Wacko hard-line Iranian cleric: Promiscuous/provocative women are the cause of earthquakes

Via CNN:

(CNN) — Women who dress provocatively and tempt people into promiscuity are to blame for earthquakes, a leading Iranian hard-line cleric has apparently said.

The prayer leader, Hojatoleslam Kazim Sadeghi, says women and girls who “don’t dress appropriately” spread “promiscuity in society.”

“When promiscuity spreads, earthquakes increase,” he says in a video posted Monday on YouTube, apparently of him leading Friday prayers in Tehran, Iran, last week.

“There is no way other than taking refuge in religion and adapting ourselves to Islamic behavior,” he adds in the video.

More via the Guardian:

“Many women who do not dress modestly … lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which increases earthquakes,” Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi was quoted as saying by Iranian media. Women in the Islamic Republic are required by law to cover from head to toe, but many, especially the young, ignore some of the more strict codes and wear tight coats and scarves pulled back that show much of the hair. “What can we do to avoid being buried under the rubble?” Sedighi asked during a prayer sermon last week. “There is no other solution but to take refuge in religion and to adapt our lives to Islam’s moral codes.”

Riiight. Ok, I’ll humor his theory for about 30 seconds. The promiscuity rate has to be very low, primarily because women don’t want to risk the punishment of the beatings and/or death that are advocated by the likes of Sadeghi and other hardcore devotees of the Religion of Peace. If you couple that with the fact that earthquakes happen quite often in Iran, this “prayer leader”‘s assertions can pretty much be thrown out with the dirty bath water.

To carry it even further, if provocative/promiscuous women really were the cause of earthquakes, then the US would be one of the most earthquake-riddled countries in the world, thanks in no small part to the “free love” movement of the 60s, which paved the way for the much more relaxed attitude that women take both towards styles of dress and casual sex today. Stick another knife into the senior cleric’s “theory.”

Oh, this is about “sin” and the consequences of it? Er, well, we could go all day about the sins of radical Islam, but not enough time in the day …

Sidenote: I’m sure some man somewhere has made a quip or two about how it’s a studly male having sex that can cause earthquakes, and take a woman to the moon and back (yes, I had to say it!) :D :">

Kaus: Will Obama “save” Boxer like he did Corzine?

Longshot Dem candidate for US Senate (CA) and popular pundit Mickey Kaus writes about Obama’s Boxer fundraiser, held yesterday:

President Obama is “swooping” into Los Angeles today to try to save Senator Barbara Boxer–the same way he saved Gov. John Corzine in New Jersey and would-be Senator Martha Coakley in Massachusetts!

The President will undoubtedly raise a few more million dollars for Boxer from the Hollywood Left. But Boxer doesn’t need more money. She needs more spine—spine to stand up to the big unions that are helping drive California into disaster.

What Obama and Boxer don’t seem to realize is that they—like Corzine and Coakley–are on the wrong end a taxpayer rebellion. For decades, Californians paid high taxes but got good services in return: good schools and roads, an excellent university system. But now, after favor after favor to the unions from their pliant political pawns, we have bloated payrolls, unfireable teachers who are the highest-paid in the nation, state workers who retire at 55 and make more money not working than when they were working.

We’re paying high taxes but we’re getting low services. Worse, the unions’ pay-today-forget-about-tomorrow attitude failed to plan for an economic downturn. As a result, the state and many cities and towns are looking into the abyss of insolvency.

It is all coming to a head this year. Obama and Boxer are on the crushable side of a tsunami of voter discontent. The way to save the Democratic Party is not to milk rich couples for $35,200 dinners–those donors don’t have to send their kids to public schools where they’re taught by mediocre teachers who can’t be held to account.

The only way to save the Democratic party is to have nominees who can stand up to the unions and tell them “no,” and bring some balance back into the system.

While he’s admittedly a member of the party that he proudly boasts is the “party of government,” it’s almost unheard of for a Democrat to stand up to the unions. Hope he’s watching his back for the purple shirts

Question the timing: Coordination between WH, Dems and SEC on Goldman Sachs?

I’m not much for conspiracy theories, but FamousDC makes a pretty good case (hat tip) for WH/Dem/SEC coordination via a lengthy timeline of events for a suspiciously timely announcement on the suit against Goldman Sachs by the SEC (and a weak one at that) – just as Democrats are kicking their version of “financial reform” into high gear.

In fact, a lot of people are questioning the timing of the accusations against Goldman Sachs. It does look quite suspicious, doesn’t it?

At the same time, there are also those who are reminding people that the Democrat party – the ones trying to act like paragons of virtue on the issue of financial reform right now – was the same party who stymied efforts by the Bush administration and other Republicans for six of Bush’s 8 years in office, like AEI senior fellow Peter Wallison:

The story is all too familiar. Politicians in positions of authority today had an opportunity to prevent this fiasco but did nothing. Now—in the name of the taxpayers—they want more power, but they have never been called to account for their earlier failings.

One chapter in this story took place in July 2005, when the Senate Banking Committee, then controlled by the Republicans, adopted tough regulatory legislation for the GSEs on a party-line vote—all Republicans in favor, all Democrats opposed. The bill would have established a new regulator for Fannie and Freddie and given it authority to ensure that they maintained adequate capital, properly managed their interest rate risk, had adequate liquidity and reserves, and controlled their asset and investment portfolio growth.

These authorities were necessary to control the GSEs’ risk-taking, but opposition by Fannie and Freddie—then the most politically powerful firms in the country—had consistently prevented reform.

The date of the Senate Banking Committee’s action is important. It was in 2005 that the GSEs—which had been acquiring increasing numbers of subprime and Alt-A loans for many years in order to meet their HUD-imposed affordable housing requirements—accelerated the purchases that led to their 2008 insolvency. If legislation along the lines of the Senate committee’s bill had been enacted in that year, many if not all the losses that Fannie and Freddie have suffered, and will suffer in the future, might have been avoided.

Why was there no action in the full Senate? As most Americans know today, it takes 60 votes to cut off debate in the Senate, and the Republicans had only 55. To close debate and proceed to the enactment of the committee-passed bill, the Republicans needed five Democrats to vote with them. But in a 45 member Democratic caucus that included Barack Obama and the current Senate Banking Chairman Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), these votes could not be found.

Recently, President Obama has taken to accusing others of representing “special interests.” In an April radio address he stated that his financial regulatory proposals were struggling in the Senate because “the financial industry and its powerful lobby have opposed modest safeguards against the kinds of reckless risks and bad practices that led to this very crisis.”

He should know. As a senator, he was the third largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, behind only Sens. Chris Dodd and John Kerry.


One of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on the American people in history is the common misconception – fostered by lying Democrats and their handholders in the MSM – that it was Republicans who were the most responsible for not only enabling and aiding in the financial crisis of 2006-2009 but for also being “against” any efforts to halt such things from happening in advance. It’s simply not true. Out-going Senator Chris Dodd, a beneficiary of his and his party’s “just say no” attitude towards GOP financial reform efforts, is out front and center once again pretending to be the hero of the “little guy” with his “bipartisan” financial reform bill which will solve nothing. The GOP must stand firm against this phony “reform” effort and remind people that the last people you want to “fix” these problems are the very ones who got us into this mess in the first place.

And BTW, will Barack Obama give up his nearly $1 million in campaign contributions from the now-under-the-bus Goldman Sachs and donate it to charity? They were, after all, his second highest 2008 campaign contributors …