Faceless Dolls for Muslim girls launched in Britain

Pamela 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. ...

Read the whole entry »

     

• Email to a friend • Article Search •

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

Syria: Islamic jihadists using UN cars for jihad terror operations

By Robert Spencer / Jihad Watch

 

The UN has denounced this. On the other hand, the UN denounced the storage of Hamas jihad rockets in its Gaza schools, but did nothing to stop it, and even gave the rockets back to Hamas after they were found. The UN is a disgrace and should not be funded by American taxpayers (or anyone else).

“Syrian al-Qaeda using UN cars to conduct terror operations,” by Roi Kais, Ynet News, December 11, 2014:

Syrian opposition sources say al-Qaeda-linked Syrian rebels, known as the Al-Nusra Front, have taken over areas along the Israeli-Syrian border and have recently been spotted using UN cars to conduct terror operations.

According to the sources, the Al-Nusra Front has seized large swaths of the southern Golan Heights and has used UN cars during attacks against Assad’s army near the city of Daraa in southwestern Syria – a worrying sign of the capabilities of the Syrian al-Qaeda branch.

The Syrian opposition sources claimed the use of the UN vehicles was part of a double car explosion attack. The terrorist behind the attack, Abu Khattab al-Muhajir, was able to exit the vehicle before it exploded.

The UN car was the second of the two vehicles to explode and led to the deaths of two of Assad’s men who were not killed from the first explosion.

The al-Nusra Front uploaded photos documenting the attack to their Twitter account on Wednesday. The photos depict the major-general of the group, Abu G’libib, wiring the explosives himself.

The photographs depicting the usage of the UN car were also aired by state television of the Assad regime.

The UN responded to the attack and said, “using UN equipment by Jabhat al-Nusra to carry out terrorist acts is unacceptable.”…

Yeah. Time for you guys to issue another condemnation of Israel.

Poll: Americans Say Release of 'Torture' Report Hurts US More Than 'Torture' Itself

Guy Benson / Townhall Tipsheet

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 methods...how 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,,,

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/12/12/poll-americans-say-release-of-torture-report-hurts-us-more-than-use-of-torture-n1931161

Krauthammer: Feinstein's Excuse for Not Interviewing CIA Agents is "Total Rubbish"

Daniel Doherty / Townhall Tipsheet

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...
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danieldoherty/2014/12/12/krauthammer-feinsteins-excuse-for-not-interviewing-cia-agents-is-total-rubbish-n1931013

“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."

RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS...LIVE...TODAY

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.

Hope you can join us...http://cprworldwidemedia.com/live-radio/
and chat with live shows at https://www.facebook.com/groups/cprworldwidemedia/

I Don't Care if Obama Thinks We're Stupid; Just Repeal Obamacare

David Limbaugh / Townhall Columnist

 

Instead of using this space to pretend the newly released CIA "torture" report confirms that the United States is the most evil nation in the history of the universe, I'm going to address Jonathan Gruber's confirmation that he believes we're all stupid.

Assuming you are not under any rocks or haven't been in an underground bunker without access to media, you will have heard that Gruber, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the principal architect of Obamacare, made some unflattering comments about his fellow Americans.

At a panel event last year, discussing how the administration was able to secure passage of the Affordable Care Act, Gruber openly admitted that the administration deceived the American people in numerous important respects about the legislation, bragged about the administration's lack of transparency in the process and outright called the American people "stupid," which I think is arguably the least of these three sins, though it's the one getting the most airplay.

Read Gruber's own words: "You can't do it politically. You just literally cannot do it. OK?

Transparent financing and also transparent spending. I mean, this bill was written in a tortured way to make sure (the Congressional Budget Office) did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. OK? So it's written to do that. In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in -- you made explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money -- it would not have passed. ... Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically, that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass. ... Look, I wish (health economist) Mark (Pauly) was right (that) we could make it all transparent, but I'd rather have this law than not."

This week, Gruber, tail between his legs, desperately backpedaled before Congress, pretending that he didn't mean a thing he said, that he had only acted arrogantly in an effort to portray himself as a very smart cookie.

State Department Denies Media Requests for Hillary Clinton's Files

Sarah Jean Seman / Townhall Tipsheet

 

Several news outlets seeking to vet the Democratic Party’s most prominent presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, have encountered some difficulties. According to the Associated Press, the State Department is stonewalling several media organizations who have requested government documents pertaining to Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State.

The Freedom of Information Act, enacted in 1966 by then president Lyndon B. Johnson, stipulates that:

“any person has a right, enforceable in court, to obtain access to federal agency records, except to the extent that such records (or portions of them) are protected from public disclosure by one of nine exemptions or by one of three special law enforcement record exclusions.”

When the State Department failed to disclose documents to Citizens United, pursuant with the law, the non-profit organization filed a FOIA lawsuit against the State Department on Wednesday. The organization's president, David Bossie, explained:

"As Citizens United conducts pre-production research for the sequel to Hillary The Movie, the State Department has stonewalled our request for public records on official taxpayer-funded travel overseas.The American people have a right to know who accompanied Secretary Clinton on these trips. Were there any big political contributors to previous or future Clinton campaigns on board? Were there any Clinton Foundation financial supporters on board? These are important questions that need to be answered, especially considering the allegations that arose regarding Commerce Department trade missions during the Clinton Administration in the 1990s.”

According to the AP, the State Department has also been avoiding its FOIA requests for years:

The AP requested copies of Clinton's full schedules and calendars from her four years as secretary of state; her department's decision to grant a special position for longtime aide Huma Abedin; Clinton's and the agency's roles in the Osama bin Laden raid and National Security Agency surveillance practices; and her role overseeing a major Defense Department contractor. The AP made most of its requests last summer, although one was filed in March 2010.

State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach claimed that the department's negligence was due to the estimated 19,000 FOIA requests it receives annually.

Whether the stonewalling was the result of dereliction of duty, or of secrecy, remains to be seen.