Di Segni, the chief rabbi of Rome, said, “As far as I have heard and read in the few minutes since he was elected pope, he has shown deep signs of respect and friendship towards the Jews. It’s a good starting point.”

According to Rabbi David Rosen, international director of interreligious affairs at the American Jewish Committee, as Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the archbishop of Buenos Aires, Francis “has had a warm relationship with the Jewish community of Argentina, and enjoyed close friendships with many prominent rabbis.”

And David Novak, a professor of Jewish Studies and philosophy at the University of Toronto, expressed his hopes that Francis would improve “on his predecessor’s prioritization of Jewish-Catholic relations,” pointing back to the papacy of John Paul II as the highest point achieved in these relations. It was John Paul who recognized the State of Israel in 1997 and was the first pope “to visit Auschwitz, to bless Israel, and to apologize for Christian acts against Jews.”

“If the Catholics don’t canonize him,” Novak said, “the Jews should.”

Sentiments like this, of course, were not always the norm for the Catholic Church and the Synagogue (to put it mildly), as Matt, a listener to my radio show, reminded me last week via email. With evident passion, he told me that, “You Jews are Christ-killers on the road to eternal condemnation,” referring to me as a “blasphemer and murder[er] of the Lord God Jesus Christ.” (This is because I am both Jewish and a follower of Jesus, but in Matt’s mind, the former must cancel out the latter.)

He also noted that, “There is Absolutely No Salvation Outside of the Catholic Church you killer of God Lord Jesus Christ.” To back up his vitriol, he supplied a series of apparently anti-Semitic quotes from previous popes, including Pope Clement VIII, Pope Innocent IV, Pope Gregory IX, and Pope Saint Pius V.

I honored his hard work and thoughtfulness (sarcasm intended) by reading excerpts of his letter on the air, which, I imagine, gave him further assurance of my alleged perfidy. Perhaps I should have offered to send him a free copy of my book Our Hands Are Stained with Blood, written in 1992 but continuously in print since then, outlining the horrible history of “Christian” anti-Semitism. (But wait. I have a sneaking suspicion that he might not be looking for dialogue. And it turns out the website he links in his email warns against Pope Francis too!)

Putting Matt’s email aside, there really have been many tragic episodes in Catholic-Jewish history, some of them deadly (think of the Crusades and the Inquisitions; Catholics, of course, do not have a monopoly on persecuting Jews in Jesus’ name, just to be fair). But there is one episode that might be the most telling of them all.

In the 1130’s, there were two rival popes, Anacletus II and Innocent II, and it seems that the most serious charge brought against Anacletus was that he was Jewish. How could this be? A Jewish pope? The Jewish Encyclopedia noted that Bernard of Clairvaux, a zealous supporter of Innocent, “poured forth his indignation in a vehement epistle to Lothaire, to the effect that ‘to the shame of Christ a man of Jewish origin was come to occupy the chair of St. Peter.’”

What? Did Bernard forget that Peter himself was a Jew, as were Paul and all the other apostles? (This is not the place to debate whether Peter was the first pope; for the record, I reject that he was.) Did Bernard forget that Christ himself was a Jew (“Christ” is simply the Greek way of saying “Messiah”) and that his mother’s name was actually Miriam, not Mary?

Catholics around the world are embracing the fact that, for the first time, a Jesuit has been installed as pope, something far less dramatic than having a Jewish pope. But from a Catholic perspective, that has already happened, not once, but twice, first with Peter and then with Anacletus.

I wonder how the Jewish world would react if the next pope turned out to be a Jew as well? For that matter, I wonder how the Catholic world would react. Talk about a story worthy of the news!

Obama Must Convince Israel He Is Trustworthy

By: Susan Stamper Brown / Townhall Columnist
Obama Must Convince Israel He Is Trustworthy
When Air Force One touches down in Israel for meetings this week, President Barack Obama has his hands full. Iran is about a year away from developing a nuclear weapon and Obama must convince Israel he is trustworthy before he can suggest to anyone that taking a preemptive strike against Iran is a lousy idea.

Obama has a terrible track record when it comes to Israel. In fact, a recent survey done by algemeiner.com shows most Israelis don't like him. Of those surveyed, just 10 percent held a favorable opinion of Obama, 17 percent held highly unfavorable regard, 19 percent, unfavorable, and 32 percent said they respect him, but don't necessary like him.

But, who could blame them? Obama is the first American president in history to demonstrate indifference toward them with both words and deeds. Israelis didn't just wake up one morning and decide they don't like our president. Actions have consequences. Israelis listened when Obama made disparaging remarks about their prime minister to the French president. They were offended when, according to The White House Watch, Obama rudely walked out of a meeting and left Prime Minister Netanyahu "to his own devices" to eat alone. They've watched when Obama repeatedly fanned the flame of animosity between Israelis and Palestinians by swelling settlement issues. Most recently, they were taken aback by Obama's choice of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who many label as anti-Semitic.

When it comes to settlement issues, one would like to feel empathy for the pitiful predicament the Palestinian people find themselves in nowadays, but it is vital to separate feelings from facts. After all, Israel is a miniscule speck on the map about the same size as Houston, Texas, hemmed in by those who refuse to acknowledge her statehood and habitually threaten her.

There is not, nor has there ever been, a country of Palestine. Technically speaking, both the West Bank and Gaza Strip lack the criteria recognized by the international community defining a state. No matter how vociferously they shout, or how sorry we feel for them, it is wrong to give the Palestinian people something that is not theirs to begin with.

Also, Israel is not the warmongering state some make her out to be. As I've written before, prior to the infamous 1967 Six Day War, Israel made every effort to avoid conflict by attempting negotiations with its hostile neighbors only to be met with threats, taunts and harassments.

In 1963, the Arab League organized the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), whose charter called for Israel's destruction. The PLO's guerrillas attacked Israeli citizens 35 times in 1965, 41 in 1966 and 37 in the first quarter of 1967, infiltrating Israel from Jordan, the Gaza Strip and Lebanon.

Shedding light on the motivation for the attacks, Egyptian president, Gamal Abdel Nasser, explained, "The danger of Israel lies in the very existence of Israel," promising Arabs would enter Palestine "with its soil saturated in blood." From 3000 feet above Galilee atop the Golan Heights, Syria joined the attacks by shelling Israeli farms and villages forcing women and children to live in bomb shelters. With threats of "soil saturated in blood," the UN's refusal to intervene, and America's decision to remain neutral, Israel was forced to go it alone. In the end, Israel brilliantly captured the Sinai, Gaza Strip, West Bank, Golan Heights; finally uniting Jerusalem.

Now, every action taken by Israel in self-defense is twisted to conform to, as one of my friends describes it, "the legitimacy of the emotional and hysterical Muslim view of the world, which bears no resemblance to historical or political reality."

If Obama's goal is peace in the Middle East, he must begin with his emphatic and unwavering support for our longtime friend and ally, Israel.

Conflicting Shades of Brown - Minority Clash

Conflicting Shades of Brown - Minority Clash

By: Harry R. Jackson, Jr. / Townhall Columnist
I love taking my wife to dinners, parties, anniversaries, and formal outings of all kinds. I have found that a monochromic look - all gray, all blue or all brown can be stunning. High contrast color combinations work best: for example, a medium brown pair of trousers and a chocolate jacket teamed with a cream colored shirt. The monochromic look has just one problem: if you wear items that are very close in shade but not quite the same, you look mismatched or somehow poorly dressed.

In some parts of the nation, the media is trying to paint minority problems as essentially well-coordinated, monochromic cultural issues. Unfortunately this paradigm is producing an unsettling clash. Black and Latino problems are not the same! While a significant number of American minorities have similar problems and immigrants of all races face several common demons. One size does not fit all and white racism cannot be blamed for every root contention that extends from the white community to blacks, browns, and even Asian communities. Reverse racism from minorities to whites and inter-cultural racism from one group to another also muddy the waters of our American civil unity. Further, Dr. King’s goal of racial harmony is being challenged as economics enter the picture and segments of the black and the Hispanics in the labor market vie for their respective places in the sun - their share of jobs, contracts, political appointments, etc.

Unless you read the Los Angeles Times, you probably have not heard much about the Latino-on-black violence that has been plaguing southern California on and off for many years. Most recently, four Latino gang members jumped a black stranger in Compton and beat him with pipes. The man was visiting a black family that had just moved into the neighborhood; the men who beat him called him n*gger, informing him that blacks were no longer welcome in that neighborhood.

For several days after the beating, crowds gathered on the family’s lawn, shouting racial epithets and throwing beer bottles at the house. They disbanded each time the police arrived but returned as soon as they left. They achieved their goal; the mother sent her children to live with relatives and is packing up to move. According to federal authorities, this is not an isolated incident; Latino gangs have been forcing blacks out of particular neighborhoods all over southern California.

Unfortunately, this is nothing new. Last year I wrote of the 2008 slaying of high school football player Jamiel Shaw by gang member (and illegal immigrant) Pedro Espinoza. The court concluded that Shaw, a standout football player recruited by colleges like Stanford and Rutgers, was targeted because he was black. And I can’t help but wonder: if Espinoza had been white, would more of us know Jamiel Shaw’s name?

Few have heard of this Latino-on-black crime wave because it doesn’t fit the narrative that many in the media perpetuate. Media elitists would have us to believe that aristocratic whites are relentlessly oppressing all racial minorities and causing all of their woes. (Except Asians, whose high levels of education and economic success they find difficult to explain.) Hence blacks and Latinos are supposedly in the same boat: recipients of the short end of the stick in a white man’s world.

There are several dangerous consequences to this cookie cutter approach to race relations. First of all, the disparity of media coverage for certain crimes implies that justice for the black victim of a Latino (or black) killer is a less pressing concern. The murder of fifteen-year-old Hadiya Pendleton in Chicago by Michael Ward and Kenneth Williams (also black) briefly made national news because Pendleton had sung at President Obama’s inauguration. But how many more Hadiya Pendletons are there whose stories will never be told? Deaths of teens like Pendleton and Shaw speak to a much larger, more complicated problem: lawlessness in many urban areas would never be tolerated in a white, middle class suburb.

The one dimensional understanding of race relations also leads to perilous media inaccuracies. Any event that doesn’t fit the narrative of “white oppressor, black/brown victim” must either be forced into that mold or ignored altogether. This is why, when the Latino George Zimmerman (who grew up in a multi-racial family and modest neighborhood) shot black teenager Trayvon Martin, we were told Zimmerman was a “white Hispanic.” This was only the sixth time in its 160-year history the New York Times had used such a term; would they have used it if Zimmerman had been shot by a white man?

Perhaps the most harmful aspect of an overly simplistic approach to race relations is that it presumes that the power to improve the prospects of blacks and Latinos lies solely with powerful whites. If the plight of suffering blacks and Latinos is due entirely to the racist attitudes of whites, then it follows that only a change in those attitudes will improve their standard of living. This attitude trivializes both the power and importance of the families, churches and community organizations that have been so pivotal in lifting successful blacks and Latinos out of poverty.

It is also easier for a journalist to lament the existence of racism than to report on interventions in areas like education and community development that actually work. The politically incorrect truth is that popular government sponsored programs, such as Head Start, have very little impact on outcomes for lower income black and Latino children. Despite receiving over $150 billion in funding, a 2010 study of Head Start by the Department of Health and Human Services concluded that “the benefits of access to Head Start at age four are largely absent by first grade for the program population as a whole.”

What does have a positive effect on at risk youth? Multiple studies, from institutions including Harvard University, have concluded that regular church attendance, even when controlled for income and parental marital status, has a dramatically positive effect on an at risk child’s likelihood to graduate from high school, avoid crime and become gainfully employed. But don’t expect to read that in the newspaper anytime soon.