The videos are below. Here is a bit of background on Hector Aleem:
Christian human rights activist and director of NGO Peace Worldwide, Hector Aleem, was taken into custody in January 2009 because a militant Islamic group accused him of sending a ‘blasphemous’ text message from his cell phone. If convicted, he faces the death penalty under Pakistani law.
Prior to the 55-year-old’s arrest, Aleem was threatened by Islamic groups with assassination attempts and lawsuits because he objected to the illegal destruction of a church by Islamabad’s capital development authority (CDA). Muslim leaders threatened to kill him and his sons, and to forcibly convert his daughters to Islam.
Although a heart patient, Aleem has not been allowed to consume his medication and he has been denied visitation in prison. He was denied bail because Islamic mobs filled his trial courtroom and threatened to kill the judge, Aleem, and Aleem’s lawyer.
Aleem is the recipient of a peace award by Pakistan’s Prime Minister.
From October 22, 2010. Quality is rather poor.
This one is from today, October 25th, 2010. Quality is much better.
More Hate Speech Coming to UC-Irvine-Ben White to Speak
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
"One person's hate speech is another person's education"
Well, now that the radical student organization, Students for Justice in Palestine has set up a chapter at UC-Irvine, it looks like they will be off to a roaring start along with their pals in the Muslim Student Union, er, Alkalima-Muslim Students at UCI (sorry). This coming Thursday, these two groups are bringing in none other than radical British Israel-hater, Ben White to pimp his book, "Israeli Apartheid-A Beginner's Guide".
Of course, nobody should expect a rational discourse from this flake. He is part of the international movement to destroy Israel. Many consider him a Jew-hater. Is he? He denies it, but has written in his response to the charge that "I can undertsand why some people are".
Here is an excerpt from Whites's appearance at Columbia University March 2, 2010.
(Video by Pakayhall)
No, White is not a Catholic priest; he just likes to dress as one. Did you note the kaffiya-clad "security" along the walls at the end?" Amazing how universities allow the organizers of these volatile events to provide their own security instead of the campus police, who prefer to maintain "a low profile".
This is an especially bad time for this appearance at UC-Irvine. The university is trying to convince the public that it has "cracked down" on the Muslim Student Union with a "suspension" for one quarter. Yet, they (MSU) simply create a new group and link arms with the SJP to bring in yet another radical character with a reputation for being an anti-Semite. Meanwhile, the OC Jewish Federation is going around telling the world that they have taken care of "the problem" at UCI.
What an embarrassment.
fousesquawk
"One person's hate speech is another person's education"
Well, now that the radical student organization, Students for Justice in Palestine has set up a chapter at UC-Irvine, it looks like they will be off to a roaring start along with their pals in the Muslim Student Union, er, Alkalima-Muslim Students at UCI (sorry). This coming Thursday, these two groups are bringing in none other than radical British Israel-hater, Ben White to pimp his book, "Israeli Apartheid-A Beginner's Guide".
Of course, nobody should expect a rational discourse from this flake. He is part of the international movement to destroy Israel. Many consider him a Jew-hater. Is he? He denies it, but has written in his response to the charge that "I can undertsand why some people are".
Here is an excerpt from Whites's appearance at Columbia University March 2, 2010.
(Video by Pakayhall)
No, White is not a Catholic priest; he just likes to dress as one. Did you note the kaffiya-clad "security" along the walls at the end?" Amazing how universities allow the organizers of these volatile events to provide their own security instead of the campus police, who prefer to maintain "a low profile".
This is an especially bad time for this appearance at UC-Irvine. The university is trying to convince the public that it has "cracked down" on the Muslim Student Union with a "suspension" for one quarter. Yet, they (MSU) simply create a new group and link arms with the SJP to bring in yet another radical character with a reputation for being an anti-Semite. Meanwhile, the OC Jewish Federation is going around telling the world that they have taken care of "the problem" at UCI.
What an embarrassment.
Homeland Security Advisor is an Islamist
Labels:
Dept. of Homeland Security,
Islam and stealth jihad,
Mohamed Elibiary,
Obama's islamization of America,
Sayyid Qutb,
the traitor in the White House
One only has to look at this islamist and muslim to know that obama is out to do all he can to islamize the United States. The appointment of such individuals of ill repute has never been faster, nor have so many cockroaches like this, been placed in positions of very high security clearance and access to classified, secret information. So why has this slipped under the radar? From the Investigative Project On Terrorism.
New Dept. of Homeland Security Advisor is an Islamist
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano’s appointment of “de-radicalization” expert Mohamed Elibiary to the Homeland Security Advisory Council earlier this month has thus far drawn little attention from Congress or the media, despite his record of criticizing successful terrorism prosecutions and praising Islamist ideologue Sayyid Qutb.
Elibiary recommended the writings of Qutb, who is credited with inspiring the Muslim Brotherhood and terrorist groups like al Qaida and Hamas, as offering “the potential for a strong spiritual rebirth that’s truly ecumenical allowing all faiths practiced in America to enrich us and motivate us to serve God better by serving our fellow man more.”
Elibiary also criticized the indictment and subsequent convictions of the Holy Land Foundation and five former officials for providing more than $12 million to Hamas, depicting the case as a defeat for the United States. He suggested that the convictions were part of a U.S. government policy of “denying our civil liberties and privacy at home” while pursuing anti-terror policies that have “left thousands of Americans dead, tens of thousands maimed, trillions of taxpayer dollars squandered and our homeland more vulnerable than ever.”
Read Elibiary’s criticism of a recent Supreme Court decision in favor of current material-support laws here.
At a March 2010 hearing held by the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment, Elibiary appeared to perpetuate the message that Islam is under attack from the West. He criticized federal law enforcement for targeting “low-hanging fruit” and using “agent provocateurs” to infiltrate mosques.
Elibiary, president and CEO of the Freedom and Justice Foundation, has also come under fire for allegedly threatening a Dallas Morning News columnist and speaking at a December 2004 conference in Dallas paying tribute to the Ayatollah Khomeini.
When Rod Dreher, then a Morning News columnist, questioned his participation in the conference, Elibiary’s reply included this suggestion: “Treat people as inferiors and you can expect someone to put a banana in your exhaust pipe or something.”
Dreher replied that he regarded this as a threat. He said Elibiary and his fellow Islamists regarded “debate” as consisting of “yelling and bullying and blustering” and “groundless accusations of ‘racism’ and ‘Islamophobia’ and what rot. And now I suppose I have to worry that someone from your community would see me drive up, identify my car, and alter it to cause me harm. Great work, Mohamed.”
My email to NPR over firing of Juan Williams and their response
I recently fired off a short email to NPR(national philistine radio)over the firing of Juan Williams. NPR sent me their oh so politically correct reply and I thought it was worth posting here. In my email I minced no words nor did I soften my approach. NPR was seldom listened to in my car and is not allowed in our home, period. I called a spade a spade and NPR answered with pablum and Kool-Aid. No one will be surprised. I really get a kick out of the sentence" this was a difficult and principled decisions." How many times has NPR violated their own ethics guidelines in the last ten years?
NPR responds to the firing of Juan Williams
Here is my email that I sent to NPR:
Original Message: How sad that NPR caved into the PC position that was mandated by Cair, an organization that has been linked to terrorism. Juan Williams did nothing wrong and poll after poll shows that what Williams stated, most Americans agree with. 20 years ago NPR was worth listening to for certain programs. Sadly, that is not the case today. NPR has fallen victim to the three toxic stews of the west, PCness, diversity and mutliculturalism. You are now a one sided organization that is nothing more than a mouth piece for the far left and what I call the demosocialistacrats. NPR is about as useless as the NAACP. Both spout off with racist remarks and are home to many who spew rabid anti-Semtism and support everything islamic, muslim or that is minority driven. Way to go, way to go. Of course NPR is beholding to the hands that feed it and we know who that is. Now you can cozy up with your fellow kool aid junkies and toast what a grand thing it was to fire Williams who BTW, is not even a moderate conservative individual. Around here you are now called national philistine radio. You earned it. Now wear it with pride on the butt of your clothing. NPR will never be heard in my car or home again.
And here is NPR's predictable response:
Response to Message #158004:
Late Wednesday evening we gave Juan Williams notice that we’ve terminated his contract as a Senior News Analyst for NPR News. We didn’t make this decision lightly or without regret. Juan has been a valuable contributor to NPR and public radio for many years.
However, his remarks on The O’Reilly Factor this past Monday violated our ethics guidelines. Unfortunately, this has occurred several times in other media. Our decision to end our contractual relationship with Juan has come after repeated conversations and warnings about some of his public comments. This was a difficult, but principled decision.
We’ve been contacted by listeners who have passionately agreed with our decision, as well as those who have disagreed with it, with equal conviction. We hear you both and respect your perspectives. At the same time, we believe that the public is better served by NPR holding firm to the values and standards that have guided us for many years.
As some listeners have also asked for more details about our funding, you can find a detailed overview of our funding on our website in our “About” section: Of note, and as is explained in that site, NPR, Inc. has received no direct operating support from the federal government since 1983.
I recognize that this decision has sparked a strong debate in the blogosphere and elsewhere, and that you have a firm position on the matter. While we stand by our policy, we also regret that we were compelled to take the actions that we did.
Sincerely,
Dana Davis Rehm
Senior Vice President, Marketing, Communications, and External Relations
New Black Panthers case causes deep divisions: A must read!
This is what I am calling a must read. The New Black Panthers are a racist, anti-Semitic bunch of thugs, nothing more. Their actions in Philadelphia and beyond should have been cause enough to get the entire organization busted and locked up. That may not ever happen thanks thanks to obama and Eric Holder. The deception, lies and cover up should have been published and well covered in LSM but we know how that works. The Washington Post has done a superb job in exposing this scandal and travesty of justice open for all to read about. Many of us knew about this and reported on the entire nasty affair. This is a pretty long article so I am just posting an introduction and a link to the rest of this fine article.
Dispute over New Black Panthers case causes deep divisions
By Jerry Markon and Krissah Thompson
Washington Post Staff Writers
On Election Day 2008, Maruse Heath, the leader of Philadelphia's New Black Panther Party, stood in front of a neighborhood polling place, dressed in a paramilitary uniform.
Within hours, an amateur video showing Heath, slapping a black nightstick and exchanging words with the videographer, had aired on TV and ricocheted across the nation.
Among those who saw the footage was J. Christian Adams, who was in his office in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division in Washington.
"I thought, 'This is wrong, this is not supposed to happen in this country,' " Adams said. "There are armed men in front of a polling place, and I need to find out if they violated the law, because in my mind there's a good chance that they did."
The clash between the black nationalist and the white lawyer has mushroomed into a fierce debate over the government's enforcement of civil rights laws, a dispute that will be aired next week when the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights unveils findings from a year-long investigation.
Two months after Election Day, Adams and his supervisors in the George W. Bush administration filed a voter-intimidation lawsuit against Heath and his colleagues, even though no voters had complained. The Obama administration months later dismissed most of the case, even though the Panthers had not contested the charges.
Interviews and government documents reviewed by The Washington Post show that the case tapped into deep divisions within the Justice Department that persist today over whether the agency should focus on protecting historically oppressed minorities or enforce laws without regard to race.
The dispute over the Panthers, and the Justice Department's handling of it, was politicized from the start, documents and interviews show. On Election Day, the issue was driven by Republican poll watchers and officials and a conservative Web site.
At the department, Adams and his colleagues pushed a case that other career lawyers concluded had major evidentiary weaknesses. After the Obama administration took over, high-level political appointees relayed their thoughts on the case in a stream of internal e-mails in the days leading to the dismissal.
That decision to pull back the lawsuit caused conflicts so heated that trial team members at times threw memos in anger or cursed at supervisors.
The dismissals triggered outrage from conservatives and congressional Republicans, two internal Justice Department inquiries and the investigation by the conservative-controlled civil rights commission. The debate has thrust Eric H. Holder Jr., the nation's first African American attorney general and long the target of Republican attacks, into an unwelcome spotlight.
In recent months, Adams and a Justice Department colleague have said the case was dismissed because the department is reluctant to pursue cases against minorities accused of violating the voting rights of whites. Three other Justice Department lawyers, in recent interviews, gave the same description of the department's culture, which department officials strongly deny.
"The department makes enforcement decisions based on the merits, not the race, gender or ethnicity of any party involved," spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said. "We are committed to comprehensive and vigorous enforcement of the federal laws that prohibit voter intimidation, as our record reflects."
On Election Day, Jerry Jackson arrived first at Guild House West, an assisted-living center in north Philadelphia that served as a polling place in the overwhelmingly Democratic ward. As a certified Democratic poll watcher who lives in the neighborhood, he had worked several elections at the red brick building with a circular drive in front.
Jackson was soon joined by Heath, both decked out in the uniform of the New Black Panther Party: black berets, jackets, shirts, pants and boots.
The two, regulars around the neighborhood, also protest often near City Hall. They have been shown in videos and quoted in news reports using incendiary rhetoric, telling African Americans to rise up against their "slave masters" and condemning whites as "crackers."
But neighbors said they view Jackson and Heath - who declined to comment - as annoyances rather than threats.
Jackson, 54, and Heath, 39, have criminal histories that between them include convictions for drug possession, robbery and simple assault, according to court records. Their local New Black Panther Party is part of a small, radical black nationalist organization with members in a handful of cities. It is not connected to the Black Panther Party of the 1960s.
That morning, the men stood a few feet apart on a narrow sidewalk in front of the polling place, forcing voters to walk between them.
ad_icon
Some in the neighborhood didn't see a problem. James "Jimmy" Whitmire, 74, who voted in the Guild House recreation room, said he saw nothing "that was destructive . . . nothing offensive." Three other residents who voted that day said in interviews that they agreed.
About 10 a.m., a complaint from an unknown caller went to the local Republican Party headquarters. The message was relayed to Chris Hill, a GOP poll watcher, who hurried over with two lawyers volunteering for the party.
As he walked up the driveway to the polling place, Hill said in an interview, Heath called out: "What are you doing here, cracker?"
Hill ignored him and walked between the two men. Jackson brushed his shoulder, Hill said.
Inside, a black poll worker said that although the Panthers had made no direct threats, he didn't feel safe going outside, according to Hill, who then called police. (The worker, a registered Democrat hired that day to work the polls for the GOP, later told the civil rights commission that he did not feel threatened.)
Continue reading the rest of the article here.
The FBI and the raid just outside Dearbornistan: Luqman Abdullah Ameen
Labels:
Vladtepes videos for 10/24/2010
Just a note to all: I have been having problems with numbness in my right hand and it is very hard to type and post right now. Doing the best I can and that is why there
has been fewer posts of late. Just another pain and body part I need to deal with.
As always, appreciate your understanding.
From Vladtepes, of course!
Related posts:
A sample of anti-Israeli irony
Labels:
antisemitism,
Israel,
Zionism
Hello everyone. This is my first post here, so please bear with me.
Now, as a person who lives in Israel, I get to hear hateful lies about my country on a regular basis, either spewed by the media (most notably our own), or from random individuals online (some 'educated student' convincing people that Israel is a "Theocracy", was one of the worst flips of the actual situation that I've ever witnessed), but every now and the system of unrestrained, shameless, blatant, irresponsible, anti-Israeli hate propaganda manages to top its own absurdity.
The sum of it from the article: "Two paintings by Norway's Haakon Gullvaag that show an Israeli flag have been withdrawn from an exhibition at the French Cultural Centre in the Syrian capital, the artist said on Monday.His 'Terra Sancta' exhibition contains works about the Israeli offensive against the Islamist-ruled Gaza Strip in December 2008 and January 2009."
These two paintings depict the Israeli flag rising over dead babies, and a pile of skulls. If you want to enjoy this 'work of art', check the full article. Pretty standard anti-Israel propaganda - wars are terrible, and Jews are monsters, who weren't actually fighting anyone else, but merely butchering innocent children, brainwash, rinse, repeat, etc.
These two paintings depict the Israeli flag rising over dead babies, and a pile of skulls. If you want to enjoy this 'work of art', check the full article. Pretty standard anti-Israel propaganda - wars are terrible, and Jews are monsters, who weren't actually fighting anyone else, but merely butchering innocent children, brainwash, rinse, repeat, etc.
Now, for the protocol I'd say that the more of Israel's enemies that die while engaging in offensive operations against this country - the better.
In fact, it doesn't matter if these brutes were launching missiles, flinging rocks from catapults, or tossing spent baby diapers over the border. The second you commit an act of war against a nation state, you are effectively waving any rights that were held up to this point. It is self-evident that a party that breaks peace in an aggressive manner (that is, not in order to preempt an imminent attack from the other side), is liable to all damages it incurs as result of its own actions - be it loss of property, lives, land, or donkeys.
Such is the price of failure, and a failed warmonger must indeed pay.
Therefore, unless you are an extreme leftist screwball, it should be quite clear that the responsibility for every casualty of war in Gaza lies on the shoulders of Hamas, and all its supporters (which is the vast majority of the Gazan population).
In fact, it doesn't matter if these brutes were launching missiles, flinging rocks from catapults, or tossing spent baby diapers over the border. The second you commit an act of war against a nation state, you are effectively waving any rights that were held up to this point. It is self-evident that a party that breaks peace in an aggressive manner (that is, not in order to preempt an imminent attack from the other side), is liable to all damages it incurs as result of its own actions - be it loss of property, lives, land, or donkeys.
Such is the price of failure, and a failed warmonger must indeed pay.
Therefore, unless you are an extreme leftist screwball, it should be quite clear that the responsibility for every casualty of war in Gaza lies on the shoulders of Hamas, and all its supporters (which is the vast majority of the Gazan population).
However, I wouldn't have bothered to mention this occurrence, had it been just another case of half-blindness - a common logical fallacy among such people as this Norwegian leftist, whose country hasn't seen a real conflict since the Napoleonic Wars, and therefore can conveniently believe that the 'poor Muslims', who currently occupy something like a quarter of the Earth's land mass, in 47 countries of their own, are somehow victims of Israel's defensive efforts.
The reason I'm bringing it up here, is that it carries an amusing twist. You see, the hate-speaker's paintings were removed from a French exhibition in Damascus, because of a nearby hotel that houses many Iranian guests (in case any of our readers is unaware of it - Syria is a close ally of Iran). According to the French embassy, "they were afraid that the Iranians would misunderstand the motifs as being Israel-friendly. Then the cultural center claimed that some students have complained about showing the Israeli flag at all."
The reason I'm bringing it up here, is that it carries an amusing twist. You see, the hate-speaker's paintings were removed from a French exhibition in Damascus, because of a nearby hotel that houses many Iranian guests (in case any of our readers is unaware of it - Syria is a close ally of Iran). According to the French embassy, "they were afraid that the Iranians would misunderstand the motifs as being Israel-friendly. Then the cultural center claimed that some students have complained about showing the Israeli flag at all."
And so, in a rare case of double-irony, the hate-speech was censored, but for the wrong reasons.
It now seems that the best way for Israel to combat the demonizing propaganda that's being thrown at it, is to convince people this filth is actually serving its cause.
Political correctness gone wild in Michigan, and beyond
Here is yet another example how political correctness, diversity and multiculturalism are wrecking our country. We should be free to chose who WE want to live with. The state of Michigan may be going after a woman who advertised for a Christian roommate. Would this happen if she was a muslim woman or man doing this? Probably not out of fear of upsetting the local muslim population. This person should have the freedom to decide on who she gets to live with. How sad is this when an American is threatened with legal action for just expressing who she wants to share her residence with. From Fox News.
Michigan Woman Faces Civil Rights Complaint for Seeking a Christian Roommate
Fox News: A civil rights complaint has been filed against a woman in Grand Rapids, Mich., who posted an advertisement at her church last July seeking a Christian roommate.
The ad "expresses an illegal preference for a Christian roommate, thus excluding people of other faiths,” according to the complaint filed by the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan.
"It's a violation to make, print or publish a discriminatory statement," Executive Director Nancy Haynes told Fox News. "There are no exemptions to that."
Haynes said the unnamed 31-year-old woman’s case was turned over to the Michigan Department of Civil Rights. Depending on the outcome of the case, she said, the woman could face several hundreds of dollars in fines and “fair housing training so it doesn’t happen again.”
Harold Core, director of public affairs with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, told the Grand Rapids Press that the Fair Housing Act prevents people from publishing an advertisement stating their preference of religion, race or handicap with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling.
"It's really difficult to say at this point what could potentially happen," he told the newspaper, noting that there are exemptions in the law for gender when there is a shared living space.
But Joel Oster, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing the woman free of charge, describes the case as "outrageous."
"Clearly this woman has a right to pick and choose who she wants to live with," he said.
"Christians shouldn't live in fear of being punished by the government for being Christians. It is completely absurd to try to penalize a single Christian woman for privately seeking a Christian roommate at church -- an obviously legal and constitutionally protected activity."
Haynes said the person who filed the initial complaint saw the ad on the church bulletin board and contacted the local fair housing organization.
The ad included the words, "Christian roommate wanted," along with the woman's contact information. Had the ad not included the word "Christian," Haynes said, it would not have been illegal.
"If you read it and you were not Christian, would you not feel welcome to rent there?" Haynes asked.
Oster said he hopes the case will eventually be dropped and that he's sent a letter to the state asking the authorities to dismiss the case as groundless.
"The First Amendment guarantees us Freedom of Religion," he said. "And we have the right to live with someone of the same faith. The Michigan Department of Civil Rights is denying her rights by pursuing this complaint."
But Haynes said officials plan on pursuing the matter.
"We want to make sure it doesn't happen again," she said.
Original article is here.
Michigan Woman Faces Civil Rights Complaint for Seeking a Christian Roommate
Fox News: A civil rights complaint has been filed against a woman in Grand Rapids, Mich., who posted an advertisement at her church last July seeking a Christian roommate.
The ad "expresses an illegal preference for a Christian roommate, thus excluding people of other faiths,” according to the complaint filed by the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan.
"It's a violation to make, print or publish a discriminatory statement," Executive Director Nancy Haynes told Fox News. "There are no exemptions to that."
Haynes said the unnamed 31-year-old woman’s case was turned over to the Michigan Department of Civil Rights. Depending on the outcome of the case, she said, the woman could face several hundreds of dollars in fines and “fair housing training so it doesn’t happen again.”
Harold Core, director of public affairs with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, told the Grand Rapids Press that the Fair Housing Act prevents people from publishing an advertisement stating their preference of religion, race or handicap with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling.
"It's really difficult to say at this point what could potentially happen," he told the newspaper, noting that there are exemptions in the law for gender when there is a shared living space.
But Joel Oster, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing the woman free of charge, describes the case as "outrageous."
"Clearly this woman has a right to pick and choose who she wants to live with," he said.
"Christians shouldn't live in fear of being punished by the government for being Christians. It is completely absurd to try to penalize a single Christian woman for privately seeking a Christian roommate at church -- an obviously legal and constitutionally protected activity."
Haynes said the person who filed the initial complaint saw the ad on the church bulletin board and contacted the local fair housing organization.
The ad included the words, "Christian roommate wanted," along with the woman's contact information. Had the ad not included the word "Christian," Haynes said, it would not have been illegal.
"If you read it and you were not Christian, would you not feel welcome to rent there?" Haynes asked.
Oster said he hopes the case will eventually be dropped and that he's sent a letter to the state asking the authorities to dismiss the case as groundless.
"The First Amendment guarantees us Freedom of Religion," he said. "And we have the right to live with someone of the same faith. The Michigan Department of Civil Rights is denying her rights by pursuing this complaint."
But Haynes said officials plan on pursuing the matter.
"We want to make sure it doesn't happen again," she said.
Original article is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
