US to withdraw strike jets from Libya mission

By SLOBODAN LEKIC | Published: 4:03 AM 04/04/2011 | Updated: 4:49 PM 04/04/2011

 

Libyan conflict, officials said.

---

• 
• 
• 
• 2

---

We Recommend:

You might like:

BRUSSELS (AP) — The U.S. military was pulling its warplanes from front-line missions Monday and shifting to a support role in the Britain, France and other NATO allies will now provide the fighter jets for intercept and ground-attack missions that enforce a no-fly zone over this North African country.
The hand-over is expected to take place later Monday, a NATO official said.
“There won’t be a capabilities gap,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of regulations.
Another official, who could not be named for the same reason, said the U.S, would continue to play a major role in the operation, with one of the largest national contingents. Most U.S. planes will perform switch to support tasks, leaving offensive tasks to their NATO allies.
In Washington, Defense Department spokesman Navy Capt. Darryn James said U.S. activity will formally end at 2200 GMT (6 p.m EDT.)
U.S. aircraft currently account for 90 of the 206 planes deployed by NATO in the Libyan conflict.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told Congress last week the U.S. would continue to provide assets that others don’t have in sufficient numbers. These will likely include AWACS air surveillance planes, electronic reconnaissance aircraft and aerial refueling tankers.
American air power — including Air Force AC-130 gunships and A-10 Thunderbolts and Marine Corps AV-8B Harriers — will still be available to back up the allies in case of need.
Western jets have been hitting the forces of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi for more than two weeks. They initially targeted anti-aircraft missile defenses and quickly crushed a government offensive by destroying a large number of tanks, armored vehicles, artillery and other vehicles advancing into rebel-held areas.
But military experts say Gadhafi’s forces have rapidly reorganized since then, shedding their heavy armor and relying on light forces to harry and repeatedly ambush the lightly armed rebels.
NATO said its aircraft flew 154 sorties over Libya on Sunday, the fourth day since the alliance assumed full control over the mission from the U.S.-led international force. It described 58 of those flights as “strike sorties.”
NATO does not release information on the number of targets bombed.
In the first four days of the NATO operation, alliance aircraft have flown a total of 701 sorties, the statement said.
Flights by fighters and attack jets accounted for 40 percent of that total. The rest are by AWACS surveillance aircraft, aerial refueling tankers, maritime patrol planes, search and rescue helicopters and other support aircraft.
___
Associated Press writer Pauline Jelinek in Washington contributed to this report.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/04/us-to-withdraw-strike-jets-from-libya-mission/#ixzz1IcLB9aww

Hannity Interviews Dr Terry Jones The Pastor That Burned The Koran

Senators Consider Hamid Karzai's Request to Condemn Koran Burning Amid Protests

Published April 03, 2011

FoxNews.com

AP

Afghan protestors shout anti-U.S. slogans during a demonstration in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, April 3.

U.S. lawmakers said Sunday they would consider a request by Afghan President Hamid Karzai to formally condemn a Florida pastor's decision to burn the Koran, after the act triggered deadly riots in Afghanistan. 

The protests entered their third day Sunday as demonstrators battled police in the southern city of Kandahar and, in the eastern city of Jalalabad, blocked a highway and burned an effigy of President Obama. 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid repudiated pastor Terry Jones for touching off the chaos with what he called a "publicity stunt." Jones had earlier threatened to burn the Koran, but then shelved the plan until last month. The burning attracted little U.S. attention at the time but was used as a rallying cry in Afghanistan. 

"This was an effort to get some publicity for him. He got it. But in the process, 10-20 people have been killed," Reid said on CBS' "Face the Nation." 

Asked whether Congress could pass a resolution condemning it, he said, "We'll take a look at this." 

 

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., suggested Congress should condemn the burning, but also stressed that one pastor's actions should not excuse the subsequent killings. 

"Burning a Koran is a terrible thing, but it doesn't justify killing someone. Burning a Bible would be a terrible thing, but it wouldn't justify murder," he said. "But having said that, any time we can push back here in America against actions like this that put our troops at risk, we ought to do it." 

Obama had a similar message, saying in a written statement that Jones' actions marked "an act of extreme intolerance and bigotry," but that the violence must stop. 

"To attack and kill innocent people in response is outrageous, and an affront to human decency and dignity," Obama said. 

The violence started Friday, when demonstrators in the previously peaceful northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif poured into the streets after Friday prayers and overran a U.N. compound, killing three U.N. staff members and four Nepalese guards. 

On Saturday, hundreds of Afghans holding copies of the Koran over their heads marched in Kandahar before starting to attack cars and businesses. Security forces opened fire and nine protesters were killed, but the governor of Kandahar said officers had only fired into the air. He said 81 were wounded and 17 people, including seven armed men, had been arrested. 

Military commander Gen. David Petraeus and the top NATO civilian representative in Afghanistan, Mark Sedwill, said that they "hope the Afghan people understand that the actions of a small number of individuals, who have been extremely disrespectful to the Holy Koran, are not representative of any of the countries of the international community who are in Afghanistan to help the Afghan people." 

The Taliban said in a statement emailed to media outlets that the U.S. and other Western countries had wrongly excused the burning of the Koran on March 20 as freedom of speech and that Afghans "cannot accept this un-Islamic act." 

"Afghan forces under the order of the foreign forces attacked unarmed people during the protests, killing them and arresting some, saying there were armed people among these protesters, which was not true," the Taliban said. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Translated from the website of the European Council for Fatwa and Research,

a Muslim Brotherhood-linked group which is presided over by Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, 23 August 2009:

Question: Is it permissible for women to ride bikes? What about for a girl who is a virgin, with the probability that she could lose her hymen?

Answer: Regarding riding bikes or cars or any other vehicles: it is a thing which is permissible in and of itself. In the days of Jahiliyyah [i.e. pre-Islamic period], and even after converting to Islam, Arab women would ride camels. The Messenger (peace be upon him) said: “The best women who ride camels are the women of Quraysh; they treat children with compassion in their youth, and watch over what is in the hands of their husbands,” meaning their money.

This is on the condition that she guards the rules of the shari’ah on propriety while she’s riding, regarding the requirement to wear lawful clothes, and to beware of body to body contact, for that is prohibited by the shari’ah. Regarding the probability that virgin girls could lose their hymens, you should study this issue and find out the level of probability. If it is a rare thing, the legal decision is that there is no ruling against things which are rare, for rulings are adopted (only) for things which are likely or common. On the other hand, if it happens often and cannot be guarded against for one reason or another, then the virgin Muslim girl must be prohibited from doing this, so that ill is not thought of her, and she be accused of something of which she is innocent. The exception to this is if it is ruled to be necessary, such as if it is the only means by which she can arrive at school or work which is obligatory for her, or so forth, for necessity can make that which is (otherwise) prohibited permissible, as the Most High said: “But if one is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- then is he guiltless. For Allah is Oft-forgiving Most Merciful” [Qur’an 2:173].

--
Posted By Translating Jihad to Translating Jihad at 4/04/2011 07:05:00 AM

--

Medical marijuana users fight for gun rights

By JEFF BARNARD | Published: 5:05 AM 04/04/2011 | Updated: 5:45 AM 04/04/2011

Cynthia Willis stands March 25, 2011 in front of Medical Marijuana Patient Services in Medford, Ore., where she volunteers. Willis sued the Jackson County sheriff to get her concealed handgun license back after being denied for holding a medical marijuana card. She has won twice in court and is waiting for the Oregon Supreme Court to rule. Oregon is one of 16 states that allow medical use of marijuana. This cases appears to be the first to sort out whether medical marijuana users can have guns. (AP Photo/Jeff Barnard)

Cynthia Willis shows off her Walther P-22 pistol March 25, 2011 at a firing range in White City, Ore. Willis is suing the Jackson County sheriff to get her concealed handgun permit back after being denied for having a medical marijuana card. The Oregon Supreme Court is expected to rule this summer. (AP Photo/Jeff Barnard)

Cynthia Willis shoots her pistol on a firing range March 25, 2011 in White City, Ore. Willis is suing the Jackson County sheriff over denial of a concealed handgun permit after she acknowledged having a medical marijuana card. So far, she has won twice in court, and is waiting for the Oregon Supreme Court to rule. Willis contends that using marijuana for medicine is no different than using any other prescribed drug, and should not preclude her carrying a concealed handgun for personal protection. (AP Photo/Jeff Barnard)

Cynthia Willis shows off her medical marijuana card, concealed handgun permit, and her Walter P-22 pistol on March 25, 2011 at a firing range in White City, Ore. Willis sued her local sheriff after she was denied a concealed handgun permit for acknowledging she holds a medical marijuana card. Oregon sheriffs feel giving a concealed handgun permit to medical marijuana users violates a federal law barring gun ownership to drug addicts. But Oregon courts have twice ruled that this is one situation where federal law does not trump state law. Sheriffs have appealed and the case is pending in the Oregon Supreme Court. (AP Photo/Jeff Barnard)

---

• 
• 
• 
• 7

---

We Recommend:

You might like:

• Magnitude 7.2 earthquake hits northeast Japan
• Government appeals US judge’s health care ruling
• House GOP considers privatizing Medicare
• NTSB: Cracks found in 3 grounded Southwest planes

WHITE CITY, Ore. (AP) — Cynthia Willis calls up and down the firing range to be sure everyone knows she is shooting, squares up in a two-handed stance with her Walther P-22 automatic pistol and fires off a clip in rapid succession.

Willis is not only packing a concealed handgun permit in her wallet, she also has a medical marijuana card. That combination has led the local sheriff to try to take her gun permit away.
She is part of what is considered the first major court case in the country to consider whether guns and marijuana can legally mix. The sheriffs of Washington and Jackson counties say no. But Willis and three co-plaintiffs have won in state court twice, with the state’s rights to regulate concealed weapons trumping federal gun control law in each decision.
With briefs filed and arguments made, they are now waiting for the Oregon Supreme Court to rule.
When it’s over, the diminutive 54-year-old plans to still be eating marijuana cookies to deal with her arthritis pain and muscle spasms, and carrying her pistol.
“Under the medical marijuana law, I am supposed to be treated as any other citizen in this state,” she said. “If people don’t stand up for their little rights, all their big rights will be gone.”
A retired school bus driver, Willis volunteers at a Medford smoke shop that helps medical marijuana patients find growers, and teaches how to get the most medical benefit out of the pound-and-a-half of pot that card carriers are allowed to possess. She believes that her marijuana oils, cookies and joints should be treated no differently than any other prescribed medicines. She said she doesn’t use them when she plans to drive, or carry her gun.
“That’s as stupid as mixing alcohol and weapons,”‘ she said.
Oregon sheriffs are not happy about the state’s medical marijuana law.
“The whole medical marijuana issue is a concern to sheriffs across the country who are involved in it mainly because there is so much potential for abuse or for misuse and as a cover for organized criminal activity,” said Washington County Sheriff Rob Gordon, who became part of the Willis case because his office turned down three medical marijuana patients in the Portland suburbs for concealed handgun permits. “You can’t argue that people aren’t misusing that statute in Oregon.
“Not everybody, of course. Some have real medical reasons. But …the larger group happens be people who are very clearly abusing it.”
The sheriffs argue that the 1968 U.S. Gun Control Act prohibits selling firearms to drug addicts, and they say that includes medical marijuana card holders. Their briefs state that they cannot give a permit to carry a gun to someone prohibited from buying or owning a gun.
But the cardholders have won so far arguing this is one situation where federal law does not trump state law, because the concealed handgun license just gives a person a legal defense if they are arrested, not a right.
Oregon’s attorney general has sided with the marijuana cardholders, arguing that the concealed handgun license cannot be used to buy a gun, so sheriffs who issue one to a marijuana card holder are not in violation of the federal law.
Willis’ lawyer, Leland Berger, says it is much simpler.
The sheriffs “are opposed to the medical marijuana act,” Berger said from Portland. “It’s not based on reason. That’s how they are.”
Rural southern Oregon is awash with marijuana — legal and illegal. Arrests for illegal plantations are commonplace. The region’s six counties also have the highest rate of medical marijuana use in the state. There are also a lot of guns in the Rogue Valley, where Willis lives.
Sixteen states now have medical marijuana laws, according to NORML, an advocacy group. There is no way to determine how many medical marijuana cardholders also have gun permits. Patient lists are confidential, and an Oregon court ruled the sheriffs can’t look at them.
NORML executive director Allen St. Pierre said Oregon courts have not been entirely medical marijuana friendly. While they have upheld the right to pack a pistol, they have also ruled that employers can fire people who use medical marijuana.
“A person who uses medical cannabis should not have to give up their fundamental rights as enumerated by the Constitution,”‘ St. Pierre said.
Gordon said he expects the gun issue to come up in other states with medical marijuana laws.
Oregon was the first state in the country to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana, with legislation enacted in 1973. And it was right behind California in making medical marijuana legal when voters approved a ballot measure in 1998. But voters here stopped short of following California all the way to selling medical marijuana to cardholders at dispensaries. A ballot measure failed last year, so patients still have to grow their own or get someone else to grow it for them at cost, with no profit margin.
Oregon is one of 37 states where the sheriff has to give a concealed handgun permit to anyone meeting the list of criteria, though they have some discretion to say what those criteria are. They generally require people to be 21, a U.S. citizen, pass a gun safety course, and have no criminal record or history of mental illness, drug or alcohol abuse, or domestic violence.
The issue doesn’t really come up in California, where concealed handgun licenses are much harder to get.
If Willis loses, she plans to carry her pistol out in the open, in a holster on her hip, which is, under Oregon law, perfectly legal.
“I’ve been done harm in my life and it won’t ever happen again,”‘ she said about her reasons for wanting the gun. “I’ve never had to draw it”‘

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/04/medical-marijuana-users-fight-for-gun-rights/#ixzz1IbCsiYHF

Temporary victory: Muslim’s anti-blasphemy resolution not introduced at UN

Posted on April 4, 2011 by creeping

 

via An Anti-Blasphemy Measure Laid to Rest – Nina Shea – National Review Online.

A long-term campaign by the U.N.’s large Muslim bloc to impose worldwide blasphemy strictures — like those in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran — was given a quiet burial last week in the Human Rights Council, the U.N.’s main human-rights body. At the session that ended in Geneva on March 25, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), sensing defeat, decided not to introduce a resolution calling for criminal penalties for the “defamation of religions” — a resolution that had passed every year for more than a decade. This is a small but essential victory for freedom.

The lessons in how this campaign rose and fell will be important in protecting the international human rights of freedom of expression and religion against other threats, particularly as the U.S. engages with the new order in Egypt and other Arab states.

The OIC’s anti-defamation effort was inspired by Ayatollah Khomeini’s infamous 1989 fatwa, directing “all zealous Muslims to execute quickly” the British author Salman Rushdie and others involved with his book TheSatanic Verses. While not explicitly embracing vigilantism, the Saudi Arabia–based OIC, an organization of 56 member states, quickly endorsed Khomeini’s novel principle: that Western law should be subject to Muslim measures against apostasy and blasphemy.

The OIC worked to institutionalize this principle within the United Nations. By 1999, it began introducing resolutions annually in the Council’s predecessor (the now-discredited Human Rights Commission) to condemn any expression that could be construed, however broadly, as “defamation of religions” — but meaning, specifically, criticism of Islam.

…in 2006, the Bush administration took the lead in defending free speech, energetically pressing Council members to oppose the resolution. The EU also became engaged, emphasizing the need to protect individuals, who “should not be viewed as mere particles of homogeneous and monolithic entities.” Until then, the West member states had been unfocussed and unwilling to push back on a controversial, religiously framed issue.

The Western bloc’s support gave traction to the persistent lobbying efforts against the resolution by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, members of Congress — notably Representatives Chris Smith (R., N.J.), Frank Wolf (R., Va.), Trent Franks (R., Ariz.), and Eliot Engel (D., N.Y.) — and a broad array of non-governmental organizations, from the Becket Fund to Human Rights First.

…

The defense of the right to speak freely in the West about Islam, and within Islam, is far from over — last month, an Austrian court convicted Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff of “defaming” the Islamic prophet Mohammad during a political-party briefing. But what happened last week at the Council was not simply a tempest in a teapot. America could not afford to lose this debate — not over a universal human-rights code that reflects our values, and not in an international forum that we disproportionately fund. It showed that America, when it finds its voice, can still exert diplomatic influence in the defense of fundamental ideals concerning human rights and freedoms — even in a notoriously difficult international context.

Don’t let dhimmi’s like Harry Reid and Lindsey Graham submit the U.S. to Islamic blasphemy laws.

[From Creeping Sharia]

Translated from the website of Dr. Salah al-Sawy, the secretary-general of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), 28 March 2011:

Between the Shura and Democracy

Q: What is the difference between the Shura and democracy, and which is preferred? Are there any books which could benefit me on this topic? May Allah reward you well.

A: In the name of Allah, the most merciful and gracious.

Praise be to Allah, and peace be upon him the Messenger of Allah, and upon his family, companions, and those that follow him. The Shura comes from the rulings of the shari'a, and an entire surah of the Qur'an was sent down with this name. The difference between it and democracy is that the Shura does not exist (under Islam) except in the areas of permissible actions or legislative amnesty. For things which have been stipulated in the texts of Islam, the Ummah possesses no power except to acknowledge and obey, following the saying of the Most High: "It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path"

[Qur'an 33:36]. For example, it is not for the Shura to consider, "Should the noon prayer contain four or five bows?" Or, "Should we fast during the month of Ramadan, or should we replace it with the month of Shawwal?" Or, "Should we forbid wine or allow it?" Or, "Should we forbid adultery, or permit it if it's done by consensual agreement of those who have reached the legal age, and it's not done on the married couple's bed?"

Al-Bukhari said in his Sahih: "The Imams after the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) would consult the trustworthy scholars in things which were permissible, to take the best option. But if the Qur'an or the Sunnah was clear on the matter, they wouldn't transgress against it, following the example of the Prophet (peace be upon him). The reciters of the Qur'an would consult, whether old or young, and they were careful to adhere to the book of Almighty Allah."

But democracy gives free reign to the authority of the Ummah, and puts no ceiling on it. The law is the expression of its will, and if the law says it, the conscience must be silent! A constitutionalist even said: "We have departed from the divine right to rule for kings, and replaced it with the divine right to rule for parliaments!" The shari'a, on the other hand, differentiates between the source of the legal system and the source of the political authority. The source of the legal system is the shari'a, while the source of the political authority is the Ummah. Meanwhile democracy makes the Ummah the source of both. On my website there is a book named "Political Pluralism." If you review it, it will you benefit you in regards to this topic, Allah-willing. Allah Almighty is all-powerful, all-knowing.


--
Posted By Translating Jihad to Translating Jihad at 3/30/2011 07:42:00 AM

Cal Irvine students met with Hamas leader [from creeping sharia]

Posted on April 4, 2011 by creeping

via Cal Irvine students met with Hamas leader | Jewish Journal.

Students from the University of California, Irvine met with a Hamas leader during a student trip to Israel.

The Institute for Jewish and Community Research said it learned recently that the university’s branch of the Olive Tree Initiative, an Israeli-Palestinian peace organization, arranged for a meeting between the Irvine students and a Hamas leader in the West Bank while the students were on a trip to Israel in September 2009. The communal organization is protesting the meeting.

According to an October 2009 letter sent to Irvine’s chancellor by the Jewish Federation of Orange County, California, the students were told to keep the meeting secret. That was to avoid problems re-entering Israel, the letter alleged, and angering local Jewish organizations, including the federation, which is the initiative’s biggest funder.

The letter said the federation had reviewed the trip itinerary ahead of time with the faculty member and graduate students in charge, and were “surprised to learn” afterward “that they conducted an unapproved, off-itinerary meeting with Aziz Duwaik.” The federation has demanded that the university investigate the incident.

Duwaik is the speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, but the federation letter pointed out that for years he had been a leader of Hamas, which the United States classifies as a terrorist organization.

The Institute for Jewish and Community Research this week is adding its voice to the federation’s, urging UC Irvine to “respond to this serious misuse of funds and gross violation of public trust.”

The University of California system is facing federal anti-Semitism complaints against its Berkeley and Santa Cruz campuses. In December 2007, a federal civil rights investigation into similar allegations at UC Irvine by the Department of Education found “insufficient evidence” that the university failed to respond to complaints by Jewish students that they were being harassed.

Hat tip to Europe News, and more from the OC Register, Group: UC Irvine students met with Hamas leader:

Cathy Lawhon, spokeswoman for UCI, said “meeting with people of many different points of view is consistent with (Olive Tree’s) mission.”

“Their stated mission is to hear varying points of view, and to take people of varying points of view over there,” Lawhon said. “It’s not a homogenous group at all.”

…

Duwaik, who holds a doctorate in regional and architecture planning from the University of Pennsylvania, was arrested by Israel in 2006 for belonging to Hamas and jailed until mid-2009. Within the group, he is regarded as somewhat moderate, arguing that calls for eliminating Israel are unrealistic.

Lawhon said more trips to the Mideast have taken place since 2009, but that she is unaware if additional meetings with Duwaik or other Hamas officials were held.

Hamas-linked CAIR calls on Cali police to stop working with FBI’s terrorism task force

Posted on April 4, 2011 by creeping

 

What a coup it will be if terror-linked CAIR can stifle local law enforcement from working with the JTTF. The FBI, DHS, and other critical security apparatus in the U.S. have already been infiltrated by jihad and sharia sympathizing Muslims, this would pave the way for disaster. CAIR Chapter – Local Police Shouldn’t Work with FBI Task Force via IPT News

When we called attention to a flier published by the Council on American Islamic Relations’ (CAIR) San Francisco chapter in January, urging people to “Build a Wall of Resistance” to the FBI, officials insisted it wasn’t what it looked like.

CAIR supports law enforcement, they said, and the poster was created more than 30 years ago. Since then, however, the organization has filed two lawsuits against the FBI. Now, the same chapter that published the anti-FBI flier has joined several other groups in calling on the San Francisco and Oakland Police Departments to stop collaborating with the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) immediately.

The Department of Justice created the JTTF after 9/11 in order to better coordinate information sharing between federal, state and local law enforcement.

CAIR and the other groups argued Tuesday that Bay Area law enforcement assigned to the JTTF would be forced to violate the California Constitution, which prohibits intelligence gathering without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Additionally, the groups condemned the police departments for not releasing “their now-secret agreements with the FBI,” which they said would “provide assurances that their officers are adhering to the standards of state and local law.”

“Community trust is the most important tool of law enforcement,” said CAIR-SFBA Executive Director Zahra Billoo. “By infiltrating organizations and interviewing people who they do not suspect of any wrongdoing, the FBI is obfuscating their ability to counter domestic crime. We do not want our local law enforcement in the same predicament.

[from Creeping Sharia]

All-Female, American Sortie Flies Bombing Mission Against Taliban – Meet ‘Dudette 07’

Posted on April 4, 2011 at 12:16pm by Mike Opelka

Does this qualify as ‘breaking the glass ceiling’ from above?

One wonders what Afghanistan’s Taliban troops would think if they knew the American F-15s dropping bombs from high in the sky were flown by an all-female crew?  The entire crew of ‘Dudette 07’ happens to be female, from the pilots and weapons officers to the mission planners and maintainers.

Captain Jennifer Morton is seen doing a pre-flight check.

U.S. Air Force photo/Senior Airman Sheila deVera

The official statement on this historic event comes from the US Military:

3/31/2011 - BAGRAM AIRFIELD, Afghanistan (AFNS) – A team of female Airmen made history here March 30 when the F-15E Strike Eagles of “Dudette 07” blazed down the runway to provide close air support for coalition and Afghan ground forces.
The two-ship formation consisted of all females, two pilots and two weapons system officers, but more importantly, it marked the first combat mission flown from Bagram to be planned, maintained and flown entirely by females.

Meet these ‘Top Guns’ up close and personal:

Indeed, a perfect way to close out ‘Women’s History Month.’

MSNBC Guest Explains: Burning a Koran is ‘Much’ Worse than Burning a Bible

Posted on April 4, 2011 at 9:22am by Jonathon M. Seidl

Did you know that burning the Koran is worse than burning the Bible? That’s what MSNBC guest and Time Magazine world editor Bobby Ghosh told host Chuck Todd on Friday. According to him, the Koran is directly from God, while the Bible isn’t. Mediaite offers a transcript:

GHOSH: The thing to keep in mind that`s very important here is that the Koran to Muslims, it is not — it is not the same as the Bible to Christians.
The Bible is a book written by men. It is acknowledged by Christians that it is written by men. It`s the story of Jesus.

TODD: Yes.

GHOSH: But the Koran, if you are a believer, if you`re a Muslim, the Koran is directly the word of God, not written by man. It is transcribed, is directly the word of God.
That makes it sacred in a way that it`s hard to understand if you’re not Muslim. So the act of burning a Koran is much more — potentially much, much more inflammatory than –

TODD: Directly attacking — directly attacking God.

GHOSH: — than if you were to burn a — burn a Bible.

TODD: Directly attacking God.

Unless I missed something growing up, I’m pretty sure a synonym for the Bible is the “Word of God,” is it not?

The Beginning Of Extremist Islamic State: Now the Muslim Brotherhood Is Calling for Egyptian Modesty Police

Posted on April 4, 2011 at 7:20am by Naked Emperor News

Despite the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper calling Egypt’s branch of the Muslim Brotherhood movement “largely secular.” in early February, the Muslim Brotherhood is now calling for virtue police, which were prevalent in medieval Islamic societies to enforce public virtue and modesty.

Officials of the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s leading Islamic group, have called for the establishment of a Saudi-style modesty police to combat “immoral” behavior in public areas in what observers say in another sign of a growing Islamic self-confidence in the post-Mubarak era.
In the political sphere, the Brotherhood led a successful drive to get voters to approve a package of constitutional amendments. On the street level, at least 20 attacks were perpetrated against the tombs of Muslim mystics (suffis), who are the subject of popular veneration but disparaged by Islamic fundamentalists, or salafis. After some initial hesitation, Islamic leaders have publicly praised the revolution.
“This is incredibly worrying to many Egyptians,” Maye Kassem, a political scientist at the American University in Cairo (AUC), told The Media Line. “The salafis were always undercover in Egypt and now they are emerging as a political force. They are getting too vocal.”
Newly freed from the political strictures of the Mubarak era, Egypt has turned into a battleground between those who envision a liberal, secular state and those who advocate various shades if Islam. The conflict mirrors those taking place elsewhere in the region. In Bahrain, unrest has evolved into a conflict between Sunni- and Shiite Muslims and the US has pulled back from supporting Libyan rebels over concerns they are dominated by Islamists.

Read Full Article from: JPost.com

Senate Wants to Punt Constitutional Duty to Advise and Consent

from Red State

Posted by hogan (Profile)

Sunday, April 3rd at 9:46PM EDT

Does anyone in Washington understand the concept of reading your job description and then doing your job? Apparently the esteemed members of the U.S. Senate - including both Republican and Democrat leadership - do not.

You see, they would rather have time to meddle further in the lives of Americans than in performing their constitutionally prescribed duty to advise and consent to Presidential nominees. As David Addington of the Heritage Foundation notes in Heritage WebMemo #3211, Senator Schumer has introduced S.679 and, along with 15 co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle, would like to reduce the number of Presidential appointments that require consent of the Senate while also establishing a “Working Group on Streamlining Paperwork for Executive Nominations” within the executive branch.

Addington properly dismisses this idea as detrimental to the Constitutional safeguard against the accumulation of power in one branch. In short -the idea is stupid and the result of busy-bodies who are too lazy to do their actual job effectively rather than coming up with yet another bill to tell us how to live our lives.

The job of a U.S. Senator is not that complicated. How about starting with the basics - like, I don’t know - balancing the budget sometime before the year 2100 and confirming only Presidential nominees who are actually qualified and believe in the Constitution (at this time, I’d like to give a little shout out to the absurdity of those Republican profiles in courage who voted for Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan - you know who you are… or see here , e.g.).

But, because the Senators of today are more interested in offering the 4000+ bills they offer each Congress so that they can tell you what kind of light bulbs to use, what restaurants must post on a menu in terms of calories or whatever other nonsensical waste of time and abuse of the Constitution they have in mind - they refuse simply to do their job.

And how about going one Congress - just ONE - without creating yet another working group, advisory committee, agency or other group of bureaucrats or politicians who will sit around and advise us on something. Can you do that? Please?

It is almost like Congress - and often, in particular, the Senate is a live parody of itself… carrying out a bad SNL skit before our very eyes on how to be both meddlesome and completely incompetent while offering non-solution “solutions” to problems that were generally created by them in the first place.
This bill is ill-advised, and worse yet, symptomatic of the problem with Washington… failure to do its actual job while coming up with jobs it has no business doing in the first place.

Don’t Buy Anti-Israel, Pro-HAMAS Author Henning Mankell’s Novels

April 3, 2011, - 1:38 pm

By Debbie Schlussel

*** SCROLL DOWN FOR UPDATE ***
Every Friday Night and Saturday, as I am enjoying the Jewish Sabbath, I like to read crime novels, mysteries, and thrillers (in addition to history books).  But Henning Mankell’s books will never be among them.  That’s because he’s an open supporter of Islamic terrorism, was part of the HAMAS Gaza flotilla, last year, and is vehemently anti-Israel and anti-Semitic.



Henning Mankell Mocks Israeli Fence Against Terrorism, @ Abu Dhabi Judenrein Book Fair

You may have heard of Mankell, because his latest detective mystery was just released, to glowing reviews in People, the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and elsewhere.  They all rave over Mankell and Detective Kurt Wallender, the hero of many of his books.  With the success of the late Swedish writer Stieg Larsson’s novels, all of which have been made into successful movies, publishing houses and Hollywood are on the lookout for the next big Scandinavian author to promote and turn into John Grisham.  They seem to have settled on Mankell, who is already quite popular and has sold over 30 million books, translated into many different languages.

But, like most celebrated Scandinavian crime writers, Mankell is far left and openly hateful of Israel.  Mankell was aboard the HAMAS flotilla to Gaza, last May, meant to provoke and injure Israeli soldiers, and yet Israel stupidly still allows him within its borders.  The guy should be behind bars.  Mankell repeatedly calls for sanctions against Israel.  And he’s called Israel “apartheid” in an anti-Semitic op-ed he wrote in the Swedish Aftonbladet newspaper.

Recently, Mankell said he wanted to block his books from being translated into Hebrew, even though his books are best-sellers in Israel.  Sadly, I don’t think that happened, and foolish Israelis continue to buy this modern-day Nazi’s books.  Mankell’s books also sell in the United Arab Emirates and other Muslim countries, where Israelis and Jews with Israeli stamps on their passports are banned, as are their books.  Israel, for example, could not have any of its authors participate in the Abu Dhabi book fair, where the real apartheid goes on and where such apartheid allowed Mankell to hold court.  Apparently, Judenrein ain’t a problem for this self-professed scholar in apartheid.

Mankell’s own country, Sweden, is already overrun with Muslims threatening and caught trying to carry out Islamic terrorist attacks on his own fellow countrymen.  Most of those attacks are meant to silence Swedish newspapers (for reprinting the Danish Mohammed cartoons) and others trying to enjoy the same speech rights that made Mankell wealthy beyond his wildest dreams.  And that’s not to mention the fact that Jews must leave their homes in Malmo to escape Muslim violence, and Israeli tennis players must play to an empty stadium under heavy guard to avoid Islamic terrorism. That’s not apartheid??? But instead of speaking out against that and against those who’ve overrun his own home, he’s out aiding and abetting the same Islamic terrorists who do their bidding on behalf of HAMAS in Israel.  When the Muslims finally take over Sweden completely–which really isn’t that far off in the future–Mankell will be among the rest of the slaughtered infidels, treated no better for his treasonous bidding on their behalves.

Henning Mankell, this idiotic pan-Islamic socialist, is already a multi-millionaire.  Let him give his money to the “poor, downtrodden” Palestinians.  In the meantime, when it comes to his books, print and electronic, keep your pocketbooks and wallets shut.

In the past, I’ve written about anti-Israel authors crime and mystery novelists who put their politics on the page, including John Le Carre and Richard North Patterson.  I suspect that, soon, even Detective Wallander won’t escape the stink of his creator, the sleazy Henning Mankell.
*** UPDATE: I forgot to mention (and have added above) that there is true Judenrein apartheid in Mankell’s own country of Sweden, as I’ve noted in the recent past on this site, the Jews of Malmo, who’ve been forced to leave their homes to survive Muslim violence there, and that’s not to mention the Israeli tennis team that had to play to an empty stadium under heavy guard to avoid violence from Sweden’s Muslims.

Also one of my Scandinavian Facebook friends, Pål Dugstad (join me on Facebook) notes that Henning Mankell told Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet:

What would Europe have been without Islamic culture? Nothing.

What an idiot! Yup, said with a straight face. Send him with a one way ticket to Gaza and drop him there.

Petreaus, NATO reinforce sharia in wake of Muslim Koran-burning rampage

From Creeping Sharia

 

Posted on April 4, 2011 by creeping

 

Precious U.S. blood has ensured Islamic sharia is the law of the land in Iraq and Afghanistan and General Petraeus continues to reinforce that notion. Opportunity missed. via Quran protests spread to east Afghanistan – Washington Times.

U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the U.S. and NATO military commander, and the top NATO civilian representative in Afghanistan, Mark Sedwill, said they “hope the Afghan people understand that the actions of a small number of individuals, who have been extremely disrespectful to the Holy Quran, are not representative of any of the countries of the international community who are in Afghanistan to help the Afghan people.”

In other words, the U.S. and other NATO nations fully respect the “Holy Quran” at all times, in accordance with Islamic sharia law, and would never do anything to or say anything about it that Muslims might disapprove.
We hope Petreus or Sedwill’s words were solely for the safety of U.S. and NATO troops. What other reason is there for pandering to mobs of murderous Muslims and the absurd idea that a burned book caused anyone harm?