Media’s sharia darlings CAIR show no mercy to abused Muslim-American women

Published July 31, 2012 | By Iowadawg

Hadith of the Day: Show Mercy

by CAIR on Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 12:03pm ·

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: “(God) has mercy on those who are merciful. If you show mercy to those who are on the earth, He Who is in heaven will show mercy to you.”

Rashida Amahtullah assalkmaikum..mercy please. I have been waiting for justice. As a muslim woman, I don’t feel safe to talk about my experience in the mosque with muslim men. I made a complaint and Cair replied that they dont make complaints against muslim organizations. But why? I have been banished from my home due to threats of retaliation. Cair has not responded to my crisis for the last 3 years.

Yesterday at 12:06pm

This is consistent with numerous stories and lawsuits filed against CAIR by Muslims who have been victimized. They ignore cases that do not advance Islamization and the imposition of the Sharia. Complaints filed against CAIR allege that according to CAIR internal documents, there were hundreds of victims of CAIR schemes.

Of course, CAIR’s hypocrisy was evident the night we held a human rights townhall for former Muslims across the street from a Hamas-CAIR event mocking the work of human rights activists and defenders of freedom.

###

House to consider eliminating Senate confirmation for presidential appointees

The House of Representatives is set to consider legislation Tuesday that would exempt certain presidential appointees from having to be confirmed by the Senate.

But a number of conservative groups are arguing that the “Presidential Efficiency and Streamlining Act” amounts to Congress neutering itself and giving the executive branch unprecedented power.

Presidential appointees that would no longer require Senate confirmation under the legislation include the treasurer of the United States and the deputy administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.

“The United States Constitution does not bestow kingly powers on the President to appoint the senior officers of the government with no process,” wrote Thomas McClusky, the senior vice president for the Family Research Council’s legislative arm, in a Monday memo to lawmakers.

Sources told The Daily Caller that there is concern in the ranks among conservatives opposed to the legislation that House leaders will bring the legislation up for a voice vote to avoid putting members on the record.

“I can tell you that there will be members who want this vote on the record,” an aide to one conservative member told TheDC. “Whether or not they’ll get the chance is still in question.”

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s office didn’t comment on questions Tuesday from TheDC about the bill.

—-

Then this:
Mark Levin slams House Republicans for voting to eliminate Senate confirmation for 169 presidential appointments

###

The Left Engineers Another Housing Crisis: The Obama administration again sets minorities up for financial ruin with “social justice” lending regulations.

From Arnold Ahlert at the Patriot Post:

Apparently for the Obama administration, one economy-busting housing meltdown wasn’t enough. Studies showing that the foreclosure crisis was more devastating to older black and Hispanic Americans than other groups has prompted another round of government interference in the credit markets — almost identical to the one that precipitated the first crisis. Once again the perceived bogeyman is “racist” lending standards. And once again, banks will be forced to lower their lending standards to make easy credit available for minority loan applicants as a result.

While the idea of browbeating the banks remains the same, the government’s choice of club has changed. The last round of intimidation was percipitated largely by the Justice Department and mortgage behemoths Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It consisted of banks and mortgage lenders being forced to ease credit requirements for lower-income minorities or face investigations for discrimination, denial of access to the secondary mortgage market, as well as fines and other penalties. This time, the newly created Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB) will be the government’s hammer.

The CFPB is the brainchild of Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, who like President Obama, is an ardent disciple of the “you didn’t do it on your own” philosophy of all-encroaching government. Thus it should come as little surprise that the CFPB announced it is adopting as its template the 20-page “Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending,” issued by the Interagency Task force on Fair Lending in 1994. That statement was signed by the heads of 10 federal agencies, including then-Attorney General Janet Reno, Comptroller of the Currency Eugene Ludwig, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, and the heads of six other financial regulatory agencies. It put lenders on notice that “the agencies will not tolerate lending discrimination in any form.”

The policy was based on a study done by the Boston Fed purporting to show lender “discrimination,” due to the fact that mortgage applications by blacks and Hispanics were being rejected in greater proportion than those submitted by whites. Yet a private analysis showed the study was flawed, and that the disparate approval rates were based on the simplest, but apparently inconvenient realities: past delinquencies, a lack of credit standards, an applicants’ net worth, debt burden and employment records, all of which showed that minorities, on average, had higher levels of bad credit and loan defaults, than whites. In other words, sound business practices, not racism was motivating the lenders. This is further revealed by another inconvenient reality: whites could also claim to be victims of “discrimination” because their approval rate has been lower than that of Asians in some lending markets.

None of it matters to the racial bean-counters. ”Applying different lending standards or offering different levels of assistance to applicants who are members of a protected class is permissible in some circumstances,” the 1994 statement said. “Providing different treatment to applicants to address past discrimination would be permissible if done in response to a court order.” Thus the CFPB is re-instituting the policy. ”The CFPB, which did not exist at that time, concurs with the policy statement,” the bureau said in a recent bulletin.

Yet the way they’re going about enforcing the policy is insidious. Two weeks ago, CFPB chief Richard Cordray, who was granted a recess appointment by President Obama without the necessary senatorial consent, announced that the agency will regulate credit-reporting bureausthat provide the credit scores lenders use to assess the default risk of loan applicants. The impetus behind the move is complaints – solicited by CFPB — from minorities who claim their credit has been damaged by faulty reports from the bureaus. The agency contends that only 60 percent of such reports are accurate.

However, a 2011 study by the non-profit, non-partisan Policy and Economic Research Council revealed otherwise, noting that 99.5 percent of the reports are free of material errors, less than 1 percent of credit scores were altered by more than 25 points after a dispute process, and that “95 percent of disputing participants were satisfied with the outcomes of their disputes, suggesting widespread satisfaction” with the process. Furthermore, a Federal Reserve review of more than 300,000 credit bureau records from 2007 not only found no bias in scoring, but noted that scores underestimated the risk posed by black American borrowers who showed, on average, “consistently higher incidences of bad performance than would be predicted” by those scores.

Nonetheless, Cordray revealed the CFPB will re-write the rules determining how the private credit bureaus collate their data. This will be done in conjunction with the leftist Center for Responsible Lending and other housing activist organizations. In short the credit agencies, like the lending institutions before them, will be vetted for racial discrimination, with the likely result being that the agencies will be threatened to raise the credit scores of minorities, or suffer the same consequences imposed on the lending institutions.

###

Lord have mercy on this crazy woman! Look at what she did to her eyelashes!

See what it is at The Gloss

###

The Muddle East

From Victor Davis Hanson at NRO:

No one has any idea what the Middle East will look like next year, much less in five years — especially the revolutionary players themselves.

There are not even the old familiar fault lines this revolutionary time around. Are the Sunni Gulf kingdoms eager to support revolutionaries in Syria and North Africa? Perhaps and perhaps not — given that the fall of strongmen like Mubarak, bin Ali, Qaddafi, and Assad may lead to Muslim Brotherhood–inspired Islamist governments, which would like to see the oil-rich monarchies become less Western and more theocratic. Or — though this is less likely — if pro-Western reformist movements were to prevail, such governments would like to democratize and secularize the Gulf. Who are our best allies in breaking up the dangerous Iran-Hezbollah-Syria axis? Islamist extremists who want to kill the hated Assad slightly more than they do us — at least for now?

Who can sort out Lebanon? Are Christians and Shiites there sympathetic to the tottering Assad dictatorship for protecting religious minorities and, in the case of the Shiites, helping to arm Hezbollah? Or do non-Sunnis also favor reform movements that seek the ouster of a despised police state, one that has a long history of killing Lebanese? Does a grateful Iraq feel that Syria has been more sympathetic to its Shiite government than its Sunni neighbors have been, or is it experiencing schadenfreude that its terrorists are now doing to Syria what Syria’s used to do to Iraq?

Will new Arab Islamist governments seek solidarity with the anti-Western Persian theocracy, or will they fall back into their religious and ethnic fears of Iranian Shiites? No one has ever quite fathomed whether Shiite and Sunni extremists hate Westerners more or less than they do each other. Does the supposed Arab Street desire to be free, especially in the age of globalized instant communications, and given its general repugnance for the sheer corruption of the moribund Arab dictatorships? Or will the Muslim Brotherhood simply tap that popular anger to abort the delivery of constitutional government — whether overtly, as in the case of the Iranian revolution and the one-vote-once Hamas takeover of Gaza; or more insidiously, as in the current Turkish government’s war against freedom of the press and independent opposition movements, or in the Karzai-Maliki paradigm of constitutional kleptocracy?

Amid this chaos there are a handful of constants that can guide U.S. foreign policy.

1. Arab governments, whether they take the form of one-man authoritarianism, monarchy, or theocracy, will remain anti-Israel. That is not to say that particular factions from time to time will not stealthily strengthen ties with Israel in order to punish shared enemies, but by and large the Arab Middle East will still detest Israel. The region’s unrepentant embrace of anti-Semitism, resentment over the economic power and success of Israel, and longstanding anger at the establishment of a Jewish state in the heart of the Arab Middle East trump all ephemeral changes in government. To the extent that a new Arab regime is elected by popular vote, and to the extent that it retains the loyalty of its people, anti-Israeli feeling will only escalate. Power to the people in the Middle East means more power to hate Israel.

2. The Arab Middle East will remain anti-American. We already see that Barack Hussein Obama had little, if any, success in winning over hearts and minds of the Arab Street after the exit of the Texas evangelical and Iraq-invading George Bush. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was greeted with crude chants of “Monica” from demonstrators among our supposedly secular, reformist allies in aid-receiving “friendly” Egypt. The new government in Cairo apparently wishes the release of the mass-murdering blind sheikh, who helped plan the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and who dreams of Jerusalem as the Arab capital of a West Bank state. It took the overthrow of the odious Moammar Qaddafi to ensure that a British Commonwealth cemetery from the Second World War would at last be desecrated — in Timbuktu/Bamiyan style. All we know of Syria with any surety is that Assad detests us, his Hezbollah partners detest us, his Iranian patrons detest us, the al-Qaeda extremists who seek to overthrow him detest us, and more reasonable reformist rebels either detest us for not helping them more overtly, or will soon find other reasons for detesting us when and if they should seize power. American aid; generous U.S. immigration policies for Muslims and Arabs; loud support for democratic movements; the removal of Saddam Hussein and Moammar Qaddafi; past help to the Iraqis, Kuwaitis, Egyptians, Palestinians, and Jordanians; prior efforts to protect Muslims in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Somalia — all that earns little, if any, goodwill.

3. Oil, one way or another, will still affect all strategic thinking. Over the next decade, the huge new reserves of oil and natural gas found in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico will — if fully exploited — revolutionize the fossil-fuel supplies of North America. Vastly increased daily production will allow the United States, inter alia, far more flexibility in its foreign policy, freed from fears of embargos, boycotts, and OPEC price-rigging. Add into the mix the unanticipated emergence of an energy-independent Israel, and access to Arab oil — and the power of Middle East petrodollars — may no longer dominate American foreign policy. For good or evil, in five years we may be no more concerned about the subversion of Arab Spring–type democratic movements than the present administration is today about the lack, or erosion, of constitutional government in nearby Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Peru, and Venezuela.

4. Nuclear proliferation may become immune to international scrutiny. There is simply too much turmoil in the Middle East for the international community to monitor and control the spread of nuclear weapons. As Western forces leave Afghanistan, expect tensions to rise between Afghanistan and nuclear Pakistan, and between nuclear Pakistan and nuclear India. No one can figure out the politics of either an Israeli preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, or an announcement that Iran has let off a nuclear device — other than that either development, or both, would destabilize the region even more. If Syria, the entire West Bank, Jordan, and Egypt embrace Muslim Brotherhood–inspired governments — soon a probability — we will see a return to the pre-1973 Middle East calculus, with Islamism substituting for the old pro-Soviet stance as the common creed of uniform hostility among frontline enemies of Israel.

###