Thursday, June 13, 2013

A laugh for today...and boy do we all need one

OMG...he did go to Columbia!!!

And we are helping these bast*rds...why...

Afghan parliament rejects ban on child marriage, saying it violates Islamic principles

Few things are more abundantly attested in Islamic law than the permissibility of child marriage. Islamic tradition records that Muhammad’s favorite wife, Aisha, was six when Muhammad wedded her and nine when he consummated the marriage:
“The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death)” (Bukhari 7.62.88).
Another tradition has Aisha herself recount the scene:
The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. (Bukhari 5.58.234).
Muhammad was at this time fifty-four years old.

Marrying young girls was not all that unusual for its time, but because in Islam Muhammad is the supreme example of conduct (cf. Qur’an 33:21), he is considered exemplary in this unto today. And so in April 2011, the Bangladesh Mufti Fazlul Haque Amini declared that those trying to pass a law banning child marriage in that country were putting Muhammad in a bad light: “Banning child marriage will cause challenging the marriage of the holy prophet of Islam… [putting] the moral character of the prophet into controversy and challenge.” He added a threat: “Islam permits child marriage and it will not be tolerated if any ruler will ever try to touch this issue in the name of giving more rights to women.” The Mufti said that 200,000 jihadists were ready to sacrifice their lives for any law restricting child marriage.

Likewise the influential website in December 2010 justified child marriage by invoking not only Muhammad’s example, but the Qur’an as well:
The Noble Qur’an has also mentioned the waiting period [i.e. for a divorced wife to remarry] for the wife who has not yet menstruated, saying: “And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women—if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated” [Qur’an 65:4]. Since this is not negated later, we can take from this verse that it is permissible to have sexual intercourse with a prepubescent girl. The Qur’an is not like the books of jurisprudence which mention what the implications of things are, even if they are prohibited. It is true that the prophet entered into a marriage contract with A’isha when she was six years old, however he did not have sex with her until she was nine years old, according to al-Bukhari.
Other countries make Muhammad’s example the basis of their laws regarding the legal marriageable age for girls. Article 1041 of the Civil Code of the Islamic Republic of Iran states that girls can be engaged before the age of nine, and married at nine: “Marriage before puberty (nine full lunar years for girls) is prohibited. Marriage contracted before reaching puberty with the permission of the guardian is valid provided that the interests of the ward are duly observed.”

Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini himself married a ten-year-old girl when he was twenty-eight. Khomeini called marriage to a prepubescent girl “a divine blessing,” and advised the faithful to give their own daughters away accordingly: “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.” When he took power in Iran, he lowered the legal marriageable age of girls to nine, in accord with Muhammad’s example.

"Afghan parliament upholds right to marry children," by Cheryl K. Chumley for The Washington Times, June 10 (thanks to Krazy Kafir):
Afghanistan's parliament has rejected a measure that would have barred men from marrying girls younger than 16, saying the proposal ran counter to Islamic ideology.
The measure also would have banned “baad, [the] traditional practice of buying or selling women to settle disputes,” and outlawed criminal charges being imposed on rape victims, Breitbart reported. Rape victims in Afghanistan often are charged with fornication or adultery.
President Hamid Karzai reportedly supported the measures, but opponents said they “violate[d] Islamic principles,” Breitbart reported.
The failure of parliament to act in accordance with Mr. Karzai highlights a deep rift among the nation’s politicians. And it comes at a time when elections are set for April 2014 for a new president.
There is “a rift between conservative and more secular members of the community,” Sky News reported.

As if President Barack Obama didn't have any embarrassing issues to deal with, now come the reports -- not proof -- of some really ugly allegations. The original CBS reporting contained a memo from the Diplomatic Security Service alleging wrongdoing and possible interference in at least eight investigations.

According CBS among the allegations included:

-- A U.S. Ambassador having "routinely ditched" his security detail to meet up with prostitutes in a public park.
-- Members of Hillary Clinton's security detail procuring prostitutes while overseas -- activity, the report claimed, that was "endemic"
-- A State Department security official in Beirut "engaged in sexual assaults" on foreign nationals hired as embassy guards.
-- An "underground drug ring" operating near the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad supplied State Department security contractors with drugs.

CBS describes the Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) as:

"the State Department's security force, charged with protecting the secretary of state and U.S. ambassadors overseas and with investigating any cases of misconduct on the part of the 70,000 State Department employees worldwide."

The claim is that these and other investigations were halted at the behest of State Department officials at the highest levels -- but no claim of interference by Hillary Clinton has yet been lodged.

The highest named official is Patrick Kennedy, Undersecretary of State for Management.

Ambassador Kennedy and I briefly crossed paths in Baghdad 10 years ago. I doubt that he would remember me, but I do remember him.

He was Ambassador Paul Bremer's chief of staff and was easily accessible to anyone who needed a decision at his level; he would listen to my screwball ideas and say "yes," "no," or something like "flesh this out and bring it back."

I find it very, very difficult to believe that someone with Amb. Kennedy's 40-year history of service would take it upon himself to interfere with official investigations.

Cabinet-level departments are generally organized the same way. At State there is a secretary, two deputy secretaries, five undersecretaries, many assistant secretaries, and dozens of deputy assistant secretaries.

Assistant Secretary is the lowest level requiring Senate confirmation, but many can be directly appointed.

The point is that an undersecretary in any department is a very, very senior person.

If these reports are true, and these orders went as high as Patrick Kennedy, then I certainly don't believe they went as high as Hillary Clinton. But the fact is that all of these misdeeds happened on her watch and she probably needs to explain how all this could be going on and who (or how) these investigations got short-stopped.

She may have to do that under oath before a congressional committee and, knowing that her histrionics over the Benghazi questioning were more stagecraft than statecraft, this time she may not have as much political cover from Democrats as she had before.

The best news for the State Department: there is so much else going on that this story isn't getting the immediate attention it deserves. I can't even remember all the scandals buzzing around the Oval Office like mosquitoes hatching after a summer rainstorm in Washington, DC.

For its part, the State Department has decided to hire trained outside investigators (through the Office of the Inspector General) to look into all this, but it is unlikely that will satisfy Hill Republicans.

This is not the same thing as hiring a special counsel - a real outside investigator - to look into the charges of not just wrongdoing, but officially covering up that wrongdoing.

The scandals surrounding the Obama administration come down to one common theme -- that the ever-growing size and scope of our federal government gives it enormous power over virtually every aspect of our lives, power that in the wrong hands can be used to reward supporters, exact revenge and punish enemies. In education, health care, transportation, energy, disaster relief, welfare, commerce, work and salary rules, and on and on, the federal government plays an outsized role completely inconsistent with the Founding Fathers' notion of a limited government that allows maximum personal liberty.

In 1900, government at all three levels -- federal, state and local -- took about 10 percent of the people's money. It now takes nearly 50 percent.

On what basis should Americans -- especially those who did not vote for Barack Obama -- feel that the President will guard their interests, especially when apparently vindictive actions have been taken under his watch?

The IRS admits to, and has apologized for, targeting conservative groups. The second article of impeachment against Richard Nixon accused him of using the IRS to go after political enemies.

Incredibly, the IRS commissioner of the office in charge of tax-exempt organizations from 2009 to 2012 -- when the conservative groups were targeted -- is now the director of the IRS Affordable Care Act office, responsible for ObamaCare tax compliance.

The Justice Department, in apparent violation of policy, subpoenaed the phone records of as many as 100 reporters without notifying their employer, the Associated Press. And the DOJ subpoenaed the phone records of a Fox reporter as well as the phone records of his parents.

Now every president fights with the media, whose job description supposedly requires them to serve as watchdog over government. It is why the First Amendment protects "freedom of the press." But how many administrations have openly and repeatedly stated contempt for a particular news channel, the way Obama and his aides have publicly attacked the Fox News Channel?

Early in his administration, Obama complained, "I've got one television station entirely devoted to attacking my administration." He told Rolling Stone: "The golden age of an objective press was a pretty narrow span of time in our history. Before that, you had folks like [William Randolph] Hearst who used their newspapers very intentionally to promote their viewpoints. I think Fox is part of that tradition -- it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view. It's a point of view that I disagree with. It's a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world."

Fox News is "ultimately destructive?"

Then-White House senior adviser David Axelrod said that the Fox News Channel was "not really a news station" and that much of the programming is "not really news." Similarly, former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said about Fox: "We don't need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave."

A few days later, calling Fox "a wing of the Republican Party," Dunn said: "They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that's fine. But let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is." Dunn also said, "I mean the reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party," and told Time Magazine: "It's opinion journalism masquerading as news. They are boosting their audience, but that doesn't mean we are going to sit back."

How despicable do Democrats find Republicans? A recent CNN poll found 76 percent of Democrats still believe President Bush "deliberately misled" the country into the Iraq War. And Obama defenders say Bush "used" the IRS to "target" the NAACP. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) even offered up this Bush/Hurricane Katrina conspiracy: The president, according to Frank, dragged his feet during Katrina so that black New Orleanians would leave the state and take their Democratic votes with them. Frank called this alleged Bush scheme "ethnic cleansing by inaction."

What's the answer? Tone down the rhetoric? Elect morally superior human beings? Vote for "common sense" moderates?

No. Let's agree that neither side trusts "the other side." Let's agree that neither side thinks much of the goals and motives of their political opponents. Let's agree that the bigger the government, the more money and power it takes from its citizens. So where does this leave us? It takes us back to a founding principle of this country: limited government. By reducing the size of government, we limit the amount of damage "the other side" can do when in charge.

It isn't that smaller government is more trustworthy or transparent. Among other attributes, a smaller government allows the commander in chief to focus on job one -- protecting the American people against enemies. For both Obama-haters and Bush-haters, a smaller government reduces the amount of influence and control the "wrong side" has over the other -- a win-win.

Loyalty over competence...a hallmark of this administration
By: Diane Sori

We all saw this coming as the need to silence the man directly involved in the Benghazi cover-up was bound to happen.

And so yesterday it was announced that CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell (a 33-year CIA veteran), will be resigning effective August 9th. Citing that he wanted to spend more time with his family, Morell used this standard excuse favored by all in the hot seat, and that just won’t fly anymore.

“Whenever someone involved in the rough and tumble of Washington decides to move on, there is speculation in various quarters about the ‘real reason,’ Morell said in statement. ‘But when I say that it is time for my family, nothing could be more real than that.’

Oh really…than how come (according to Reuters) Morell will now become a member of the presidential intelligence advisory board.

Hmmmm…I guess it’s the old adage of 'keep your friends close and your enemies even closer' for with this announcement coming just days after the newest and extremely serious Obama scandal…what I call ‘Big Brother IS Indeed Watching You’…Morell’s ‘sudden’ resigning and moving into Obama’s direct sight line raises major red flags.

And then to be replaced by White House lawyer and agency outsider Avril D. Haines, who currently is Obama’s deputy counsel in charge of national security issues and legal adviser to the National Security Council, means that with the appointment of Susan Rice as National Security Advisor, Obama now has two NOT qualified but oh so loyal people in charge of our nation’s security…one to foolishly advise him, and one to keep an eye on the CIA so they do Obama’s bidding instead of operating in the best interest of our country.

And of course as if on cue, CIA Director and Obama shill John Brennen follows in lock-step singing Haines’ praises saying, "she knows more about covert action than anyone in the U.S. government outside of the CIA."

Quite odd that a women…a lawyer who helped Brennen rewrite the rules of the drone campaign that was recently announced by Obama, and someone who has NEVER worked inside the intelligence agency, just happens to know so much about classified CIA actions…knows more than some within the CIA itself…and is now being appointed as Deputy Director of one of the agencies under Congress’ microscope.

Brennen and Haines…both Obama blind followers and muslim sympathizers running the CIA…are ‘We the People’ and our beloved America screwed or what…as the very people  charged with protecting America's intelligence have really NO knowledge how to do so, because Obama doesn’t pick people who are competent...Obama picks people for loyalty and for knowing even less than he does.

So by appointing Haines to a position of authority and moving Morell to within Obama’s sight line, Obama’s peeps continue to circle their protective wagons around him. And as an added bonus…a bonus Morell is too blind to see..this administration now has their fall guy for Benghazi…someone who, unlike Susan Rice, will NOT be promoted to an even higher position than before but one who will be kept on a leash as he sits on an advisory board under Obama’s watchful eye.

And here’s a little tidbit some might have forgotten…Michael Morell was directly involved in composing the infamous talking points about the Benghazi attack…you know the talking points that said the attack was because of a YouTube video…and Morell is suspected to have been the person who removed all references to regional threats and the words ‘terror attack’ from them.

Even more of a reason for Obama to keep him close by I’d say.

But true to liberal shortsightedness, Morell’s resigning now while the NSA is in the spotlight actually deflects some of that spotlight off spying for just a bit and puts it back on Benghazi just where Obama doesn’t ever want to go…a scandal that should NEVER have been swept under the rug…a scandal Obama thinks he’s free of…a scandal he thinks can’t be traced back to him…a scandal with shadows of treason lurking behind every corner...a scandal that will NOT go away.