Eleventh Time Lucky!

A lawyer married a woman who had previously divorced ten husbands. 

On their wedding night, she told her new husband, “Please be gentle, I’m still a virgin.” 

“What??” said the puzzled groom. “How can that be if you’ve been married ten times?” 

“Well, Husband #1 was a sales representative: he kept telling me how great it was going to be. 

Husband #2 was in software services: he was never really sure how it was supposed to function, but he said he’d look into it and get back to me. 

Husband #3 was from field services: he said everything checked out diagnostically but he just couldn’t get the system up. 

Husband #4 was in telemarketing: even though he knew he had the order, he didn’t know when he would be able to deliver. 

Husband #5 was an engineer: he understood the basic process but wanted three years to research, implement, and design a new state-of-the-art method. 

Husband #6 was from finance and administration: he thought he knew how, but he wasn’t sure whether it was his job or not. 

Husband #7 was in marketing: although he had a nice product, he was never sure how to position it. 

Husband #8 was a psychologist: all he ever did was talk about it. 

Husband #9 was a gynecologist: all he did was look at it. 

Husband #10 was a stamp collector: all he ever did was… God! I miss him! But now that I’ve married you, I’m really excited!” 

“Good,” said the new husband, “but why?” 

“Oh, you’re a lawyer. This time I know I’m gonna get screwed!”

What Assad Chemical Attack Means for Israel

Beyond the Cusp

Assad still has no respect for President Trump, the new American President, who he expects to be no different than President Obama. He has basically done an ‘in your face’ chemical agent attack on the Syrian people once again testing the nerve and limits President Trump might impose. But what does all of this have to do with Israel? Well, if Bashir al-Assad has so little concern for his own people, fellow Muslims, even if they are Sunni and not Shia, how much concern would he have for the Jews in Israel? The answer is obvious; None! So with this knowledge the question the Israeli leadership should be considering is what, if anything, should they be considering. So, what would we be considering were we in their shoes?

The first thing we would do if we were in Prime Minister Netanyahu shoes is make a call of convenience to Russian…

View original post 1,183 more words

The Right to Choose Includes the Right to Choose Life

There is no conflict between the “right to choose” and “the right to life” in the context of abortion, because the former includes the latter. If the state were ever to require a pregnant woman to undergo an abortion — as China in effect did with its “one child” policy — there would be a conflict. But in the United States, the right to choose includes the right to choose life rather than abortion. It also includes the right of women to choose abortion for themselves.

So, what are the anti-abortion right-to-life advocates complaining about? They do not want any woman to have the right to choose abortion for herself. They want to have the state chose for her — to deny her the right to choose between giving birth to an unwanted child and having an abortion.

They believe that abortion is infanticide — murder — not of their child but of the fetus of the woman who would choose abortion. But that woman does not regard the fetus as her child. So, the right to lifer responds: it doesn’t matter what you think. It matters what the state thinks. The vast majority — 70% — of citizens the United States think a woman should have the right to control her own reproduction — to choose whether the embryo or the fetus becomes her child, according to a Pew study this year.

If a woman has been impregnated while being raped, she may not regard the fetus as “her child.” The same may be true of other unwanted pregnancies, such as those of teenagers who mentally and physically may be unable raise or care for a child for the rest of her life. The problem is what the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan called, “Children having children.”

What gives other people the right to decide, when they are not the ones who will have to bear the consequences?

Source: for MORE

How famous is Shabudin?

How famous is Shabudin?
Here’s a list of news sites covering his ‘9-year old can marry to solve rape’ quote so far. (Updating from time to time)
Asia:
Straits Times (Singapore)
The Inquirer (Philippines)
Top News Philippines (Philippines)
Detik (Indonesia)
Jakarta Globe (Indonesia)
Pakistan Today (Pakistan)
Tribune (Pakistan)
Scroll (India)
Jagruk Bharat (India)
South China Morning Post (China)
Click Ittefaq (Bangladesh)
Asian Correspondent (Regional)
Gulf News (Regional)
Europe:
The Guardian (UK)
BBC (UK)
BFMTV (France)
Jutarnji (Croatia)
Telegraph (UK)
Politica (Portugal)
Lavamguardia (Spain)
RT (Russia)
Veja.com (Portugal)
Vijesti RTL (Croatia)
TVXS (Greece)
IBK (UK)
Terrafemina (France)
Diretta News (Italy)
TVM (Malta)
Verkkouutiset (Finland)
Noviny Newspaper (Slovakia)
Gazeta Express (Kosovo)
In Cyprus (Cyprus)
Magyar Hirlap (Hungary)
Others:
Reuters (200 countries worldwide)
Washington Post (US)
Newsweek (US)
MIC (US)

“Breaking the Palestinians’ Will to Fight”

Daniel Polisar of Shalem College in Jerusalem shook the debate over Palestinian-Israeli relations in November 2015 with his essay, “What Do Palestinians Want?” In it, having studied 330 polls to “understand the perspective of everyday Palestinians” toward Israel, Israelis, Jews, and the utility of violence against them, he found that Palestinian attackers are “venerated” by their society—with all that that implies.

He’s done it again with “Do Palestinians Want a Two-State Solution?” This time, he pored over some 400 opinion polls of Palestinian views to find consistency among seemingly contradictory evidence on the topic of ways to resolve the conflict with Israel. From this confusing bulk, Polisar convincingly establishes that Palestinians collectively hold three related views of Israel: it has no historical or moral claim to exist, it is inherently rapacious and expansionist, and it is doomed to extinction. In combination, these attitudes explain and justify the widespread Palestinian demand for a state from “the river to the sea,” the grand Palestine of their maps that erases Israel.

With this analysis, Polisar has elegantly dissected the phenomenon that I call Palestinian rejectionism. That’s the policy first implemented by the monstrous mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini, in 1921 and consistently followed over the next near-century. Rejectionism demands that Palestinians (and beyond them, Arabs and Muslims) repudiate every aspect of Zionism: deny Jewish ties to the land of Israel, fight Jewish ownership of that land, refuse to recognize Jewish political power, refuse to trade with Zionists, murder Zionists where possible, and ally with any foreign power, including Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, to eradicate Zionism.

Source: for MORE

The Telegraph – Brexit Bulletin

  What should Britain’s immigration policy look like after Brexit? As the aftershocks of Donald Trump’s cruise missile strike on a Syrian air base rumble across the Eurasian continental plate, it is worth stopping to consider this question, which may yet have far more influence on what Britain will look like in the decades to come. What Jeremy Warner has called the “grand coalition” of liberal and nationalist Brexiteers cannot hold forever.

This weekend Leave Means Leave, the hard Brexit group set up in the wake of last June to safeguard the revolution, published a report on this theme. Written by Steven Woolfe, who quit as Ukip’s immigration spokesman last year after a “scuffle” with a fellow MEP, it proposes a points-based regime which would open Britain to students but impose a five year ban on unskilled immigration. The only exception would be a six-month temporary permit scheme for seasonal agricultural workers, capped at 50,000 per year. Skilled immigration would be uncapped, but subject to strict conditions: each applicant would have to pass an English test and prove they had a job offer with an annual salary of £35,000, a five-year private insurance contract, and savings in the bank.

Leave Means Leave backers Owen Paterson and Gerald Howarth back the document, but others, according to the Times, do not. And Theresa May continues to leave the door open to a more liberal policy, at least at first. She responded to a direct question about free movement last week with this answer: “Once we’ve got the deal, once we’ve agreed what the new relationship will be for the future, it will be necessary for there to be a period of time when businesses and governments are adjusting systems and so forth.”

Conservative supporters are very clear. They want immigration to come down – “no ifs”, as David Cameron once put it, and “no buts”. According to new polling, 76 per cent of them say it is “essential” for it to fall. Nor can they be bought off: suggestions that immigrants should be barred from welfare, required to learn English, prevented from “undercutting” wages, or that high-immigration areas should receive extra money from the government all failed to budge a clear majority in favour of reducing the overall numbers. (Labour should take note that these reforms did work for their supporters.)

The electorate as a whole broadly agrees, with 58 per cent saying it is “essential” to bring down immigration. And according to Lord Ashcroft, a plurality – if not a majority – would prioritise access to (let’s assume they mean “membership of”) the Single Market over “controlling immigration”. Veteran pollster John Curtice found the opposite, claiming that 54 of us would accept free movement  in order to secure free trade. But the same research still found that most people think we can have both; we should expect these numbers to change if they turn out to be wrong.

The re-defections of Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless away from Ukip indicate that Theresa May has successfully stolen at least some of their thunder. My guess is that, having seen how the purple peril on his right flank bounced David Cameron into a referendum he never wanted, she is electing to lock down that front forevermore. Yet there is some evidence that what she gains on the Right, she is losing in the centre, with claims of a Lib Dem insurgency in the seats Mr Cameron won in 2015. I wouldn’t rule out more prevarication on her part.

Source: for MORE

Misreading and Distorting The Campus Rape Frenzy

After serving as a cheerleader for disgraced district attorney Mike Nifong during the Duke lacrosse case, the New York Times even more aggressively championed Barack Obama’s crusade to erode due process for college students accused of sexual assault. It was probably naïve, therefore, to expect a fair review from the Times when Stuart Taylor and I published our book on the topic, The Campus Rape Frenzy. The review, written by Times contributing opinion editor Jill Filipovic, confirms the paper’s inability to address the issue fairly. In a few hundred words, Filipovic made at least three factual errors in describing the book, and she misleads the reader regarding several crucial points.

Our book sourced tens of thousands of pages of legal filings, documents from campus disciplinary policies, and previously secret “training” materials given to investigative panelists in campus sexual-assault cases, in order to describe a system in which students accused of sexual assault are effectively presumed guilty and then denied the tools necessary to prove their innocence. Filipovic nonetheless faults a book based on this extensive material for failing to adhere to a “standard” of telling both sides of the story.

“The authors,” she notes, “choose a handful of egregious examples to make the case that campus sexual assault isn’t all that common and that the bigger problem is innocent young men railroaded by promiscuous women who get drunk and regret their choices, or flat-out lie at the behest of conniving campus feminists.”

The four-dozen cases we explored constitute more than a handful. While Filipovic characterizes them as “egregious”—an accurate description—her implication that they were atypical of the usual campus disciplinary process, and improperly chosen in order to support a tendentious argument, is false. In the event, what does it say about our current campus justice system that accused students can be found guilty, even where they assemble clear evidence of their innocence?

.Source: for MORE