► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Human Rights’

The Goings on in Gilo, Jerusalem

by Delectable ( 228 Comments › )
Filed under Anti-semitism, Barack Obama, Israel, Progressives, Tranzis at November 18th, 2009 - 1:33 pm

As many of you have probably already heard, the Obama administration has decided to make international waves about the decision of the Jerusalem municipality in Israel to approve an additional 900 housing units in Gilo, which is within Jerusalem city limits. Somehow, a municipal decision to approve housing units in the capitol of its country becomes an international incident. Only in Israel!

Gilo

This is typical. I am going to not lay all the blame on Obama here, and it must be noted that Condi Rice had made similar such statements in the past. As is typical, J Street supported Obama, and is against the additional housing in Gilo. (shocka!)

The common theme is that somehow it is “anti-human rights” for Jews to build homes, kindergartens, and nurseries in their capitol city of Jerusalem, which is, lest we forget, the holiest city for Jews, and the city that every observant Jew prays to on a daily basis. (Can you imagine the USA telling Saudi Arabia that it cannot build more housing units for Muslims in Mecca? Enough said!)

But here is the little wrinkle to the story that the mainstream media usually leaves out: Arabs can buy land in Jewish areas. Not only can they buy land – they actually do buy land in Jewish neighborhoods.

Here are just two examples of Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem where Arabs feel free to buy and sell land as they see fit – Pisgat Ze’ev and French Hill. In fact, Arabs buy and sell land anywhere they want in Israel, including Tel Aviv!

Here is an article by reputed scholar Alex Safian about the ability of Arabs to buy and sell land in all parts of Israel, written in 1997. The restrictions to land purchase only have decreased, to the extent they existed in 1997, due to the liberal Supreme Court of Israel! Right now there are reports of Gulf Arabs buying of land in Israel located in the Galilee. This flies in the face of the supposedly ‘racist’ and ‘discriminatory’ land policies in Israel. Actually, the real racists are from Peace Now. They actually sued to prevent Jews from buying land in Jaffa, Israel, which is indisputably part of the 1967 borders of Israel. Arabs – they can buy land wherever they want (with the understanding that most land is state-owned, but I use the term “buy” and “long-term lease” interchangeably, as far as this goes). But according to Peace Now (a misnomer of a term if I ever heard it – they are anti-peace, as I previously discussed), Jews cannot buy land in Jaffa, because it is an Arab neighborhood, which must be ‘respected.’ (yet Jewish neighborhoods disrespected, of course – this is a one-way street!) Thankfully, Peace Now lost their case before the Israeli Supreme Court. Interesting, I came across this article, which clearly peddled the lame line that if Jews move into an Arab neighborhood of Jaffa, then it will “incite” violence. So Jews should not have the right to live there. This clearly follows the “noble savage” line of thinking – that somehow Arabs who live in Jaffa are not human beings, but rather are beasts, who are incapable of anything but violence, so you should not provoke the noble beasts! As I said – Peace Now, J Street and their ilk – they really are racist!

Meanwhile, we deal with the reality that if Arabs sell land to Jews, they could be slaughtered. I am not just making this up. There have been cases of Arabs being killed for selling land to Jews. And so this also colors land claims – of course Arabs will deny they sold land to Jews, because to do anything us puts their very lives in jeopardy! Also – in Jordan – and throughout the Mideast – it is against state law for a Jew to own land in the country. (yet no “human rights organizations” seem to have problems with this, of course!) Here is a CAMERA primer on the law concerning land purchase and use. It is a must-read to understand the basic law in the region!

What is the lesson to be learned about this all? I would say that it is racist for Obama (and previously, Condi Rice) to make an “international incident” over 900 homes in Gilo. As I have extensively shown, Arabs have the right to buy and sell land throughout all of Israel. It is clearly racist to tell Jews – and only Jews – that they must be ghettoized, and cannot enjoy such similar rights.

As I have outlined, Peace Now is tied in very closely (joined at the hip, if you will) to the progressive movement. They (and J Street, also, as I have outlined, a progressive organization) are thus supporting racism.

It is because I reject racism and support equality and human rights that I support Israel and reject the progressive view of the world that ghettoizes the Jew, and turns Arabs “noble savages.” I expect more for humanity and the world!

Bret Stephens Agrees: Obama Is An Anti-Human Rights President

by WrathofG-d ( 228 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, China, Democratic Party, Guest Post, Iran, Israel, Politics, Progressives, Tranzis, World at October 20th, 2009 - 9:56 am

Blogmocracy In Action!

Guest Post by “Delectable”

I have repeatedly stated that Obama is at war with human rights around the globe.  On Blogmocracy, I have called him an anti-human rights president.  He backs the oppression of humanity in every country on earth, without any exception I am aware of.  This great article, written by Bret Stephens, explains this well.

Nobody should get too hung up over President Obama’s decision, reported by Der Spiegel over the weekend, to cancel plans to attend next month’s 20th anniversary celebration of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Germany’s reunited capital has already served his purposes; why should he serve its?

China: In February, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton landed in Beijing with a conciliating message about the country’s human-rights record. “Our pressing on those [human-rights] issues can’t interfere on the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis,” she said.

In fact, there has been no pressing whatsoever on human rights. President Obama refused to meet with the Dalai Lama last month, presumably so as not to ruffle feathers with the people who will now be financing his debts. In June, Liu Xiaobo, a leading signatory of the pro-democracy Charter 08 movement, was charged with “inciting subversion of state power.” But as a U.S. Embassy spokesman in Beijing admitted to the Journal, “neither the White House nor Secretary Clinton have made any public comments on Liu Xiaobo.”

Sudan: In 2008, candidate Obama issued a statement insisting that “there must be real pressure placed on the Sudanese government. We know from past experience that it will take a great deal to get them to do the right thing. . . . The U.N. Security Council should impose tough sanctions on the Khartoum government immediately.”

Exactly right. So what should Mr. Obama do as president? Yesterday, the State Department rolled out its new policy toward Sudan, based on “a menu of incentives and disincentives” for the genocidal Sudanese government of Omar Bashir. It’s the kind of menu Mr. Bashir will languidly pick his way through till he dies comfortably in his bed.

Iran: Mr. Obama’s week-long silence on Iran’s “internal affairs” following June’s fraudulent re-election was widely noted. Not so widely noted are the administration’s attempts to put maximum distance between itself and human-rights groups working the Iran beat.

Earlier this year, the State Department denied a grant request for New Haven, Conn.-based Iran Human Rights Documentation Center. The Center maintains perhaps the most extensive record anywhere of Iran’s 30-year history of brutality. The grant denial was part of a pattern: The administration also abruptly ended funding for Freedom House’s Gozaar project, an online Farsi- and English-language forum for discussing political issues.

It’s easy to see why Tehran would want these groups de-funded and shut down. But why should the administration, except as a form of pre-emptive appeasement?

In Massachusetts not long ago, I found myself driving behind a car with “Free Tibet,” “Save Darfur,” and “Obama 08” bumper stickers.  I wonder if it will ever dawn on the owner of that car that at least one of those stickers doesn’t belong.

There is more – please read it all!

It is important to be aware that Obama is a self-styled progressive.  The anti-human rights nature of our progressive president shows the cognitive dissonance of the trans-nationalists (or “tranzis”) who pretend to believe in universal ideals of “hope” and “change,” only to then later stand for stagnation and despair when they enter office.
It thus is no surprise that Obama should follow this anti-human rights pattern.  And it is no surprise to me that Obama refuses to use his UN veto against the Goldstone defamation report against Israel. He thus will apparently be pushing for action on the Goldstone Report – including possible sanctions against Israel (a democractic state which adheres to the highest ideals of human rights) – while blocking sanctions against Iran (a thugocracy that shoots its citizens in the streets and rapes and tortures its prisoners).
This is where Obama stands today.  He has revealed himself as the anti-human rights president.  The good news is that others are starting to see this.

Aliens Attack!

by WrathofG-d ( 22 Comments › )
Filed under Crime at February 10th, 2009 - 10:54 am

An Arizona man is being sued by 16 Illegal Aliens who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border.

______________________________________________________________________________________

mexicans-crossing-border

Roger Barnett, 64, began rounding up illegal immigrants in 1998 and turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol, he said, after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home.

His Cross Rail Ranch near Douglas, Ariz., is known by federal and county law enforcement authorities as “the avenue of choice” for immigrants seeking to enter the United States illegally.

Trial continues Monday in the federal lawsuit, which seeks $32 million in actual and punitive damages for civil rights violations, the infliction of emotional distress and other crimes. Also named are Mr. Barnett’s wife, Barbara, his brother, Donald, and Larry Dever, sheriff in Cochise County, Ariz., where the Barnetts live. The civil trial is expected to continue until Friday.

The lawsuit is based on a March 7, 2004, incident in a dry wash on the 22,000-acre ranch, when he approached a group of illegal immigrants while carrying a gun and accompanied by a large dog.

Attorneys for the immigrants – five women and 11 men who were trying to cross illegally into the United States – have accused Mr. Barnett of holding the group captive at gunpoint, threatening to turn his dog loose on them and saying he would shoot anyone who tried to escape.

The immigrants are represented at trial by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), which also charged that Sheriff Dever did nothing to prevent Mr. Barnett from holding their clients at “gunpoint, yelling obscenities at them and kicking one of the women.”

In the lawsuit, MALDEF said Mr. Barnett approached the group as the immigrants moved through his property, and that he was carrying a pistol and threatening them in English and Spanish. At one point, it said, Mr. Barnett’s dog barked at several of the women and he yelled at them in Spanish, “My dog is hungry and he’s hungry for buttocks.”

The lawsuit said he then called his wife and two Border Patrol agents arrived at the site. It also said Mr. Barnett acknowledged that he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.

{The Rest of The Article}

The Joys Of Sharia!

by WrathofG-d ( 16 Comments › )
Filed under Islamists, Religion, Sharia (Islamic Law) at February 9th, 2009 - 5:59 pm

Saudi Arabia:  47 Year Old Man Marries 8 Year Old Girl Against Her Mother’s Will

________________________________________________________________________________

Just in case your Western sensibilities caused you to foolishly “know” that this must have been a fluke, a miscarriage of justice in Saudi Arabia, or an obvious sin against “the perfect Religion of Peace”, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia’s highest authority, gave his religious opinion.

_____________________________________________________

Top Saudi cleric: OK for young girls to wed


(CNN)
— The debate over the controversial practice of child marriage in Saudi Arabia was pushed back into the spotlight this week, with the kingdom’s top cleric saying that it’s OK for girls as young as 10 to wed.

“It is incorrect to say that it’s not permitted to marry off girls who are 15 and younger,” Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh, the kingdom’s grand mufti, said in remarks quoted Wednesday in the regional Al-Hayat newspaper. “A girl aged 10 or 12 can be married. Those who think she’s too young are wrong and they are being unfair to her.”

The judge, Sheikh Habib Abdallah al-Habib, rejected a petition from the girl’s mother, whose lawyer said the marriage was arranged by her father to settle a debt with “a close friend.” The judge required the girl’s husband to sign a pledge that he would not have sex with her until she reaches puberty.

Al-Sheikh was asked during a Monday lecture about parents forcing their underage daughters to marry.

“We hear a lot in the media about the marriage of underage girls,” he said, according to the newspaper. “We should know that Shariah law has not brought injustice to women.”

Christoph Wilcke, a Saudi Arabia researcher for Human Rights Watch, recently told CNN that his organization has heard many other cases of child marriages.”

________________________________________________________________________________