Palestinian throws acid at Jewish family, then shot and arrested by police

A Palestinian posing as a hitchhiker threw acid at an Israeli family in the West Bank Friday, before he was shot by a passer-by and arrested, the Israeli military said.
The Israeli family -- a Jewish man, his wife and three young girls -- were sitting inside a car when the Palestinian hurled acid at the woman and the girls at a checkpoint south of Jerusalem, the military said.
The army said the Palestinian also tried to attack the father of the family with a screwdriver and then started to run away, but a civilian passer-by shot him in the leg. Israeli police arrested him and evacuated him to hospital for treatment.
The Israeli man had stopped to pick up the Palestinian as a hitchhiker when the attack occurred, authorities said. An Israeli civilian hit the attacker with his car and then shot him, Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported Friday. The suspect is in moderate condition, according to emergency services.
The Israeli family members sustained light injuries, the police said.
There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attack. The incident occurred as tens of thousands marched in the Gaza Strip in celebration of the 27th anniversary of the founding of the Islamist Hamas group.
About 600 Palestinians clashed with Israeli forces in Hebron Friday. Israel Defense Forces soldiers were using crowd-dispersal methods to break up the demonstrations.
Friday’s attacker was identified as Jamal Abd al-Majid Ghayatha, 45, Haaretz reported, citing Ma'an News Agency. Ghayatha was imprisoned in Israel from 2004-2007 for activities related to Islamic Jihad, army sources said.  Israeli army forces raided his home in Nahalin.
Tension has been mounting between Israelis and Palestinians, especially in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in recent months since a five-week war between Israel and Hamas ended in August. More than 2,100 Palestinians-- most of them civilians-- died in the conflict, Palestinian officials said. More than 70 Israelis died in the fighting, most of them soldiers. 
In the past month, 11 people have been killed in Palestinian attacks, mostly in Jerusalem, but also in Tel Aviv and the West Bank. Ten Israelis and a foreign visitor were killed by Palestinians in knife or car-based attacks in the last four months, Reuters reported.  At least a dozen Palestinians have also been killed in the violence.
Magen David Adom paramedics treated the Israeli victims of Friday's acid attack, who included a 27-year-old man, another man in his 50s, a 52-year-old woman and three girls, aged 11, 12 and 18. The victims in the car reported feeling a burning sensation on their skin and in their eyes as well as shortness of breath.
Acid attacks are rare in Israel and the Palestinian territories. In 2001, a Palestinian girl seriously injured a young Israeli woman when she entered a Jerusalem shoe shop and threw acid at a saleswoman.
Earlier Friday, a Palestinian rammed his car into a bus stop where Israeli soldiers were waiting in the West Bank. The troops were not hurt, the military said. The driver was lightly hurt and taken in for questioning to determine whether it was an accident or an intentional assault.
Palestinians have used vehicles as weapons to carry out attacks in several instances in recent months, resulting in deaths and injuries.

A politically correct Christmas song by Scary Pete

Gretchen Wilson & Merle Haggard - Politically Uncorrect

I Want My Country Back ( Country artist Jason Green )

Security or Values Cartoon

'I would kill you': ISIS captive held by Kurds admits taking 70 lives

Kurds in northern Iraq are holding hundreds of ISIS fighters prisoner, including one who told FoxNews.com in an exclusive interview that he killed as many as 70 people in the service of the radical jihadist army.
“Omar, “ a 25-year-old former Islamic State fighter from the Iraqi village of Dor sal-hadeen, said he killed scores of his countrymen and foreign contractors after joining “Daesh,” as ISIS is known in the region, in June. He said he fled the terrorist army in October, but was quickly captured by Kurdish security forces.
“They came to our area and forced me to protect their lands,” Omar said of his Islamic State commanders. “After a while they told me, ‘When are you going to start protecting your own land?’
“They told me to do it or die, and then they killed people in front of me,” said Omar, who is missing four fingers on his left hand from what he said was a 2009 industrial accident. The disability nearly got him killed by his ISIS handlers, he said, until he proved he could shoot right-handed.
Omar is currently being held in an undisclosed prison in Sulymaniyah, after being convicted of terrorism. He was initially sentenced to death, but a judge commuted the sentence to life in prison.

Face to face with ISIS

FoxNews.com's Hollie McKay last month traveled to Kurdish-administered territory in Iraq's Sulymaniyah province, where she met face-to-face with two imprisoned ex-Islamic State soldiers. The interviews were conducted over the course of several hours, and took place in an office at Sulymaniyah’s “Asaih,” or security facility, in the presence of a Kurdish colonel and an independent Kurdish translator. No questions were off-limits for the prisoners, who appeared in civilian clothes, and were not handcuffed or shackled. Asaish officials provided mug shots of the men, but as a condition of the interview insisted FoxNews.com not use their full names.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sipping the tea provided by his Kurdish captors during the FoxNews.com interview, Omar insisted he was an ISIS victim – and even pledged to join the fight against them.
But victim or not, Omar said he became a prolific killer for ISIS, by his count racking up 70 executions in a matter of months. He claimed he killed his victims with rifle shots, and was chillingly candid about why he did it.
“Because they were saying bad words about A'isha [one of Mohammad’s wives, known as the “mother of believers”] and burning a mosque,” he said, adding that he did not receive any type of reward from ISIS leaders for the large number he killed.
Asked if he felt remorse, Omar replied said he “did not act on my own will.” That claim drew a sharp rebuke from the commander of the facility's department of investigation, prompting Omar to say he deflected blame because he was uncomfortable around women.
Omar and other hundreds of other former ISIS soldiers and deserters are being interrogated for intelligence that may help the Kurdish Peshmerga army in its fight against the jihadist group. Kurdish officials say the men are being held under conditions in adherence to international law and monitored by the Red Cross.
Evidence against individual former combatants is gathered and presented to a Kurdish judge, who decides whether prisoners are held or released, according to the Kurdish commander who sat in the interview, and did not allow his name to be used. Omar and many other ex-ISIS fighters convicted of mass murder or terrorism charges may well spend the rest of their lives in prison. Other ex-ISIS fighters judged to be non-terrorists will serve lesser sentences, or will be released among the general population. 
At another point in the interview, Omar said he joined ISIS to get away from his new bride. Saying she had “something in her head – she looked normal on the outside, but she wasn’t,” Omar added that his wife “couldn’t have babies.” He then acknowledged, with a shrug, that by fleeing to join the murderous jihadi army he left his family responsible for paying his wife’s family a fortune.

“I would call you to Islam and if you did not come I would kill you.”- "Omar," ISIS fighter held by Kurds

Omar said he deserted ISIS and fled to Kurdistan in an attempt to blend in and find work, but was arrested by police on Oct. 8, after being identified by Kurdish intelligence agents.
Although he said at times that he wished to take up arms with the Iraqi military or the Kurds, there were several instances in which Omar used the pronoun for “we” when discussing Daesh, a possible giveaway of his true sentiments toward non-believers in general, and Americans in particular.
“We count Americans like Jews,” he said at one point in the interview. He had similarly hostile views of Western women.
Asked what he would do if he saw his female interviewer on the street, he replied, “I would call you to Islam and if you didn’t, I would leave you alone.” Pressed, he corrected himself. “I would call you to Islam and if you did not come, I would kill you.”
Omar was one of two former Islamic State fighters who spoke to FoxNews.com at the Asaish facility, where terrorists are held with local criminals. The other, a 19-year-old Kurd identified as "Dawen," said he was lured to join by the group’s Facebook pages, which urged Muslims to come fight in Syria.
Dawen said he spent just 20 days in the world’s most infamous terrorist army before being arrested two months ago. He said he did not witness any killings, but had no illusions about Islamic State’s barbarity.
“I realized that this is not about God, especially after I was captured,” he said. “I realize this isn’t about God; it is about harming people. Also, the Kurdish people were nice even with my situation.”
Dawen said he felt regret about joining the group almost immediately. “I called my family and they were not happy, it was shameful… I felt weak because they made me act and think a certain way,” he said, when asked whether joining a terrorist organization made him feel powerful. “I was asking for forgiveness, even while there.”
Dawen, who faces terrorism charges, also insisted he is learning more from fellow inmates about other barbarities committed by ISIS, and suggested Kurdish officials “make anti-terror shows and programs” to teach others that this is “not the way to be.”
The facility's director of security said most ISIS fighters are uneducated, and easily led down the bloody path of violent jihad.
“Some regret their actions, some do not,” he said. “Understand that most are young and have no information. They are impressionable. They listen to the second-life paradise story, 72 virgins, rivers of wine, and [staying] young forever. That is all they know.”
Unlike prisoners of ISIS, many of whom have been marched into the desert and executed, or garbed in orange jumpsuits and forced to kneel before being beheaded, deserters and captives from the terrorist army say they are treated well by Kurdish authorities. The two men interviewed by FoxNews.com were dressed comfortably, clean-shaven, appeared well-nourished and showed no signs of physical injury or abuse.

Related Image

Hundreds of ISIS fighters captured in battle or after deserting are held in prisons in the Kurdish stronghold of Sulaymaniyah. (Wikipedia)

Both men confirmed they are allowed phone contact with family members, and seemed aware of recent news events involving ISIS. Both said they feared being captured by ISIS if released.
Security officers, however, cautioned against believing the prisoners’ expressions of remorse. Both men told FoxNews.com they wanted to join the Peshmerga, the Kurdish army that has won back much of the Iraqi and Syrian land seized by ISIS. But Kurdish officials said neither man could be trusted, noting ISIS has been known to send spies into Kurdistan.
Kurdish officials privately predicted there was little doubt the two men, and others like them, would be back fighting for ISIS within days if they were ever freed.
Referring to former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s repeated and destructive campaigns against the Kurds, the official noted they have extensive experience handling such threats.
“We have been dealing with terrorist groups since the beginning, so this is not new for us. We specialize in terrorists.”

Fox News Poll: Voters agree with Brown grand jury, disagree with Garner

Two grand juries recently declined to charge white police officers in connection with the deaths of unarmed black men.  Americans think one was right and the other wrong. 
That’s according to the latest Fox News poll. 
Click here for the poll results.
Commentators and others have understandably linked the decisions coming in quick succession out of Ferguson, Missouri and New York City.  Yet voters apparently see key distinctions between the two cases. 
By a 22-point margin, they agree with the grand jury decision in Ferguson, Missouri not to seek criminal charges against a white police officer in the shooting death of a black teenage robbery suspect (55 percent agree vs. 33 percent disagree).
The reverse is true for the grand jury decision in New York: by 30 points, most disagree with the decision not to seek criminal charges against a white officer in the chokehold death of a black man stopped for selling loose cigarettes (27 percent agree vs. 57 percent disagree).
Large majorities of black voters disagree with the decisions in Ferguson (83 percent) and New York (90 percent).  For white voters, a majority agrees with the decision in Ferguson (65 percent), while just over half disagree with the outcome in New York (51 percent). 
Democrats disagree with both the Ferguson (59 percent) and New York (74 percent) decisions.  Republicans think the grand jury made the right decision in Ferguson (77 percent).  On the decision in New York, Republicans have mixed views: 40 percent agree, 37 percent disagree and 23 percent are unsure. 
These grand jury decisions have provoked protests in cities nationwide that are continuing days after the decisions were announced.  Nearly 4 in 10 think news coverage of the protests has been “about right” (39 percent). 
Others think the news favors one side: by a 25-point margin, voters are more likely to say the coverage has been too supportive of the protestors (37 percent) than to say it’s been too supportive of the police (12 percent).
Some say the refusal of large segments of society to believe a jury’s findings in such cases is a solvable problem -- police should wear body cameras. It’s a proposal pretty much everyone can get behind:  85 percent like the idea of police being required to wear them. That includes most blacks (90 percent), whites (84 percent) and Hispanics (85 percent).
There is also agreement across party lines, as large numbers of both Democrats (89 percent) and Republicans (79 percent) favor body cameras for police.
Meanwhile, voters are nearly three times as likely to say race relations have gotten worse (62 percent) rather than better (19 percent) since Barack Obama became president.  Another 17 percent say things are the same. 
Majorities of white (65 percent), black (55 percent) and Hispanic voters (56 percent) say race relations have gotten worse under Obama. 
Overall, Obama receives a 41 percent approval rating for the job he’s doing on race relations, while 51 percent of voters disapprove.  Despite the negative rating, that makes this one of his best issues. 
Sixty-five percent of black voters approve of Obama’s performance on race relations, down from 82 percent approval in 2010.  Twenty-four percent disapprove.
Among white voters, 37 percent approve and 56 percent disapprove.
These numbers help explain why, overall, just 19 percent of voters think Obama should get more involved personally in cases like Ferguson, while nearly half -- 48 percent -- say he should be less involved.  Nearly a third feels Obama’s actions in the recent cases have been “about right” (31 percent).
Black voters (35 percent) are more than twice as likely as white voters (15 percent) to say Obama should get more involved personally. 
The issue of race relations comes in at the bottom of things voters want Obama to work on right now: 38 percent say working on the economy should be his top priority, while 21 percent say terrorist groups like ISIS. Another 12 percent say health care, 10 percent immigration and 9 percent race relations. 
The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,043 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from December 7-9, 2014. The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Conservative group sues California AG over donor list demands, 'bullying'

Americans for Prosperity, a prominent conservative group, is suing the California attorney general for allegedly demanding donor information and threatening harsh penalties if they don't comply. 
The lawsuit, which claims that complying with Attorney General Kamala Harris' demands would put donors' safety "at risk," comes on the heels of the 2013 controversy over IRS targeting of conservative groups. 
According to the Courthouse News Service, the nonprofit group is seeking a federal court order that would bar Harris from demanding the names of its donors. Harris, according to the report, had told the group if it did not hand over the donor lists from 2011 and 2012, Americans for Prosperity would be slapped with fines and barred from operating in California.
Harris’ office has not yet been served with the lawsuit and so far is not commenting, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.
Americans for Prosperity, founded by the Koch brothers and based in Virginia, acknowledged in court documents that its views are not “universally popular” -- the group said it feared for the safety of donors, citing past harassment and hackers. They said Harris' demands violate the First and 14th amendments and the Supremacy Clause.
"Faced with such bullying, current and potential donors are understandably afraid that having their identities disclosed will put them and their families at risk," the court complaint states. "Dozens of potential donors, a number of whom live in California, have reluctantly refused to contribute to the foundation because they are too fearful of the reprisal they will face if their contribution becomes public knowledge, and current donors have indicated that they will cease their contributions if their names and addresses are revealed to the state of California."
The case follows the 2013 scandal in which the IRS applied extra scrutiny to conservative groups seeking nonprofit status. 
Americans for Prosperity is federally registered as a 501(c)(4), which means it can engage in political campaigns and elections as long as it is not for a specific candidate. They are not required under federal rules to release donor lists. The group has a separate registration in California, which they say has been put at risk if they do not comply with Harris’ demands.
Another conservative group, the Center for Competitive Politics, a 501(c)(3), also sued Harris in March, contending that its First Amendment rights were violated by her demands for their donor lists. They lost their request for an injunction in federal court and are appealing the court’s decision to the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals.

House narrowly approves spending bill, legislation heads to Senate

The House narrowly approved a sweeping spending bill Thursday night despite deep misgivings among liberals and conservatives alike, sending the measure to the Senate as lawmakers averted a partial government shutdown.
The bill passed on a 219-206 vote, following an intense lobbying effort by House Republican leaders and the White House.
Current government funding technically runs out at midnight Thursday, but lawmakers late Thursday approved a stopgap measure to keep the government running through midnight Saturday as the Senate considers the main $1.1 trillion spending package. That debate could last through the weekend and potentially into Monday.
"We will not have a government shutdown," Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., pledged.
Passage in the House followed hours of urgent appeals from an unlikely alliance: President Obama and House GOP leadership.
Obama and Vice President Biden worked the phones to sway Democratic lawmakers. White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough also met on the Hill with the Democratic caucus. Despite sources inside the meeting initially saying he did little to persuade lawmakers, a rift emerged in the Democratic leadership late Thursday. As House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi continued to oppose the bill, her deputy, Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., urged passage.
Meanwhile, House GOP leaders did what they could to sway conservative members who, for different reasons, were opposed to the package.
In the end, 67 Republicans defected, but 57 Democrats voted for it.
Many conservatives opposed the bill because it does not attack Obama's immigration executive actions, while liberal Democrats were angry over provisions dealing with campaign spending and financial regulation.
The debate saw Pelosi flexing her clout, recognizing that House Speaker John Boehner needed Democrats to pass the bill.
She pushed back not only against GOP leaders but Obama's lobbying effort.
In a rare public rebuke of the president,  Pelosi said she was "enormously disappointed" he had decided to embrace the bill, which she described as an attempt at legislative blackmail by House Republicans.
Pelosi, D-Calif., sent an email note to colleagues in the afternoon saying they had "leverage" to make demands -- namely, to remove two provisions her party doesn't like. They are: a provision rolling back one of the regulations imposed on the financial industry in the wake of the economic collapse of 2008, and one that permits wealthy contributors to increase the size of their donations to political parties for national conventions, election recounts or the construction of a headquarters building.
Right before the vote, according to a source in the room, Pelosi told lawmakers: “We have enough votes to show them never to do this again.”
But perhaps an overriding desire on both sides not to risk another government shutdown prevailed.
The current plan would fund the government through September 2015, but immigration services only through late February, teeing up a battle over immigration for early 2015.
Earlier in the day, the bill narrowly cleared an important procedural hurdle, on a 214-212 test vote. But the tight vote, which almost failed, exposed serious problems. GOP leaders then delayed a final vote and spent hours trying to round up support, as the White House did the same with Democrats.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said earlier that Obama supports the bill and would sign it -- despite having reservations about certain provisions.Hoyer ultimately took a similar position.
The bill’s fate in the Senate remains unclear.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., now a member of leadership, has fought the bill in an effort to preserve the financial regulatory policy known as Dodd-Frank. Debate in the Senate on the main spending bill could easily last several more days.