Thursday, October 6, 2011

Terror Attacks Escalate Against Women in Bikinis in Russia’s Dagestan – The Daily Beast.

Russia: Bombing bikini-clad women to enforce sharia dress codes

Posted on October 5, 2011 by creeping

Terror Attacks Escalate Against Women in Bikinis in Russia’s Dagestan – The Daily Beast.

The beach is crowded with men these days. Powerful, muscled Dagestani men, who practice martial arts and wrestle on the littered sand of the Caspian Sea shore in the capital city of Makhachkala. Some sit around, enjoying boiled ears of corn with butter and salt; others play soccer or ride on their buddies’ shoulders in the waves, competing to see who can last longest without collapsing into the water. Rare groups of shy women in long flannel dresses enter the sea holding children by the hand; their long skirts and colorful hijabs immediately soak up salty water, like sponges. Bikinis? There are almost none. The social change here has been fast and radical: just two summers ago, only a smattering of women swam in their long dresses and scarves on Russia’s Caspian Sea beaches. This year, public opinion in the region—the place with the highest level of terrorist attacks in Russia—decided to put an end to the “sinful” display of women’s bodies. The appearance of a rare tourist in a modern swimsuit elicits frowns, and a grumpy comment in the local language. One word is always clear: haram or “forbidden.”

To make life easier for both women who want to swim yet have no bathing robes (nicknamed burkinis), and for men keen on playing on the beach without violating the dictates of Islam, the state opened thefirst Sharia-compliant beach in Russia this month. Named “Mountain Woman Beach,” it’s a gated community, open to women, girls and boys younger than 6 years of age. Visitors can rest in comfortable wooden shelters to escape the heat or swim in the ocean without the burden of burkinis. The beach is proof enough, if any were needed, of the rise of Islam in Russia. It’s also a security measure to protect women from a recent, gruesome spate of bombings at the Caspian shore.

On a clear morning last July, at around 6 a.m., schoolteacher Yelena Abduzhalimova met her colleagues on the central city beach for a round of volleyball. As the ladies changed into their swimsuits, a group of young boys began to warm up for wrestling exercises before their morning classes, right by the volleyball court. Other than the children, the beach was still fairly empty at that hour. Abduzhalimova walked onto the court with her friends and she stepped forward to serve the ball. Instantly, a powerful explosion threw her into the air, flying 10 feet above the ground. She had stepped on a mine hidden in the sand. It was the third explosion on the public beach that season, and one that cost Abduzhalimova her leg above the knee. The bomb was meant as punishment for women wearing swimsuits, she says. Now, she says she wished the Sharia beach had been open back then. “If only the guarded beach for women existed a year ago, I would have my leg now,” Abduzhalimova said, adding it was a lucky chance that she stepped on the mine before a child did.

A Muslim woman at the beach with her son., Hatem Moussa / AP Photo

Not all women are so positive about the Sharia beach. “First, they make deadly threats for wearing a bikini; next they will want us to stop wearing our shorts and jeans, then ban us from going to restaurants and universities,” says Bakanai Huseinova, a manager of a financial company in Dagestan. Huseinova fears that the increasing terror attacks will eventually start to pressure and control all spheres of a woman’s life—social, familial, spiritual. Terror attacks have been escalating not only against bikini-clad women, but against all symbols of secular Dagestani society. Just this year, there have been over 200 terror attacks on Dagestan’s food stores, cafés, and saunas that sell liquor, as well as on religious centers and law enforcement. The attacks have killed hundreds of social workers, local deputies, police, high-ranking army officers, even imams. In addition, two school principals who spoke out against schoolgirls wearing the hijab were killed this year in Dagestan.

This is what a mob looks like

Posted: October 05, 2011
6:29 pm Eastern
© 2011 WND

I am not the first to note the vast differences between the Wall Street protesters and the tea partiers. To name three: The tea partiers have jobs, showers and a point.

No one knows what the Wall Street protesters want – as is typical of mobs. They say they want Obama re-elected, but claim to hate "Wall Street." You know, the same Wall Street that gave its largest campaign donation in history to Obama, who, in turn, bailed out the banks and made Goldman Sachs the fourth branch of government.

This would be like opposing fattening, processed foods, but cheering Michael Moore – which the protesters also did this week.

But to me, the most striking difference between the tea partiers and the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd – besides the smell of patchouli – is how liberal protesters must claim their every gathering is historic and heroic.

Subscribe Here To Receive Ann Coulter's Weekly Column In Your Email

They chant: "The world is watching!" "This is how democracy looks!" "We are the ones we've been waiting for!"

At the risk of acknowledging that I am, in fact, "watching," this is most definitely not how democracy looks.

Sally Kohn, a self-identified "community organizer," praised the Wall Street loiterers on CNN's website, comparing the protest to the Boston Tea Party, which she claimed, "helped spark the American Revolution," adding, "and yes, that protest ultimately turned very violent."

First of all, the Boston Tea Party was nothing like tattooed, body-pierced, sunken-chested 19-year-olds getting in fights with the police for fun. Paul Revere's nighttime raid was intended exclusively to protest a new British tea tax. (The Wall Street protesters would be more likely to fight for a new tax than against one.)

Revere made sure to replace a broken lock on one of the ships and severely punished a participant who stole some of the tea for his private use. Samuel Adams defended the raid by saying that all other methods of recourse – say, voting – were unavailable.

Our revolution – the only revolution that led to greater freedom since at least 1688 – was not the act of a mob.

As specific and limited as it was, however, even the Boston Tea Party was too mob-like to spark anything other than retaliatory British measures. Indeed, it set back the cause of American independence by dispiriting both American and British supporters, such as Edmund Burke.

George Washington disapproved of the destruction of the tea. Benjamin Franklin demanded that the India Tea Co. be reimbursed for it. Considered an embarrassment by many of our Founding Fathers, the Boston Tea Party was not celebrated for another 50 years.

It would be three long years after the Boston Tea Party when our founders engaged in their truly revolutionary act: the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

In that document, our Christian forebears set forth in blindingly clear terms their complaints with British rule, their earlier attempts at resolution and an appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world for independence from the crown.

The rebel armies defending that declaration were not a disorganized mob, chanting slogans for the press and defacing public property.

Even the Minutemen, whose first scuffle with the British began the war, were a real army with ranks, subordination, coordination, drills and supplies. There is not a single mention in the historical record of Minutemen playing hacky-sack, burning candles assembled in "peace and love," or sitting in drum circles.

A British lieutenant-general who fought the Minutemen observed, "Whoever looks upon them as an irregular mob will find himself very much mistaken."

By contrast, the directionless losers protesting "Wall Street" – Obama's largest donor group – pose for the cameras while uttering random liberal cliches lacking any reason or coherence.

But since everything liberals do must be heroic, the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd insists on comparing themselves to this nation's heroes.

One told Fox News' Bill Schulz: "I was born to be here, right now, the Founding Fathers have been passing down the torch to this generation to make our country great again."

The Canadian environmental group behind Occupy Wall Street, Adbusters, has compared the Wall Street "revolutionaries" to America's Founding Fathers. (Incidentally, those who opposed the American Revolution fled after the war to ... Canada.)

The – again – Canadians exulted, "You sense they're drafting a new Declaration of Independence."

(Column continues below)

I suppose you only "sense" it because they're doing nothing of the sort. They say they want Mao as the president – as one told Schulz – and the abolition of "capitalism."

The modern tea partiers never went around narcissistically comparing themselves to Gen. George Washington. And yet they are the ones who have engaged in the kind of political activity Washington fought for.

The tea party name is meant in fun, inspired by an amusing rant from CNBC's Rick Santelli in February 2009, when he called for another tea party in response to Obama's plan to bail out irresponsible mortgagers.

The tea partiers didn't arrogantly claim to be drafting a new Declaration of Independence. They're perfectly happy with the original.

Tea partiers didn't block traffic, sleep on sidewalks, wear ski masks, fight with the police or urinate in public. They read the Constitution, made serious policy arguments and petitioned the government against Obama's unconstitutional big government policies, especially the stimulus bill and Obamacare.

Then they picked up their own trash and quietly went home. Apparently, a lot of them had to be at work in the morning.

In the two years following the movement's inception, the tea party played a major role in turning Teddy Kennedy's seat over to a Republican, making the sainted Chris Christie governor of New Jersey and winning a gargantuan, historic Republican landslide in the 2010 elections. They are probably going to succeed in throwing out a president in next year's election.

That's what democracy looks like.

V Putin's Eurasian Union = Reclaiming Russian Empire

Vladimir Putin's Plan to Create a Eurasian Union Is about Reclaiming the Russian Empire

Posted: 05 Oct 2011 03:19 AM PDT

(Libra Bunda / THE DAILY TELEGRAPH): Vladimir Putin is on a roll. Last month, he revealed he was all set to return to the Russian presidency next year, possibly for as long as twelve years. And on Tuesday, he disclosed he was in the process of creating a new global power bloc, the ‘Eurasian Union,’ on the bones of what used to be the Soviet Union. His dream would see Russia again dominating about one fifth of the earth’s surface with an internal market of almost 300 million people. The new union would include authoritarian Kazakhstan and Belarus to begin with before expanding to take in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, and then, Mr Putin hopes, other former Soviet republics. Mr Putin did not say so but it is known that he would dearly like to see Ukraine sign up to his master plan. His is a bold idea and one that immediately and unsurprisingly drew admiration from Russian nationalists. Older Russians, who hark after the paternalism and stability of the defunct Soviet Union, are also likely to appreciate the plan. Mr Putin was at pains to say however that his mission was not to recreate the Soviet Union ...other countries ruled by strong men like Mr Putin may well see the idea as a good one. They will of course fight to minimise Russian dominance in the new union. But ultimately they may see the new power bloc as a way of enhancing their marginal voices on the global stage and as a mechanism to shore up their authoritarian regimes at a time when dictators are nervously looking over their shoulders. (MORE PAIN)

I feel less threatened and more pity for any confederation of countries that centralize. It might help tyrannical governments feel less threatened by their own populations, but in a time when there is so much economic instability, It's about the worst thing one can do for one's economy... no wait... correct that... it is the worst thing for the richer countries economy... the country of deadbeats gets bailed out. Russia has nothing to gain by bringing potential equivalents of Greece into their sphere. Sure... they might be rich in resources, but a centralized structure will quickly abuse those resources. I don't feel threatened... I feel bad for them. It has not worked for Europe. It is too bad these totalitarian countries can not bring some proportion of human rights into their government because a stable democracy built on natural resources and a healthy amount of cultural guiding through media public relations to push ideas like equal dignity for genders and tolerance for those who don't threaten to kick your ass would be ideal. Russia seems ok in the gender department, but many of their former satellite states are Muslim. Good luck with that. While America and Europe are starting to understand that Democracy is not Democracy because someone says so, but rather Democracy is Democracy because government is kept in check, Russia is figuring out a new way to obscure a dictatorship. G-d help them.

Anti-Semitism at Occupy Wall Street Protest

Anti-Semitism at Occupy Wall Street Protest Updated Here

Posted: 05 Oct 2011 06:34 PM PDT

...but my father really did... supposedly control Wall Street this year! ;^) Blame my father LOLZ!

this guy is another homosexual with issues against Jews. he says he is the Lotion Man on youtube. lotion man is jamaican slang, referral to a gay man, who uses lotion to lubricate his backside for anal sex purposes

(Israelly Cool) Someone needs to introduce this man to Lauren Booth.The funny thing is even though he says “Go back to Israel”, he will then claim we have no right to be there.

I like the gay Jew hater there better. His Youtube name was LotionMan (now deleted) and you can google what that means. Somehow it just made me happy that he was getting it where the sun don't shine by someone. I know sodomy isn't kosher unless you are Conservative or Reform, but what came to mind is this guy was getting his sexual jollies this way and I really don't even wish a Jew hater displeasure... though it is sad to say that I know NYC well and I grew up here and frankly what goes on at LGBT is pretty much what you are seeing. I hope I'm very offensive

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

D's 'Dependency Voter' Base Grows

Nearly Half of U.S. Lives in Household Receiving Government Benefit

REAL TIME ECONOMICS HOME PAGE »

By Sara Murray

Families were more dependent on government programs than ever last year.

Nearly half, 48.5%, of the population lived in a household that received some type of government benefit in the first quarter of 2010, according to Census data. Those numbers have risen since the middle of the recession when 44.4% lived households receiving benefits in the third quarter of 2008.

: Click for full-size image

The share of people relying on government benefits has reached a historic high, in large part from the deep recession and meager recovery, but also because of the expansion of government programs over the years. (See a timeline on the history of government benefits programs here.)

Means-tested programs, designed to help the needy, accounted for the largest share of recipients last year. Some 34.2% of Americans lived in a household that received benefits such as food stamps, subsidized housing, cash welfare or Medicaid (the federal-state health care program for the poor).

Another 14.5% lived in homes where someone was on Medicare (the health care program for the elderly). Nearly 16% lived in households receiving Social Security.

High unemployment and increased reliance on government programs has also shrunk the nation’s share of taxpayers. Some 46.4% of households will pay no federal income tax this year, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. That’s up from 39.9% in 2007, the year the recession began.

Most of those households will still be hit by payroll taxes. Just 18.1% of households pay neither payroll nor federal income taxes and they are predominantly the nation’s elderly and poorest families.

The tandem rise in government-benefits recipients and fall in taxpayers has been cause for alarm among some policymakers and presidential hopefuls.

Benefits programs have come under closer scrutiny as policymakers attempt to tame the federal government’s budget deficit. President Barack Obama and members of Congress considered changes to Social Security and Medicare as part of a grand bargain (that ultimately fell apart) to raise the debt ceiling earlier this year. Cuts to such programs could emerge again from the so-called “super committee,” tasked with releasing a plan to rein in the deficit.

Republican presidential hopefuls, meanwhile, have latched onto the fact that nearly half of households pay no federal income tax, saying too many Americans aren’t paying their fair share.

UPDATE: Nearly half of the population lives in a household that has at least one member who receives some kind of government benefit. An earlier headline incorrectly suggested that half of American households receive some government benefit. Due to differences in household size that isn’t the case.