Google+ Followers

Wednesday, May 21, 2014


A few days ago in Sudan, an eight-month pregnant wife and mother was sentenced to death by hanging for refusing to renounce Christ and embrace Islam.  According to theLA Times:
Meriam Yehya Ibrahim, who has a young son and is married to a Christian from South Sudan, violated Islamic sharia law, the court said. She insists she was raised Christian, not Muslim.

The court also ordered Ibrahim to be flogged for having sexual relations with her husband, since her marriage is not recognized by officials.
Ibrahim refused a court order Sunday giving her several days to renounce her Christian faith, which resulted in the sentencing Thursday….
Ibrahim, currently jailed with her son, will be allowed to give birth and raise her second child until the age of 2 years but then faces execution. Sudanese authorities refuse to allow Ibrahim’s son to reside with her husband because the husband is Christian.
Tragic as this story is, it is also immensely commonplace in Islamic countries.  Why? Because Islamic law does in fact punish the apostate from Islam—including with death—in accordance with the commands of the Muslim prophet Muhammad.  Indeed, many Muslim clerics believe that “If the [death] penalty for apostasy was ignored, there would not be an Islam today; Islam would have ended on the death of the prophet,” as top Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi once declared on live television.
Of more significance is the Amnesty International statement concerning Meriam Ibrahim’s plight. While its criticism is aimed at Sudan’s legal system, the statement unwittingly provides a glimpse of how the international community would view Islam if it could actually understand that these human rights abuses are not products of this or that government or regime, but of Islam itself.
The fact that a woman has been sentenced to death for her religious choice, and to flogging for being married to a man of an allegedly different religion is appalling and abhorrent.
Adultery and apostasy are acts which should not be considered crimes at all. It is flagrant breach of international human rights law.  The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, which includes the freedom to hold beliefs, is far-reaching and profound; it encompasses freedom of thought on all matters, personal conviction and the commitment to religion or belief (emphasis added).
If, as Amnesty International declares, flogging and executing a person, in this case a pregnant woman, because of her “religious choice” and marrying a man of a “different religion” are “appalling and abhorrent”; if they are a “flagrant breach of international human rights law”—what do we make of the fact that Muslim converts to Christianity are punished and sometimes killed all across the Islamic world?
Consider the following anecdotes, a few examples, most from 2013 alone (culled from my monthly “Muslim Persecution of Christians” series and listed in country alphabetical order):
Afghanistan: A member of Afghanistan’s Parliament said that all Afghans who convert to Christianity should be executed.  His exact words: “Afghani citizens continue to convert to Christianity in India. Numerous Afghanis have become Christians in India. This is an offense to Islamic Laws and according to the Quran they need to be executed.” As one of many live examples,  Said Musa, an amputee and father of six young children, was once charged with apostasy and pressured to renounce Christianity, but he refused. So he was imprisoned, suffering “sexual abuse, beatings, mockery, and sleep deprivation because of his faith in Jesus.”
Algeria: The wife of Ali Touahir, a 52-year-old Muslim convert to Christianity, left him, taking their seven-year-old daughter, and is divorcing him in court.  One of his wife’s brothers openly threated to kill apostate.  The wife’s lawyer asserted: “It is not possible that my client [the Muslim wife] still remain under the same roof with a man who has renounced his religion, as he became apostate; and we are not ignorant of the punishment that is due an apostate under sharia [death].”
Cameroon: Two Muslim converts to Christianity were shot dead and two others wounded, in the Christian-majority African nation where Muslims make approximately 20 percent of the population.  One of them was previously threatened by the Nigerian Islamic terrorist group Boko Haram to return to Islam or “face Allah’s wrath.”
Egypt: A court sentenced an entire family—Nadia Mohamed Ali and her seven children—to fifteen years in prison for converting to Christianity. A born Christian, Nadia had earlier converted to Islam and married a Muslim man; reconverting back to Christianity after the death of her husband, she attempted to reflect this change formally on her identity card and her children’s, which created suspicions among security, who arrested the family.  Separately and days ago in Egypt, after a former Muslim woman on live television announced her apostasy and lack of faith in Muhammad as the “Messenger of Allah,” she was insulted, ridiculed, and thrown off the set by the host.
Iran: Imprisoned American pastor Saeed Abedini was reported as “facing physical and psychological torture at the hands of captors demanding he renounce his beliefs.” The 32-year-old married father of two, who left his home in Boise, Idaho, to help start an orphanage in his former country, once detailed “horrific pressures” and “death threats” in a letter to family members: “My eyes get blurry, my body does not have the strength to walk, and my steps become very weak and shaky…  They are only waiting for one thing…for me to deny Christ. But they will never get this from me.”  The imprisonment and torture of Muslim converts to Christianity in Iran is quite common (recall the plight ofPastor Yousef Nadarkhani).  According to Adnkronos News, “renouncing the Muslim faith is punishable with the death penalty [in Iran]. Over 300 Iranian converts to Christianity have been arrested over the past two years, according to opposition websites.”
KyrgyzAfter a young Muslim girl converted to Christianity, her parents“wanted her to recant and renounce her faith in Christ, so they began to beat her systematically till she lost consciousness… It was winter when all of this happened, so her parents put her into a cold room and kept her there for several days. Still they were unable to break her spirit.  They then started pulling her hair and put her face against the stove, burning her face. In spite of this, she remained faithful.”
Morocco: A fatwa, or Islamic decree, by the government’s top religious authority, calls for the execution of those Muslims who leave Islam, causing many Christian converts to live in fear. Lamented one Christian: “The fatwa showed us that our country is still living in the old centuries—no freedom, no democracy.  Unfortunately, we feel that we aren’t protected. We can be arrested or now even killed any time and everywhere. The majority of the Christian Moroccan leaders have the same feeling.  We are more followed now by the secret police than before. Only the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ gives us courage and peace.”
Pakistan: A 16-year-old Muslim boy who converted to Christianity was abducted in Peshawar by Taliban-linked Islamic militants “and his fate may already be marked, as he is considered ‘guilty of apostasy.’” As one Pakistani pastor explained, “If a young Muslim converts to Christianity in Pakistan, he is forced to live in hiding. Every Muslim might feel compelled to kill him. The change of religion is not punished by the civil law, it is punishable by Islamic law. For this reason cases of Muslim conversion to Christianity are very rare and some convert in secret.”   Muhammad Kamran, a Muslim convert to Christianity, exemplifies the pastor’s words.  After he told his wife of his conversion, she abused and exposed him, resulting in his being severely beaten by local Muslims.  In his words: “No one was willing to let me live the life I wanted [as a Christian]—they say Islam is not a religion of compulsion, but no one has been able to tell me why Muslims who don’t find satisfaction in the religion [such as myself] become liable to be killed.”
Saudi Arabia:  After a woman was exposed as having converted to Christianity, she was sentenced to six years in prison and 300 lashes.  Although she managed to flee the nation and went into hiding, the Christian Lebanese man accused of introducing her to Christianity received six years in prison and 300 lashes.
Somalia:  The Al-Qaeda linked Al Shabaab (“The Youth”), which has vowed to cleanse the Horn of Africa of all Christian presence, has slaughtered countless Muslim converts to Christianity—men, women, and children—in the last few years.  Most recently, Al Shabaab shot to death 42-year-old Fartun Omar, a widow and mother of five, for converting to Christianity.  Months earlier, they had killed her husband for the same “crime,” and had been hunting for the wife. In a separate incident, Al Shabaab publicly executed a 28-year-old man after determining that he had in fact become a Christian.    Al Shabaab Muslims also seized Hassan Gulled, 25, for leaving Islam and converting to Christianity, and imprisoned him, and tortured him.  According to local sources, “Al Shabaab have been torturing him to see whether he would deny his Christian faith. Since last week, no information has surfaced concerning Gulled. There is a possibility that he could have been killed.”
Tanzania: At the time pregnant and with three children, Lukia Khalid explained how when she told her Muslim husband that she had converted to Christianity, “He threatened to kill me if I was to stay with him. I then decided to escape that night with my three children to a neighbor’s house….  We left only with the clothes that we were wearing.  The command was so urgent that we could not wait any longer. We had to leave immediately.”  Last heard, they were living in destitute conditions.
One can go on and on with examples (see Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians, pages 96-135, for a more thorough expose, including on the doctrine and history of apostasy in Islam, and dozens of more recent examples).
Returning to Meriam Ibrahim, the pregnant Sudanese mother set to be executed for refusing to recant Christ and embrace Islam, some questions and observations are in order:
Are all the other anecdotes listed above not equally “appalling and abhorrent”—to use Amnesty International’s words describing Meriam’s specific plight?  Are they not all a “flagrant breach of international human rights law”?
If so, and if the international community is actually serious about putting a stop to them, should it not try to ascertain the true source behind them?
After all, considering that Muslim converts to Christianity are being attacked all throughout the Islamic world—including in nations as diverse as Algeria, Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, and Kyrgyz—surely the source is not something as simple as “Sudan’s legal system.”
The fact is, Muslim converts to Christianity are even under attack in Europe.  In Norway alone, for example, two Iranian converts out for a walk were stabbed with knives by masked men shouting “infidels!” One of the men stabbed had converted in Iran, was threatened there, and immigrated to Norway, thinking he could escape Islam’s apostasy penalty.  Earlier, an Afghan convert to Christianity was scalded with boiling water and acid at a Norwegian refugee processing center: “If you do not return to Islam, we will kill you,” his attackers told him.
Of course, the true source for all these attacks on Muslim converts to Christianity—in nations that do not share race, language, culture, politics, or economics—is Islam itself.  Anyone with common sense, anyone with the ability to be honest with oneself, must concede as much.   There is no other reasonable way to explain such identical patterns of abuse in such a wide array of nations.
But so long as the international community and human rights organizations fail to employ some common sense and honesty—fail to call a spade a spade—so will they ensure that countless more innocent humans like Meriam Ibrahim continue to suffer “appalling and abhorrent” treatment, simply for trying to exercise their “right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion” under Islam.

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

In Nigeria, Obama’s Pro-Islamist Policies Have Negative Practical Results

Boko Haram is a violent Salafist group that emerged in predominantly Muslim northeast Nigeria in the early 2000s. (Salafism is a Sunni Muslim reform movement that seeks return to the mores of the first generations of Muslims — theSalafiyya or the companions of Mohammed.)
There are reports that it got seed money from Osama bin Laden, and it has long been known to have al Qaeda ties, but how closely it actually works with al Qaeda — as opposed to loud displays of ideological support — is the subject of some debate in the U.S. government. This debate is reflective of general confusion and incoherence in American counterterrorism policy.

The ideological glue that holds Islamist groups together is Islamic supremacism, which is directly derived from a strict, literal interpretation of Muslim scripture, coupled with a belief that the “golden age” of Islam was the time of the first generations — Mohammed and his immediate companions and descendants — to which Muslims must return if they are ever to overcome the corrupting influence of the West. (Boko Haram actually means “Western education is ‘haram’ or forbidden.”)
Nevertheless, our government adamantly refuses to acknowledge the Islamic doctrinal underpinnings of Islamic supremacism.  Consequently, the disconnect: Boko Haram is quite clear that its goal is to impose sharia law and join al Qaeda’s global jihad. Its targets include churches and Western symbols, and its current leader, Abubakar Shekau, is quoted threatening the United States in 2010: “Do not think jihad is over. Rather jihad has just begun. America, die with your fury.” Yet, the Obama administration long refused to designate it as a terrorist organization — at the insistence of the State Department under Hillary Clinton, over the objections of other government agencies. (The State Department finally listed Boko Haram as a terrorist organization after John Kerry took over for Mrs. Clinton.)
Instead, ignoring what Boko Haram pronounces its goals to be, the Obama administration portrayed it as a diffuse organization with no clear agenda that was ascendant due to the policies of the Nigerian government (which is under Christian leadership). As the Boko Haram threat got progressively worse, the State Department and the White House theorized that it could be defused by better government engagement with the Muslim population in Northern Nigeria, and that designating Boko Haram as a terrorist organization—which would have triggered our law’s array of counterterrorism tools and squeezed the organization financially—would raise its prestige while encouraging more government repression against Muslims.
Note the absurdity: our government denies the Islamic doctrinal roots of jihadist terror, yet constantly fears that America’s condemnation of a group as “terrorist” will increase its appeal to factions of the Muslim population.

Global Anti-Semitism Poll Finds Shocking Rate of Holocaust Denial One European nation has a 69 percent anti-Semitism rate, while many Iranians clearly haven't been listening to their ayatollah.

The Anti-Defamation League released a sobering worldwide study of anti-Semitic attitudes today that found only 54 percent of people around the globe have heard of the Holocaust and nearly a third believe the World War II systematic slaughter is a myth or overblown.
Unprecedented in its size and scope, the ADL Global 100 survey gathered information in 102 countries and territories through 53,000 interviews.

We are here to try to measure the level of anti-Semitism to go beyond the anecdote,” ADL president Abe Foxman said at a press conference releasing the study. “…Our findings are sobering but, sadly, not surprising.”
Worldwide, anti-Semitic attitudes were found in 26 percent of those polled.
Respondents were asked their feelings about Jewish stereotypes: Jews are more loyal to Israel than their country of residency, have too much power in international financial markets, have too much control over global affairs, think they are better than other people, have too much control over the global media, are responsible for most of the world’s wars, have too much power in the business world, don’t care what happens to anyone but Jews, talk too much about happened to them in the Holocaust, and have too much control over the United States government. They were also asked if “people hate Jews because of the way Jews behave.”
Answering “probably true” to six of the 11 statements was considered an anti-Semitic attitude in the survey. Twenty-eight percent of those polled worldwide said none of the stereotypes are true.
Foxman said the survey didn’t directly ask people “are you anti-Semitic” because “anti-Semitism can mean different things in different places” — and “we also find that bigots don’t believe they are bigots.”
He added that, in his opinion, if a person answers three of those questions in the affirmative, “he has views against Jews.” The threshold used to be five questions, but Foxman stressed they want to “make sure we’re labeling bad someone who is really bad.”
If the threshold was five questions, the number of people harboring anti-Semitic attitudes worldwide would go up to 34 percent — more than a third of the adult population.
The number in the U.S. was comparatively low at 9 percent. Crossing the border into Mexico hiked the number up to 24 percent, with numbers consistently in the 30 percent or higher range across Latin America. Brazil was the lowest in Central and South America with 16 percent, while Panama was the highest with 52 percent.
Argentina, site of the 1994 Jewish community center bombing in Buenos Aires, scored 24 percent.
In sub-Saharan Africa, anti-Semitic attitudes ranged from a high of 53 percent in Senegal to a low of 12 percent in Tanzania. Ghana, Nigeria, and Uganda were also in the teens, with Kenya jumping to 35 percent and South Africa at 38 percent.
North Africa is a very different picture, with a high of 87 percent in Algeria and Libya and a low of 75 percent in Egypt.
Crossing over into the Middle East, 93 percent of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza rated as anti-Semitic, with 92 percent in Iraq. The lowest countries in the region were Oman at 76 percent, Saudi Arabia at 74 percent, and Iran with 56 percent.
Foxman said region turned out to be a greater facto

Sunday, May 11, 2014

Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau: “They are slaves and I will sell them because I have the market to sell them” Boko Haram-abducted not just ‘school girls’ but ‘Black Christian school girls’

What do 20 female US senators have in common with the mainstream media on the fate of the Boko Haram-abducted girls in Nigeria?  Both are doing the girls and their loved ones an unneeded disservice by describing them only as “school girls”, neglecting to identify them as what they truly are: “Christian, Black” school girls.

Also glaringly missing from the story of the abduction of the “Christian, black” school girls is that radical Islam, including Boko Haram,  is still in the thriving business of human slavery—while President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, continue to publicly portray America as the Grand Central of Slavery.

So what’s with the 20 female USA senators turning up at the Nigerian Embassy for yesterday’s protest,  and what’s up with the mainstream media now giving saturation coverage to Boko Haram and the missing-for-almost-one-month 276 Black, Christian girls?

Blatant hypocrisy and window dressing.

The 20 female US senators are taking advantage of photo-ops and trying to create the appearance of doing something.

In layman’s language, it’s called so much window dressing at the expense of 276 innocents.
“Members of Congress visited the Nigerian Embassy on Wednesday, saying there (sic)  are “anguished” over the abduction of nearly 300 teen schoolgirls in Nigeria three weeks ago. (Christian Science Monitor, May 7, 2014).

The Democratic and Republican senators said in a letter to President Obama Tuesday that placing Boko Haram on the UN’s list of organizations affiliated with Al Qaeda could help dry up the terror group’s international support and sources of income.”
A weak offensive for Boko Haram which is counting on the proceeds of slavery of the abducted.
According to a U.S. Global Leadership Report, Nigeria is “consistently a pro-American nation”.  “United States is Nigeria’s greatest trading partner and undeniably its most important diplomatic partner.” (Wikipedia)
“Ongoing presidential initiatives with Nigeria include the African Growth and Competitiveness Initiative, fighting avian flu, the initiative to end Hunger in Africa, and the Trans-Sahel Counter-Terrorism Program. 

“Nigeria’s eligibility for other regional activities include the Famine Early Warning System, Anti-Corruption Initiative; trafficking in persons; and the Ambassasdor’s Girls Scholarship Fund.
“Nigeria is a premier participant in the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), for which $270-million was committed in FY 2007.
Of the billions of dollars in U.S. aid going to Nigeria, Boko Haram surely helps itself.
“The Senate women stand united in condemning this reprehensible crime and are firm in our resolve that it will not be tolerated,” said Sens. Barbara Mikulski (D) of Maryland and Susan Collins (R) of Maine in a joint letter signed by the other 18 female senators. “We will not stand by and allow the Nigerian people to continue to be terrorized by Boko Haram and will continue to lead the effort to impose tough economic sanctions against this group.” (Christian Science Monitor)
“On Wednesday, Senator Collins called on Mr. Obama to send in a team of Special Forces to rescue the girls, who are reportedly being held at an abandoned military installation in a remote forest and game reserve. Senator Mikulski hedged on that demand, saying it is the responsibility of Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan to lead rescue efforts.” 
These window-dressing senators couldn’t even get their opening act together.
While the senators are waiting for a never-coming rescue from Obama and the United Nations, Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau is already boasting that he is going to sell the Black, Christian schoolgirls and already has the market for the sale.

“They are slaves and I will sell them because I have the market to sell them,” he said.
Muslim slavery is a harsh reality,  and no window dressing can rid the world of it.
In American history, the Muslim slave trade goes all the way back to 1801 when the first Barbary War was fought.  The war was fought because U.S. President Thomas Jefferson refused to pay the high tributes demanded by the Barbary states and because they were seizing American merchant ships and enslaving the crews for high ransoms.  It was the first declared war the United States fought on foreign land and seas. (Wikipedia). 

Islam and slavery go hand in hand and have been that way for centuries.
“From approximately 650 until around the 1960s, the Arab slave trade continued in one form or another. Historical accounts and references to slave-owning nobility in Arabia, Yemen and elsewhere are frequent into the early 1920s. In 1953, sheikhs from Qatar attending the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II included slaves in their retinues, and they did so again on another visit five years later.

“As recently as the 1950s, Saudi Arabia’s slave population was estimated at 450,000 — approximately 20% of the population. During the Second Sudanese Civil War people were taken into slavery; estimates of abductions range from 14,000 to 200,000. Slavery in Mauritania was legally abolished by laws passed in 1905, 1961, and 1981. It was finally criminalized in August 2007. It is estimated that up to 600,000 Mauritanians, or 20% of Mauritania’s population, are currently in conditions which some consider to be “slavery”, namely, many of them used as bonded labour due to poverty.

“The Arab slave trade in the Indian Ocean, Red Sea, and Mediterranean Sea long predated the arrival of any significant number of Europeans on the African continent.—Wikipedia
Meanwhile, neither the Obama administration nor the United Nations, from which it takes its orders, has ever addressed the topic of the horrific and evil Muslim Slave Trade.

Nor will the window dressing of 20 female U.S. senators who send feeble letters to both parties.

The Real War on Women: UN Urged to Tell Catholic Church it Has No Right to Oppose Abortion

( - The Center for Reproductive Rights, a non-governmental organization that advocates for legalized abortion, is urging the United Nations Committee Against Torture to tell the Catholic Church that “the freedom of speech and of religion” do not give the church the right to advocate against abortion.
When the committee met in Geneva on Monday for a hearing on the Vatican’s compliance with the Convention Against Torture, Vice Chairperson Felice Gaer, an American, said in her opening statement that laws that ban all abortion—which is the position of the Catholic Church--may violate the convention. She also repeated verbatim some language that had been in a letter the CRR had sent to the committee on April 11.
Gaer, however, did not quote the section in CRR's letter that urged the committee to tell the church that the freedoms of religion and speech did not give the church a right to advocate against abortion.
CRR’s letter included several recommendations for how the Committee Against Torture should deal with Catholicism.
CRR recommended: “Urge the Holy See to refrain from negatively interfering publicly or privately in women’s or legislators’ decisions concerning access to abortion and to support states as they attempt to align their policies on women’s reproductive rights with their obligations under the convention.”
CRR also recommended that in its upcoming report on the Vatican’s compliance with the Convention Against Torture, the committee should: “Note that the Holy See’s actions are a violation of Articles 1, 2 and 16 of the Convention Against Torture and that the rights of freedom of speech and of religion extend only so far as they do not undermine women’s reproductive rights.”
CRR further argued to the committee that the church’s moral prescription against abortion violates the Convention Against Torture.
“The Holy See’s canon law on abortion constitutes an absolute ban and thus violates its obligations under Articles 1, 2, and 16,” said the letter to the committee.
“As the Holy See’s policy on abortion does not permit abortion in any circumstances, it prima facie fails to prevent torture and ill-treatment of women who seek abortion,” says the letter.
At Monday’s hearing, Vice Chairperson Gaer used part of her opening statement to tell the Vatican's representatives there that banning abortion in all circumstances could violate the convention.
Citing unnamed NGOs, she referred to instances of Catholic opposition to abortion that had been specifically cited in CRR’s letter to her committee and at one point she quoted verbatim a statement from the European Court of Human Rights exactly as it had been quoted in CRR’s letter.
“Now, the committee has found that laws--and this committee has found this repeatedly--that laws that criminalize termination of pregnancy in all circumstances can violate the convention,” said Gaer.
“I am wondering, first of all, if you are aware of the committee’s jurisprudence on this issue, whether there have been efforts to inform Holy See officials about this aspect of the committee’s work, and have you reviewed the information received by the committee from NGOs about therapeutic abortions to save the lives of the mother,” said Gaer.
“They presented cases of a nine-year old Brazilian girl victim of sexual abuse, a nine-year old Nicaraguan named Rosa, an El Salvadoran Beatrice, and the case of P in Poland,” said Gaer, referring to cases cited in CRR’s letter.
“They cite the European Court of Human Rights, noting, and I quote, ‘the general stigma attached to abortion and to sexual violence has been shown to deter women from seeking medical care, causing much distress and suffering both physically and mentally.” Unquote. That is the European Court,” said Gaer. It is also exactly the citation quoted to the Gaer’s committee on page 8 of CRR’s letter.
“I am wondering how you respond to these concerns, and the concern of NGOs, that a ban in all circumstances puts women’s lives and health at risk and can cause women severe pain and suffering,” Gaer rhetorically asked the Vatican representatives sitting across from her.
In targeting Catholic teaching on abortion, the U.N. Committee Against Torture is following in the footsteps of the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child. Earlier this year, that committee explicitly called on the Vatican to change Catholic teaching on abortion.
“The Committee urges the Holy See to review its position on abortion, which places obvious risks on the life and health of pregnant girls, and to amend Canon 1398 relating to abortion with a view to identifying circumstances under which access to abortion services may be permitted,” the Committee on the Rights of the Child said in a Feb. 25 report on the Vatican’s compliance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Catholic Association, a group of Catholic laypersons who defend the church and its teachings, has been sharply critical of U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child and the UN Committee Against Torture for targeting the moral teaching of the Catholic Church.
“The United Nations has becoming increasingly hostile to people of faith and particularly to Christians and specifically to Catholics and the teachings on life and marriage and family,” Maureen Ferguson, the senior policy advisor for The Catholic Association, told
“In this instance, regarding the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the UN not only lectured the Catholic Church, but told them to actually change Canon Law, to essentially tell the Catholic Church you can’t be Catholic,” she said.
“The U.N., of course, has no jurisdiction whatsoever to do this,” she added. “The Catholic Church is made up of a billion people worldwide. The Catholic Church is not the confines of the Vatican city state, which is a member of the U.N.
“The irony here is just unbelievable,” she said, “that in the name of the rights of the child, on the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the United Nations is telling the church you have to change your position on the protection of children, on abortion.
“And now we are looking at this committee on torture,” she said. “What could be more torturous to a child than the literal dismemberment of a living human being that is abortion?”

Hamas TV’s Bumble Bee Character Encourages Children to Do Some Disturbing Things to Jews

In a recent episode of a Hamas-sponsored television show, Palestinian children were encouraged by a giant bee character to punch, throw stones at and shoot Jews.
The show, “Pioneers of Tomorrow” featured a giant bee puppet named Nahoul who speaks to children on the phone and in studio.
Hamas television's giant bumble bee encourages children to punch Jews and "turn their faces into tomatoes." (Image source: MEMRI via YouTube)
Hamas television’s giant bumble bee encourages children to punch Jews and “turn their faces into tomatoes.” (Image source: MEMRI via YouTube)
A climactic excerpt of the show posted online presented a girl interviewing two other little girls who appeared to be in the first years of elementary school.
The interviewer named Rawan asked a little girl Tulin why she wanted to become a policewoman like her uncle.
“What do the police do?” Rawan asked.
“They catch thieves and troublemakers,” Nahoul the bee interjected.
“And they shoot Jews, right?” Rawan prompted.
“Right,” Tulin answered.
“You want to be like him? Allah willing, when you grow up,” Rawan asked.
“I will shoot the Jews,” Tulin answered.
Rawan’s follow-up question: “All of them?”
To which Tulin obediently replied, “Yes.”
“Good,” Rawan said.
The show aired on Al-Aqsa Television on May 2 and was translated and posted online by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).
Another segment of the show had the bee, Nahoul, speaking with a child named Qays by telephone about Jenin, a large Palestinian city. The two discussed the possibility of “Jews” coming to Jenin.
“Listen, my friend, make a fist, like this,” the giant bumble bee suggested using a high falsetto voice, adding “next time they come, punch them. Turn their faces into tomatoes.”
“In order to liberate Palestine,” the child Qays answered.
“Allah willing,” said the bee.

n another excerpt, Nahoul the bee spoke with Rawan, a girl who appeared to be his co-host.
“Rawan, I want to tell him to pick up a stone, and when the Jews come, to take it and throw it,” the giant bumblebee suggested.
“That’s right, if the neighbors are Jewish,” Rawan interjected.
“He should beat them up,” Nahoul the bee said.
“If his neighbors are Jewish or Zionist, that goes without saying,” the girl Rawan added.
Palestinian Media Watch, a research organization that tracks anti-Israel and anti-Semitic incitement in the Palestinian media wrote that the “hate messages on this Hamas TV children’s program” have been seen in the past, often “presented by sweet puppets.”
The Times of Israel noted of a past episode of the program, “In one segment extensively reported on in Western and Hebrew media, a Mickey Mouse-like character, who relentlessly espouses the beliefs of militant, radical Islam, is eventually beaten to death by Israeli soldiers after he attempts to liberate Tel Aviv. Other animal characters on the show have met a similar fate.”

Saturday, May 10, 2014

Too Much Pain (Part 2) - What is FGM?

Islamists Seek Censorship of Internet Domain Names The Obama admin. wants to relinquish US oversight of domain names. Islamists have already stepped in to suppress free speech.

Recently, the Obama Administration announced that it would transfer its oversight of internet domain management to a yet-to-be-named international multi-stakeholder.  Many are concerned that this will lead to the suppression of speech in capitulation to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and other free speech tyrants.  And though some on the left insist that these concerns amount to nothing more than alarmist folly, the concessions have already begun.
The internet originated in America, initially launched as a government experiment in networks.  Over a period of two decades, it grew to include researchers and think tanks.  In 1992, the “network of networks” opened its doors to the commercial world, and the internet as we know it today was birthed.
A global system of domain management was needed.  Someone had to keep a list of domain names and assign them numbers for internet users worldwide.  This had to be done by a central body in order to prevent multiple individuals, organizations or other entities from winding up with duplicative domain names, causing confusion.
Initially, domain management was conducted informally. Then, in 1998, the Department of Commerce (DoC) recognized ICANN, a California-based non-profit organization, to perform this function.  In a cooperative arrangement, the DoC’s National Telecommunications Information Agency (NTIA) would retain some minor administrative tasks regarding internet management, but would also have a critical oversight function over ICANN to ensure that the internet is free, secure and stable.
NTIA’s contract with ICANN is set to expire in September of 2015.  On March 14, 2014, the Obama Administration announced that it would decline its option to renew the contract and instead allow ICANN oversight to transfer to the “global multi-stake holder community”.
Despite some alarm on the right that ICANN will fall into the hands of China, Russia or the UN, both ICANN and the NTIA have been clear that they will not agree to transfer oversight responsibilities to any government entity or to the United Nations.  What is not clear is what entity is qualified to assume this function or whether ICANN might wind up without an oversight body altogether.
Currently, there is bipartisan concern that US relinquishment of domain oversight will have negative consequences for freedom of speech.   The Wall Street Journal referred to it as “America’s internet surrender.”  Newt Gingrich warned that “every American should worry about Obama giving up control of the internet to an undefined group. This is very, very dangerous.”  Even former President Bill Clinton has been extremely vocal on the issue, proclaiming that “I just know that a lot of these so-called multi-stakeholders are really governments that want to gag people and restrict access to the Internet.”
Two legislative bills are now in the works to prevent the Obama Administration from moving oversight of ICANN out of US hands.  The first is a bill sponsored by Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, which would stall the transfer until the Government Accountability Office could do a study on the transfer’s impact.  The second bill, sponsored by Congressman Mike Kelly, would prohibit the administration from making the transfer without congressional approval.
Because ICANN has no control over website content, fraud or email spam, some on the left erroneously assume that this precludes the possibility of stifling free speech on the internet.
Others naively believe that if attempts at censorship through domain name assignments were to occur, it would be met by “stiff opposition” from domain registry operators and ISP’s…. as if this would be sufficient to stop the likes of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and other tyrannical free speech oppressors.
In truth, ICANN has already started to crack under the OIC’s pressure.
In January 2012, ICANN announced that it would expand its gTLD program (top level domain suffixes) allowing potential approval of numerous additional suffixes, for example, .IBM, .Canon, .sports, .health, .church, or .bible.
Subsequently, Asia Green IT System, LTC (“AGIT”), a Turkey-based company, applied for two gTLDs:  .Islam and .hahal.
The UAE, which sits on ICANN’s Government Advisory Committee (GAC), twice objected to AGIT’s applications and tried to prevent the sale of both domain names. Other countries including Egypt, Bahrain, Qatar, and Oman and Kuwait also protested.
After AGIT responded, determinations were made in AGIT’s favor.
Then, in October, the OIC joined ICANN with Observer status.  In November 2013 the OIC Secretary General wrote a letter to the GAC Chair demanding that AGIT’s application be denied.  The Chair refused.
After each objection to AGIT’s applications, objectors were told that there was insufficient evidence that the Muslim community supported their objection or that the application approval would hurt their community’s interests.
In response, the OIC gathered its Council on Foreign Ministers and unanimously adopted the “Resolution consolidating the OIC’s Position to Preserve gTLDs with Islamic Identity”,  on December 11, 2013.  The resolution:
  • asserted that gTLDs with an “Islamic identity” are of such “sensitive nature” that they are a concern to the entire Islamic nation;
  • that OIC Member States plan to formulate a “unified position” regarding the management of gTLDs with Islamic identities to prevent their “misuse”;
  • that the registration of any domain names of gTLDs must ensure that no religion is “offended”;
  • that the sale of the .Islam and .halal domains should be preserved for Member States; and
  • that OIC Member States should become active in ICANN.
Then-Secretary General of the OIC, Ekmelledin Ihsanoglu followed this up with a letter to the Chairman of the ICANN Board of Directors, Steve Crocker, noting that the OIC is the “sole official representative of the Muslim world” and that it supports the UAE’s objection to the sale of the domain names .Islam and .halal.  He argued that the resolution’s unanimous approval “nullifies” the GAC’s observation that the Muslim community doesn’t support the UAE’s objections and that the sale of these domain names won’t harm the Muslim community.
As a result, ICANN made a decision to “defer” action on the .Islam and .halal domain suffixes until AGIT resolves all conflicts with the objectors, namely the OIC and its member states. By requiring a private company to negotiate with speech-suppressing governments ICANN effectively punted on its responsibilities.  Its “deferral” is tantamount to a denial of the applicant’s request.
This is a free speech battle.  Though ICANN doesn’t directly control website content, it does control the sale of domain names, which consist of words that represent subjects.  The OIC should not be permitted to bully ICANN into reserving Islam-related domain names for OIC Member States only.
First, there is no right to be free from offense in the sale or ownership of domain names, nor should there be.  Second, the words Islam and halal are not inherently offensive to the Muslim community, therefore it’s obviously not the domain name itself to which the OIC objects. Rather, the OIC wants to ensure that these words are used with only positive connotations.  To ensure that the domains suffixes are confined to OIC-approved content, only OIC Members States are to be trusted.
Even assurances by AGIT that it would not “misuse” the suffixes, failed to appease the OIC. The OIC wants ownership of the words, not just in the form of domain strings, but in common parlance as well.
The OIC has been calling for the equivalent of blasphemy codes for over a decade in the form of UN resolutions to combat “defamation” of Islam.  It is on a perpetual quest to stifle criticism of Islam-related topics, ever seeking out new international legal instruments to achieve its goal.
Suppression of these suffixes is only the tip of the iceberg.  Free speech advocates who fear internet freedom is at risk should be taken seriously.  America has been doing an exceptional job of keeping the internet free, secure and stable, and should remain its trusted steward.  If internet oversight leaves her hands, further concessions to free speech tyrants like the OIC can be expected.
America should not relinquish ICANN oversight to the global community for the sake of “fairness” or political correctness.  As the saying goes, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

Largest Islamic Event in France: All Evil in World Caused by Jews Anti-Semitic speeches were given 'places of honor' at the 31st congress of the Union of Islamic Organizations in France.

 prominent conference on Islam in Paris gave a place of honor to virulently anti-Semitic speeches. Speaking at the 31st Congress of the Union of Islamic Organizations in France, Hani Ramadan -- a celebrated Muslim leader from Geneva and the grandson of Hassan Al-Banna, the extremist founder of the Muslim Brotherhood – said, "All the evil in the world originates from the Jews and the Zionist barbarism."
Writing in France’s Le Figaro, sociologist Michele Tribalat, who attended the conference, reported on Ramadan’s speech. Ramadan also railed against Jewish and pro-Israel groups in the U.S. and France who he said control the government and media.
“[In the] United States, no one can be elected president without having been to kowtow to AIPAC,” Ramadan said. “Same thing in France…[nobody can be] be elected without the approval of the CRIF (the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France).”
Ramadan’s brother, Tariq Ramadan, was banned from entering the U.S. for a number of years by the U.S. State Department for providing material support to terrorist organizations, specifically for donating money to organizations known to be funding Hamas.

CAIR, Allies Campaign to Cleanse Truth From 9/11 Museum Islamists and their misguided interfaith allies think Americans can’t handle the truth about the jihadist motivation behind 9/11.

The interfaith allies of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) think the American people can’t handle the truth about thejihadist motivation behind 9/11. They condescendingly infer that Americans are so inclined towards anti-Muslim bigotry that the terms “Islamist” and “jihad” must not be heard at the 9/11 Museum.
The 9/11 Museum, opening May 21, includes a seven-minute video titled The Rise of Al-Qaeda hosted by veteran news anchor Brian Williams. The tape refers to the Al-Qaeda terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks as “Islamists” who believed they were pursuing ajihad against the United States. These are two terms that American Islamists have tried to delete from the American lexicon or at leastwhitewash them to the point they become meaningless.
CAIR, the Muslim Public Affairs Council and five other Arab groups have issued a joint statement demanding the removal of the video. Both have Muslim Brotherhood origins and a history of pro-Islamist activism. They are joined by the Interfaith Center of New York and New York Disaster Interfaith Services who have their own separatejoint statement.
Islamists like CAIR draw other Muslims and non-Muslims to their side with the argument that these terms promote “Islamophobia,” as if Americans are so uneducated and prejudiced that they’ll automatically assume that all Muslims are Al-Qaeda sympathizers. Even if that were true, the 9/11 Museum goes to great lengths to debunk anti-Muslim stereotypes.
The museum spokesman said there are two exhibits that clearly show that Al-Qaeda is a “far fringe of Islam.” The New York Timesreports that the Museum has photos of Muslims mourning after the attacks, stories about Muslims who died in the attacks and testimony from Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim congressman in U.S. history.
The museum’s executives had Princeton University Professor Bernard Haykel approve the script before making it a part of the site. He stands by the decision to approve the film because there is simply no honest way to explain the motivations of Al-Qaeda without mentioning jihad.
“The critics who are going to say, ‘Let’s not talk about it as an Islamic or Islamist movement,’ could end up not telling the story at all, or diluting it so much that you wonder where Al-Qaeda comes from,” he told the Times.
He’s right. CAIR and its allies are essentially saying that Americans can’t handle the truth, so they shouldn’t know it.
The current leader of Al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, used to lead a terrorist group named Egyptian Islamic Jihad (that splintered from the Muslim Brotherhood) until it was absorbed into Al-Qaeda.
In Osama Bin Laden’s first television interview in 1997, he said, “We declared a jihad—a holy war—on the United States government because it is unjust and tyrannical.”
“The acme of this religion is jihad. The [Muslim] nation has had a strong conviction that there is no way to obtain faithful strength but by returning to jihad,” Bin Laden explained.
About a month after the 9/11 attacks, Bin Laden gave an interviewwhere he said, “This is a duty of all Muslims. The jihad is a duty for everyone, not just for the Afghans.” His overall stated reason is that “America is against the establishment of any Islamic government.”
He continued:
“…[W]e will continue our jihad. We will incite the [Muslim] nation for jihad until we meet God and get his blessing. Any country that supports the Jews can only blame itself…I tell Muslims to believe in the victory of God and in jihad against the infidels of the world. The killing of Jews and Americans is one of the greatest duties.”
One of the chief reasons that CAIR is waging war against words like “jihad” and “Islamist” is because the group doesn’t want its ideology to be discussed and it certainly doesn’t want Americans to know that it and Al-Qaeda share the same overall Islamist ideology. Their disagreements are only about target selection, rhetoric and tactics.
The Justice Department says that CAIR is an “entity” of the Muslim Brotherhood, the most powerful Islamist movement in the world. CAIR was born out of a secret Brotherhood meeting in 1993 in Philadelphia, which was attended by two CAIR founders including its current Executive Director.
The speakers at the meeting discussed forming a new group to influence the media and public opinion about their Islamist cause. One speaker said, “Forming the public opinion or coming up with a policy to influence …the way the Americans deal with the Islamists, for instance. I believe that should be the goals of this stage.”
CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad agreed, saying the “goal is becoming open to the media in the U.S. and the Western society to ease the intensity of the campaign and to explain the legality of the opposition led by the Islamists.”
And that’s exactly what CAIR is doing. The Interfaith Center of New York’s choice of allies shows it doesn’t understand jihad or the Islamist ideology, making it an attractive messenger for the media-savvy CAIR
The Interfaith Center of New York does not appear to realize who it is working with. On April 20, 2013, the New York chapter of CAIRhonored the Interfaith Center of New York with its “Partners in Justice Award.” It was accepted by Reverend Chloe Breyer, who is now a leading critic of the 9/11 Museum.
CAIR-NY’s leadership has a history of extremism including anti-American rhetoric, inflammatory sentiment towards law enforcement, support for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and advocating the destruction of Israel. The CAIR-NY official who gave Rev. Breyer the award, Zead Ramadan, would not condemn Hamasin 2011 and has appeared on Iranian state television to make America sound like an oppressor of Muslims.
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of “Ground Zero Mosque” fame is a Vice Chairman of the Interfaith Center of New York. One of its listed"Friends and Partners" is a group by the name of the Mosque of the Islamic Brotherhood. The group denies having any affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood overseas or domestic Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups, but admits that its official motto is the exact same one as the Muslim Brotherhood:
Allah is our goal/The Prophet Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah is our leader/The Qu’ran is our Constitution/Jihad is our way/And death in the way of Allah is our promised end.”
Another article on the Mosque of the Islamic Brotherhood’s website discusses jihad—a term apparently they are allowed to say but the 9/11 Museum isn’t. It states that one of the forms of jihad is “physical jihad” that is “combat waged in defense of Muslims against oppression and transgression by the enemies of Allah…”
Another article says the War on Terror is part of a covert conspiracy led by “closet white supremacist, zenophobic, Satanically-inspired individuals [who] advocate a proper, state-sponsored terrorism, in defense of the ‘American Dream,’ while other people are living the ‘American nightmare.’”
The leading voices against the 9/11 Museum’s use of the words “Islamist” and “jihad” are Islamists themselves or their allies. CAIR Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper says that “generations of visitors” will be taught by the 9/11 Museum. He’s right, and that’s why the 9/11 Museum cannot sacrifice truth for pro-Islamist political correctness.