A Trio of Stories from the World of Radical Islam

Over the past day or two, three news stories have been on my mind from the world of radical Islam. The first is equal part horrifying and frustrating and the second maddening beyond belief, but the third provides at least a glimmer of hope.

As we steel ourselves for years and years of battle in the Global War on Terror, I believe it is incredibly important to understand not only exactly what we are fighting against, but also who it is that actually stands with us. Hopefully, these three stories will shed just a little light on such distinctions.

Disproportionate Response

First, according to a Fox News report released today, a 75-year-old Syrian woman married to a Saudi has been sentenced to receive 40 lashes and four months in prison after being caught by the Saudi Arabian Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice socializing with two men who had brought the elderly woman bread.

If anything, the Saudis should be celebrating the virtue of younger people taking care of their elders rather than searching for vice in a woman saying thank you.

This isn’t the first time we’ve seen evidence of the subjugation of women under Islam. We’ve seen women stoned for committing adultery, arrested for talking to men at a coffee shop, imprisoned for daring to drive a car. Where, in all of this, is the National Organization for Women? Where are the other women’s groups? Here, in today’s story, we have a 75-year-old woman about to be beaten and thrown in jail for merely mingling with two men who did a good deed — yet we hear not a single, solitary peep for those who claim to champion women’s rights.

As frustrating as it is, the deafening silence is far from surprising. See, the women’s rights movement is not about women but rather about control, much in the same way that global warming is not about environmentalism and stem cell research is not completely about matters of faith. It’s about control, and 75-year-old Khamisa Sawadi just does not fit into NOW’s busy agenda.

If the women’s rights movement was actually about women, we would have seen outcry when Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was absolutely savaged by the mainstream press after being selected as John McCain’s running mate. If the women’s rights movement was about women, we would have seen outcry when a British schoolteacher was arrested and threatened with death in Sudan for insulting the Islamic Prophet by naming a class teddy bear Mohammed. But we didn’t hear anything on either account — because the women’s rights movement is not as much about women as it is control.

This explains why Hollywood activist actresses like Annette Bening and Alfre Woodard have no problem traveling to Iran, or congressional fools like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Syria, donning headscarves and lauding a culture which stones women for adultery, whips women for socializing, and looks upon women as third-class citizens, but once back in the States turn right around and show up at events sponsored by NOW and its discriminatory counterparts. It’s about control, not women. In the meantime, Bening, Woodard and Pelosi need to pick a side. It’s equality or subjugation, ladies — you cannot have it both ways.

Ignorance, Arrogance and Stupidity

Second, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other men currently–but not for long–detained at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have once again shown their true feelings for American and the West, confessing their role in the attacks of September 11, 2001.

In a document entitled “The Islamic Response to the Government’s Nine Accusations,” the group of detainees who describe themselves as the “9/11 Shura Council” cited portions of the Q’uran, deemed their actions an offering to God, and essentially laughed in the face of the American obsession with judicial intervention. Killing Americans, they wrote, is the model of Islamic action, and the accusations made by the United States government cause them no shame.

“To us, they are not accusations,” the Gitmo detainees wrote. “To us, they are a badge of honor, which we carry with honor.”

Of course, Mohammed and his feral counterparts will not be detainees at Guantanamo for long, considering the executive order signed by President Barack Hussein Obama which ordered the closure of the facility within one year. In fact, others who have plotted against the United States–such as Binyam Mohamed–have already been released. Obama’s decision on Gitmo is perhaps the greatest possible window into his complete ignorance as to matters of foreign policy, national security, and just the basic difference between good and evil in the world.

Given the statements made by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the recent release of Binyam Mohammed, perhaps more attention will be paid to legislation which should be introduced this week by Arizona Congressman John Shadegg, a bill which would require that former Gitmo detainees be kept out of America once the facility in Cuba is shut down. Similar pieces of legislation have been proposed at the state level, but it should be noted that Shadegg is a rock-solid, principled conservative if there is one, and America’s Right hopes that either he or Rep. Jeff Flake run against Arizona Sen. John McCain in 2010.

Islam Holds the Burden of Proof

Finally, in a Wall Street Journal editorial yesterday written in part response to the British reaction to Dutch MP Geert Wilders and his “Fitna” movie (a must see, as far as I am concerned), Islamic reformer Tawfik Hamid wrote that Islam must indeed prove itself to be a religion of peace. Now, for those not familiar with him, Hamid has an interesting perspective on radical Islam — while he now possesses an M.D. in internal medicine and Master’s degree in cognitive psychology and educational techniques, and now serves as both Senior Fellow at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies and president of Global Movement Against Radical Islam, he was at one time a member of JI, a Islamic terrorist group known for promoting one of its own, Ayman al-Zawahri, to second-in-command of Al Qaeda. Not many people know fundamentalist Islam like Tawfik Hamid.

That being said, Hamid wrote that it is up to the leaders of Islam, the scholars and clerics alike, to reform the way that young Muslims are taught. Gone must be the days, he said, where Muslims are taught to look upon Jews as pigs and monkeys, and to spread Islam through bloodshed and war. An excerpt:


There is a certain schizophrenia among many Muslims who seem to believe that it is acceptable to teach hatred and violence in the name of their religion, while at the same time expecting the world to respect Islam as “a religion of peace, love and harmony.”

Scholars in the most prestigious Islamic institutes and universities continue to teach things like Jews are “pigs and monkeys,” that women and men must be stoned to death for adultery, or that Muslims must fight the world to spread their religion. Isn’t, then, Mr. Wilders’s criticism appropriate? Instead of blaming him, we must blame the leading Islamic scholars for having failed to produce an authoritative book on Islamic jurisprudence that is accepted in the Islamic world and unambiguously rejects these violent teachings.

The scholars and clerics throughout Islam are not the only ones who need to wake up. The rest of the world does, too. What incentive, after all, do those who truly do want to practice Islam peacefully have if the rest of us abandon them due to a monochromatic view of their faith? We must all wake up, we must identify evil where it stands, and we must not tolerate the subjugation of women, the disproportionate penalities and the Draconian measures of Shariah law as practiced by radicals.

When women are beaten for looking at a man, talking to a man, walking in front of a man, we all need to stand up in protest. When Muslim youths riot at the sight of a mere political cartoon, we all need to draw attention to it. And when a neighbor or friend or co-worker states, unequivocally, that all Muslims are terrorists, we need to remind them that there are many Muslims who work alongside us, who fight for our country, who want nothing more than to raise their families as we do, and who look at the atrocities carried out in the name of their faith in the same way Christians do at those who bomb abortion clinics.

While we absolutely, positively must not even blink when it comes to keeping vigilant in the face of those who wake up each day from colorful dreams of our destruction and demise, we must simultaneously be prepared to support those who look at Islamic terrorism and oppression the same way that we do.

Share

Comments

  1. Anonymous says:

    Jeff, you recycled a claim here that was already refuted on this blog, by Katherine:
    http://www.americasright.com/2008/11/november-15-2008-assigned-reading.html?showComment=1226970780000#c6359221424542175070

    Your friend,
    Brad

  2. Anonymous says:

    Jeff, I agree with everything you said here EXCEPT the part where you called Bening, Woodard and Pelosi “ladies”. IMHO they are far from knowing what a real lady is and how she shouyld act. Keep up the great work Jeff and enjoy you getaway. I wish I could move there too…lol

    Sally

  3. Jeff Schreiber says:

    Brad — I remember that. I really do. There’s a difference, though, with putting up stuff like “Glenn Beck complains that Hillary Clinton sounds like his wife” on an Internet page which will get a quarter of the attention of this Web site, and sending spokespeople out to news shows on each cable and television network.

    Yes, they got involved, but if a female Democrat was treated the way Palin was–come on, Brad, it was disgusting regardless of the politics–NOW and the others would have been all over the airwaves.

  4. miracle2k says:

    If the woman’s rights movement is silent, then they have something in common with just about everybody else.

    You aside (and I’m sure we can find some feminist who blogged about it as well), I don’t hear anything from the conservatives either. Aren’t they supposed to champion liberty and justice and stuff? Seems to me there is more than enough reason for them to be outraged. For any person, really.

    Maybe we’re all just really bad people.

    Or maybe it’s just that news like these come out literally every single day. So far, I don’t think we’ve heard a peep from you either. So what exactly is the problem? Is it that now you decide start caring, you’re missing the big army behind you?

  5. Anonymous says:

    Jeff:

    A thoughtful and heartfelt take on the difficult subject of Islam. I recently sent my son a “forward” of a good e-mail that hi-lighted the dangers of radical Islam and how we should be vigilant and outraged at the movement. My son (freshman in college) forwarded it to my father in law, who has becoming incredibly liberal with every year. He responded with indignancy, saying that this was just hateful and that he knew many good, peaceful Muslims, and we should not talk like that.

    I responded by citing good sources and strong stances as to the reality of radical Islam, Islamists, within our very borders. I did not back down, but did it in a very respectful way, b/c I dearly love my father in law.

    He responded very positively, and said that we should continue our “interesting discussions” on this matter.

    I have come to realize through personal experience that liberals just refuse to believe that the radical faction does exist, and it is the responsibility of the moderate Muslims in America to deal with their own insurrections. They live in compassionate la-la land!

    I must say, though, that while many Muslim Americans may be committed to peace, I have listened to a Christian who converted from Islam several years ago. He did not share W’s opinion that “Islam is a religion of peace.” And he was born, raised, and indoctrinated in Islam.

    It is interesting that even if you subtract the radical agenda from the faith, the Quran is still so oppressive of basic human rights….especially women.

    What do you think about what I have said?

    Lisa in TX

  6. Anonymous says:

    I wonder if these are the guys who gave trading tips earlier in the week of Sept. 2001???

    http://ict.org.il/Default.aspx
    19/09/2001 Back to List
    Black Tuesday – The World's Largest Insider Trading Scam?
    Don Radlauer
    Black Tuesday – The World's Largest Insider Trading Scam?

    Don Radlauer, ICT Consultant

    In the wake of the terrorist attacks which caused the destruction of the Twin Towers of New York's World Trade Center, damaged the Pentagon, and destroyed four large airliners with all aboard, securities-exchange investigators on three continents are poring over trading records to determine whether one or more parties profited by their advance knowledge of the disaster.

    Investigations are focusing on the many different ways and places in which profits could be made following the Black Tuesday outrage. A brief introduction to "left-handed trading" will help to clarify what may have happened.

    Short Selling

    Most investors buy stocks much the way they buy houses: They try to buy cheap and sell dear. Some traders, however, try to accomplish the same thing in reverse order — when they think a stock will decrease in value, they sell the stock first, in the belief that they will be able to buy it back at a lower price later. This is known as short-selling. In order to sell a stock short, a trader must work with a stockbroker who will lend him/her the stock to sell; this is a normal service provided by stockbrokers. At least in theory, an investor can wait a long time before buying back the stock that s/he has sold ("covering the short").

    Short-selling can be a highly successful trading strategy for an investor who knows how to time the market and can recognize overpriced stocks before the general public does. On the other hand, it can be highly risky: Since there is no upper limit to how high the stock being shorted can rise in price, the potential loss to the short-seller is infinite. On the other hand, the investor who shorts a stock with advance knowledge of news that will cause its price to drop precipitously can make a killing.

    Derivatives – Options and Futures

    "Derivatives" are investments that do not involve buying and selling something that has direct value — such as shares of stock or boxcars of wheat — but instead involve buying or selling standardized contracts that give their owner the right (or obligation) to buy or sell a stock or a commodity at a particular time and price. For example, a commodity futures trader may spend all his working life buying and selling contracts to purchase boxcar-loads of pork bellies, but unless he badly botches his trades, he will never actually have to take delivery and see or touch a pork belly.

    Derivatives relating to stock markets include stock options and stock-index futures contracts. Stock options are contracts that give their owner the right (but not the obligation) to buy ("call" options) or sell ("put" options) stocks at a set price (the "strike" price). American stock options can be exercised at any time until their expiration date; European stock options can be exercised only on one particular day. To prevent total anarchy in the options markets, options are written with standardized expiration dates and standard prices — for U.S. markets, the last exercize date is the third Friday of each month, and the prices are in intervals such as $40.00 (per share), $42.50, $45.00, and so on. Each option contract gives the right to buy or sell 100 shares of the underlying stock.

    Stock options are traded on several different exchanges, including the Chicago Board Options Exchange, the American Stock Exchange, and a number of others.

    A stock option can be either "in the money", "at the money", or "out of the money". An "in the money" option is one that has an immediate value — such as a call option that allows its owner to buy a stock at $50.00 per share when the stock is currently worth $60.00 per share. (In this example, one option contract would be worth $10.00 per share for 100 shares, for a total value of $1,000.00.) Similarly, a put option is "in the money" when the stock is currently worth less than the option's strike price. "At the money" options are options whose strike price equals the current price of the underlying stock; "out of the money" options are options that have no "real" value because they give their owner the right either to buy the stock at more than its current market price, or sell it at less than the market price — in other words, they will have no value at all unless the stock price changes (in the right direction) before the options expire.

    This brings us to one last point about options: Even "out of the money" options have some value, since there is a chance that they may become valuable at some point before they expire. This value is greater or less depending on three factors: First, the longer the option has to run, the more chance there is for the underlying stock's price to change so that the option will become worth exercizing; so longer-term options are more expensive than options that will expire very soon. Second, options that are only slightly "out of the money" are more likely to become worth exercizing than options whose strike price is far above (for calls) or below (for puts) the current market price of the stock. Third, options on stocks whose prices are normally volatile (such as technology stocks) have more chance of becoming valuable than "out of the money" options on stocks whose price doesn't generally change rapidly (such as utility companies). The value of an option contract (beyond any "in the money" value it may have) is known as the option's premium. As the option's expiration date approaches, its premium declines — until, on the last day before it expires, the option's only value is the extent to which it is "in the money." Most stock options that are purchased never actually become "in the money," and so expire without being exercized.

    Stock-index futures contracts are different from stock options in two important ways: First, they are based on the combined price of a basket of stocks, such as the Dow Jones Industrials or the Standard & Poors 500; so their value reflects broader economic and market trends rather than the specific success or failure of a single company. Second, index futures are more like commodity futures than like stock options, in that they represent an obligation to buy rather than the right conveyed by a stock option. An investor who believes that the stock market as a whole — or one particular segment of it for which there is an index-futures contract available — is about to decline, can attempt to profit by short-selling in the index-futures market.

    Those who have found all the material above too simple will be comforted by the fact that nowadays there are also index options – that is, option contracts that give the purchaser the right to buy or sell a basket of stocks rather than single stocks.

    Black Tuesday and the Markets

    An event as dramatic and large in scale as the Black Tuesday attacks has a severe and far-reaching effect on worldwide stock markets. This effect is somewhat like the impact of a stone thrown into a pond: There are certain specific companies which are strongly and immediately affected by the attacks; others which are affected more weakly and indirectly; some which decrease in value only because of a general feeling of pessimism rather than because of any direct impact on their bottom line; and some which may even increase in value because they are seen as a "safe haven" in uncertain times, or because they may gain business from an upcoming armed conflict.

    Another way of looking at this "ripple" effect is that the farther away a company is from the center of the impact (conceptually speaking), the greater the odds that it would emerge unscathed had the attacks' impact been less horrendous than it was.

    The obvious members of the "first circle" of companies strongly affected by the attacks are American Airlines and United Airlines, the two companies whose planes were hijacked and used as flying bombs in the attacks on New York and Washington. These companies' stocks would have decreased in value as a result of any hijacking incident involving their planes, even one with a peaceful resolution. The same is true — to a lesser extent — of other airline companies, Boeing (the principal private manufacturer of airliners), and other companies that provide equipment and services to the air-transportation industry.

    The next circle includes companies that would weather a "normal" hijacking incident relatively unscathed, but would be significantly affected by a more violent attack. These include the insurance and reinsurance companies which must cover the damage, as well as firms with a major presence in or near the Twin Towers.

    The general stock market — the "third circle" in our analogy — would not be strongly affected by a "peaceful" hijacking, but would be by a more violent one. It could be argued that even the Black Tuesday attacks as they occurred were not sufficient to cause a really bad "market break" — while the decline of the Dow Jones Industrial Average on the first day of trading after the disaster was the largest on record in absolute terms, it was not one of the top ten historical declines in relative terms. Had the attacks been more completely successful — for example, had the fourth plane proceeded to Washington and crashed into the White House or the Capitol — the overall market would surely have suffered a much worse crash. To understand what might have happened, it is worth comparing the market's performance immediately post-Black Tuesday, when the Dow Jones Industrials dropped by about seven percentage points, and the 1987 market crash, when the Dow dropped by over 22 percent in one day even though there was no obvious external reason for it to so.

    Looking for Suspicious Trades

    Certain types of transaction can alert securities regulators that the investor who initiated them must have been acting based upon inside knowledge — in other words, knowing some significant piece of news before the general public. A transaction will be considered suspicious based upon a combination of criteria:

    * The timing is just a little too good. Anyone can make an investment at any time, but someone who buys soon-to-be profitable put options or sells a stock short in the few trading days immediately before a major decline in the stock's price will seem to have been more than ordinarily lucky. This criterion is suggestive when present, but is not mandatory. For example, a short sale could have been made quite some time before it would turn out to be profitable. But the longer in advance a short sale or put-option purchase is made, the more uncertainty there will be as to whether events will play out according to plan; so generally the inside trader doesn't make illicit trades very long in advance.

    * The transaction itself is too specific. For example, if someone bought puts on United Airlines and American Airlines but not on Delta Airlines, investigators will be pretty sure that the trader knew in advance that these two airlines were targets of the attack. (On the other hand, this works both ways: If there were similar trades in a third airline but not in others, investigators can conclude that one or more flights of that airline were supposed to have been hijacked as well.)

    * The transaction is too large. One of the most reliable indicators of illegal insider trading is that the perpetrator has traded at an abnormally high level. In other words, someone who normally makes trades of a few thousand dollars now and then, but suddenly begins to make much bigger plays, may well be doing so because s/he has some form of inside knowledge. If inside-traders kept their trades to reasonable levels, they would seldom, if ever, be caught — since their trades wouldn't seem especially abnormal and they could be explained as part of their regular investment strategy. However, people typically get caught up by their own greed: when they know for certain that something significant is going to happen to the price of a stock, they can't resist the temptation to make as much money as possible on their knowledge.

    * Transactions deviate from normal trading levels. In the options markets, there is normally a reasonably even balance between call and put options on any given stock; and there is normally a reasonably predictable level of activity in options on any particular stock. When the balance between puts and calls is grossly disrupted and the level of volume in options trading is far beyond normal, investigators can be pretty sure that something is up.

    * The transaction is too speculative. In other words, the transaction is one that would be unreasonably risky — if not out-and-out stupid — were it not that the perpetrator was trading based upon inside knowledge. For example, a large purchase of stock options that were both significantly "out of the money" and relatively close to their expiration date, but suddenly turned out to be valuable based upon some news affecting the underlying stock, would seem to represent an unreasonable degree of prescience.

    Investigators will be looking at transactions starting with those that can be most easily identified as suspicious. Already enough has emerged to indicate that some trades were almost certainly made based upon advance knowledge of the Black Tuesday attacks:

    * Between September 6 and 7, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines, but only 396 call options. Although there was no news at that time to justify so much "left-handed" trading, United Airlines stock fell 42 percent, from $30.82 per share to $17.50, when the market reopened after the attacks. Assuming that 4,000 of the options were bought by people with advance knowledge of the imminent attacks, these "insiders" would have profited by almost $5 million.

    * On September 10, 4,516 put options on American Airlines were bought on the Chicago exchange, compared to only 748 calls. Again, there was no news at that point to justify this imbalance; but American Airlines stock fell 39 percent, from $29.70 to $18.00 per share, when the market reopened. Again, assuming that 4,000 of these options trades represent "insiders," they would represent a gain of about $4 million.

    * No similar trading in other airlines occurred on the Chicago exchange in the days immediately preceding Black Tuesday.

    * Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw 2,157 of its October $45.00 put options bought in the three trading days before Black Tuesday; this compares to an average of 27 contracts per day before September 6. Morgan Stanley's share price fell from $48.90 to $42.50 in the aftermath of the attacks. Assuming that 2,000 of these options contracts were bought based upon knowledge of the approaching attacks, their purchasers could have profited by at least $1.2 million.

    * Merrill Lynch & Co., with headquarters near the Twin Towers, saw 12,215 October $45.00 put options bought in the four trading days before the attacks; the previous average volume in these options had been 252 contracts per day. When trading resumed, Merrill's shares fell from $46.88 to $41.50; assuming that 11,000 option contracts were bought by "insiders," their profit would have been about $5.5 million.

    * European regulators are examing trades in Germany's Munich Re, Switzerland's Swiss Re, and AXA of France, all major reinsurers with exposure to the Black Tuesday disaster. (Swiss Re estimates that its exposure will be $730 million; Munich Re expects to pay out as much as $903 million.) It is not clear if any trades in these stocks ring alarm bells; and some negative earnings news announced shortly before the attacks means that a certain amount of unusual selling may have been a normal market reaction and not anything more sinister.

    * Amsterdam traders have noted that there was unusual trading activity in KLM Royal Dutch Airlines put options before the attacks.

    This is very much a developing story, and we can be sure that more — and more accurate — numbers will emerge soon. Investigators will be examining transactions starting with the few days immediately before the attack, and then working backwards; and similarly, they will be looking first at trades in the most obviously affected securities.

    Drawing Conclusions

    Assuming that investigators are convinced that trades were made based upon advance knowledge of the attacks, they will obviously try to trace these trades back to determine who initiated them. Obviously, anyone who had detailed knowledge of the attacks before they happened was, at the very least, an accessory to their planning; and the overwhelming probability is that the trades could have been made only by the same people who masterminded the attacks themselves.

    The difficulty, of course, will be in tracing the transactions to their real source. The trading is sure to have been done under false names, behind shell corporations, and in general to have been thoroughly obfuscated. If in fact the Black Tuesday attacks — and the associated securities transactions — were made under orders from Osama bin Laden, then we are dealing with an expert in masking ownership of corporations and making covert deals. This doesn't mean that unraveling the threads of these transactions will be impossible, but it probably won't be quick or easy.

    The author is an expert in electronic banking and cash management, and qualified as a floor trader for the New York Futures Exchange.

  7. Rix says:

    My opinion of Islam and its zealots was aptly summarized by Lieberman – not that ass in sheep’s clothing but Avigdor Lieberman, a moderate-to-right Israeli politician. He said, “when it comes to fighting a mosquito infestation, do not chase mosquitoes. Dry out the marsh.”

  8. Anonymous says:
  9. BUGS BE GONE says:

    Rix said “Dry out the marsh”.
    I say that once dry, napalm the marsh.

  10. Anonymous says:

    why should this surprize anyone, Hussein is a “closet” muslim.

  11. dc says:

    I emailed the Chairman of the GOP last evening and basically ask: What are you going to do to save America, why are the laws not being enforced and our Constitution being upheld (no Birth Certificate for acting Prez).

    I added: “This farce and anti-American conduct is shameful, and is destroying our foundation and decency of a Nation – that once was a ‘beacon of real hope and Light.”

    I did receive a verification of them receiving the email, so we’ll see if a personal reply is sent.

    I thought it was high time I communicated my concerns, along with requesting that they do “something” to stop this tyranny!

    “The LORD has spread out His table of Grace and Mercy and many reject HIS invitation. But, God will have the last say. You’re either with Him or against Him.”

    “This world will pass away. The only ones who will be spared, in reality, are those who belong to the LORD God – the REAL God, of American’s real leaders and Patriots.”

    I think they need to call on “this God for help,” just like Washington, Lincoln and the other upright leaders, who “served” rather than “took.”

    We may need to pray that they are released from the “spell” or “ether” fog that renders them powerless, and use the sword of Truth to cut away the lies and darkness. Amen.

    “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.” 2 Tim 3-1

  12. Rev. Donald Spitz says:

    You seem to imply there is something wrong if a babykilling abortion mill is burned or bombed. Which do you prefer, a pile of bricks or a pile of dead babies? Innocent unborn babies deserve to be protected just as born children deserve to be protected. You would have no problem protecting born children if they were about to be murdered.
    SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal hell because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life. http://www.armyofgod.com

  13. Anonymous says:

    Much as we disagree with the “justice” meeted out to the 75 year old woman. The huge elephant here is that in an equal society, the men would have received equal punishment for braking the rules. That lack of equivalence is the truest demonstration that women are inferior under that system.

  14. Anonymous says:

    As long as the porn industry thrives in this country, and Chris Brown continues to walk the streets, we have no justification to go about the world telling other countries how to treat their women.

  15. Tigress says:

    There are feminists too numerous to count that speak out against violence against women around the world. Maybe your first story hasn’t ‘made the rounds’ yet, but there are so many similar stories. It would take me all day to list the links. I think you are just not visiting the right blogs.

  16. Anonymous says:

    I am a feminist and have been for over 40 years. During last years campaign, I let it be known that I was furious with NOW and the Local NOW for allowing the extreme media abuse for any woman candidate and even supporting OBAMA over female candidates.

    I tore up my NOW card which I obtained since I work on the ERA movement. I was in marches for women’s right. I was on the phones, I did the letter campaign drive… Now I see that was a waste of energy for truly NOW became an organization representing Lesbians issues instead of women issues.

    So now I have joined every group that associates with a free woman society.

    One final note. I believe in Abortion for women is a women’s right…BUT abortion SHOULD NEVER be used as birth control. That’s what it turned out to be. Its the beginning of NOT taking responsibility for one’s actions. In my book, abortion is murder and if society wants to do that to the unborn, then there is no conscience for the soldier or for the elderly. People are expendable.

  17. INSENSITIVE says:

    Jeff, thanks for ‘censoring’ my last post, but I really do feel that way. Delicate topic, I know.

  18. CAL says:

    What is terrible is that you are starting to hear stories about abused muslim women in this country – a father killing his daughter for dishonoring their family and a husband beheading his wife.

  19. Anonymous says:

    Where is the “wolf defending” Ashley Judd on this matter? I guess women aren’t as important as wolves in the “feminist” club.

    The mainstream media doesn’t have time to cover this disgusting behavior either, as they are too busy harassing 18 year old Bristol Palin…AGAIN!

    I also feel the need to mention the loud silence from the Right. We expect the spin and the ignoring of such topics from the Left, but it is frightening to see no dissent from our more humane and intellegent leaders.

    Hell, what am I talking about. None of these people can even demand a legal birth certificate from a man that will run the freakin’ country. Why would I expect them to anything else IMPORTANT!

    In Palin We Trust

Speak Your Mind

*