What would happen if the United States seriously enforced the ban on hiring undocumented workers? We may find out starting Jan. 1, when Arizona promises to do it locally.
The Arizona law is tough. Companies that knowingly employ illegal workers will have their business licenses suspended for a first offense and permanently revoked for the second.
The law clearly sees the workplace — not the state's 376-mile border with Mexico — as the main front in curbing illegal immigration. As a result, it could very well succeed.
Supporters of open borders predict economic chaos as Arizona companies lose access to cheap labor. Will dishes go unwashed and lawns unmowed? We shall see.
Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano reluctantly signed the law but vows to enforce it. A moderate Democrat, she maintains a close relationship with the governor of Sonora, the Mexican state to her south. She was also the first American governor to ask for National Guard reinforcements along the border.
Immigration happens to be Washington's responsibility. Federal law already forbids employers to hire undocumented workers. Until recently, the Bush administration virtually ignored the ban. Whenever anger at this dereliction grew politically problematic, Bush would stage some new military show at the border.
The troop movements provided a nice distraction but seem to have only modestly cut the flow of illegal immigrants. Folks from every continent enter the United States unlawfully through portals far from Mexico. Nearly half of all undocumented workers came here legally but overstayed their visas.
What the fixation on the border does is create unnecessary friction with Latin America. It seems to single out one ethnic group, discomforting even native-born Hispanics who object to illegal immigration. Roughing up poor peasants makes for an ugly visual, as do high fences facing what's supposed to be a good neighbor.
Without the job magnet, of course, most illegal aliens would simply not come here. That would free law enforcement to go after the bad actors trying to enter. The Mexican border would become a far more peaceful crossing that allows an easy back-and-forth of shoppers, tourists, friends and family members.
The question remains, how essential is illegal labor to America's prosperity? One thing is clear: The people who want it should not be providing the answers.
The National Journal asked Napolitano about "business community" complaints that Arizona's law would hurt the local economy. Napolitano said that she hears them, but other parts of the "business community" are telling her, "We're tired of competing against companies that are hiring illegally and therefore don't have to pay the same wages we pay."
And there are nonlabor concerns. Explosive population growth, fueled in part by illegal immigration, has created environmental challenges throughout the water-sport Southwest. On the social side, a massive influx of impoverished people with little English makes the task of providing education and other services that more vexing.
The president does not seem to share these anxieties. As a cheap-labor conservative, Bush's warm spot for open borders is understandable.
Less explicable are the views of diversity liberals who otherwise despise the man but attribute his policies to a soulful feeling for Mexico. A recent New Yorker article saw Bush's tolerance of illegal immigration through the prism of his experience as governor of Texas, a border state with deep Hispanic roots. No mention was made of Bush's long record as a stomper of labor standards wherever they might impair corporate profits.
Back in Arizona, Napolitano is now readying implementation of a major new immigration law. While it is not totally to her liking, she sees few alternatives. When it comes to fixing illegal immigration, Washington won't become functional anytime soon — and Arizona can't wait.
Providence Journal columnist Froma Harrop's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times. Her e-mail address is fharrop@projo.com
2007, The Providence Journal Co."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004097607_harrop31.html
Monday, December 31, 2007
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Blogging the Muslim Mind
Blogging the Muslim's mind - 1
By ibn Misr on December 30, 2007 10:07 AM
Before getting deeper into our Islamic studies here to expose what we announced in the 1st posting “Mohammad and his followers call us apes and pigs “, we will explain for those who are not experienced in understanding and getting in the mind of a Muslim, how to engage Muslims in very casual discussions and ask them questions about Islam that not only they wouldn’t be able to answer, but it will destroy every one of their claims and show them that their own logic and the teachings they believe in is not only full of contradictions and corrupted but actually causing them to be the 1st victims of their own deceptive belief’s.
In the process you will learn, no matter how much is your knowledge of Islam is now, not only the “academic” Islam for dummies, but this study will help you decipher the coded Islam that is so much used by Muslims. Especially the ones living in the West, whether it’s an individual or Muslim organization like CAIR. The other important benefit is to give you some guidelines that will allow you to get a better grasp on everything we post here, and unable you to see through the mind of a Muslim as we do, then you'll understand why Muslims act the way they do, and what's behind their every move.
Many that are considered Western scholars, historians and pundits in Islam may be very knowledgeable in the “academic” Islam and Islamic history, but unfortunately don’t grasp these very important and essential nuances unless they were native and lived for many years in an Islamic country.
I debated Muslims from everywhere almost daily for many years, and still do. So all what you’ll get here is from a practical experience.
I will start by giving you the1st rule of thumb that is essential when talking to a Muslim, we call it the 3 “S” basic formulas and it stands for:
Short, Sharp, Shock… Yes, be very suave but bold, never be intimidated and make sure to let him or her know who's superior.... Muslims need badly that shock.
Exactly like the doctor administering the his patient the electric shock to resuscitate him . Never feel embarrassed even with Muslims that you care about ... Always keep in mind, that close Muslim friends, co-workers, or the one sitting next to you on an airplane, train, subway, or even a convenience store or gas station owners where you shop and whoever you can talk to, is never embarrassed to tell you that your bible (New and Old Testament) is corrupted, your Jesus and Moses are 2nd class prophets, Christianity and Judaism are abrogated religions, Islam is the religion of truth and the fastest growing and yours is declining, he doesn’t apologize to you for his Mohammad calling you sons of apes and pigs, he doesn’t apologize either for calling you kaffer which in Islamic popular understanding equals pigs and dogs .. There is many other offensive things that we’ll expose and destroy. Muslims are the people that institutionalized offending all other people and the best we can do to them is to bring them to reality, more so if you care about them ..Then you have to be the doctor that tells the patient the truth and tell him how bad his case is ..
The 2nd equally rule of thumb, for it has been not only fundamental, but the corner stone of the whole Islamic deception (they teach it to them in mosques):
Never swallow the RUSE used by every single Muslim when you question about Islam. Especially, their Sheikh's, Imams, officials and the representatives of their organizations. And that is letting him or her get off the hook by falling into his or her diversion which consists of dragging you into Christianity or Judaism whether on the pretense of showing similarities, comparisons or outright accusations and defamation.
Let me explain how important this rule is. When you follow our postings as we go forward, you will know, with ample proofs (from their own books) and without the slightest shadow of a doubt, that Islam have nothing to stand on. Except some paganistic rituals, sexual promiscuity (ever wondered why a Muslim’s life is centered on sex, treating women as sexual object and the sexual orgy they’re longing for in the afterlife), Mohammad’s debauchery and his teachings on how to attack, rob, abduct women and enslave people.That’s the summary of Islam. Besides that, Islam have neither a spiritual or moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. In other words there is nothing else that Islam stands on.
For that reason, and to keep Islam on life support and standing like a corpse on artificial limps, Islamic religious authorities, without exception and all along the 14 centuries of Islam, used the Ruse of justifying Islam by, attacking Christianity, Judaism and prohibit the reading or possession (not of playboy or porn magazines) of the Bible by Muslims.There are no Friday sermons in all Islamic countries (without exception) that don’t include the usual load of dirt and all their Allah’s curses on Christianity, and the kaffers(Christians and Jews), the sons of apes and pigs (not Judaism, since they know it’s not a missionary religion and they don’t fear Muslim conversions to Judaism). To a lesser extent, in the West they limit themselves (knowing they’re on candid camera and monitored) to negative coded criticism.
Here is an easy exercise for you. Watch any Muslim being questioned on matters relating to Islam on TV and see for yourself how many times he would refer to Christianity or Judaism or using the general term of “this is in all religions” to dodge the questions.
So when you’re discussing Islam with a Muslim you have to remember it’s like trying to catch fish in the sea by hand (but we’ll give you the net to use), and as soon you ask him about Islam he will try to run away as fast as he can to Christianity and the Bible.Then you should know that he’s cornered and you should drag him back to Islam. I’ll tell you how latter in the guidelines.
A Muslim could be (Takia oblige) the most decent, charming, friendly, helpful, funniest, socialite, peaceful, good mannered, knowledgeable whether professionally or on many other topics, educated and many other attributes that I may have skipped. But when the discussion touch on Islam, then you have to realize that you’re not talking to a rational person at all no matter if he have all the PhD’s in the world. Islam is a brain eraser. No one with a sound rational mind would believe the nonsense, immoralities and contradictions in Islam, let alone being proud of the most dishonorable and criminal life of Mohammad, and continue believing in him. Calling him the most “honorable” of all prophets.
A Muslim is fed since his birth, to the point of bursting, that he’s a member of the most privileged and best people of all creation ever produced by Allah. "Koran 3:110 Ye are the best of Peoples, evolved for mankind”. Coupled with being injected (also to the point of bursting) with the inferiority of all other people especially Christians and Jews the sons of apes and pigs.
For more than 14 centuries, the failing, backward and for the majority completely bankrupted (literally on every level) Islamic societies and (gangsters) rulers had nothing to offer their populations other than misery and desperation with no hope for a better life (in this world). To compensate for their shortcomings, they drilled in the Muslim brain that belief of superiority, and filled him with Islam 24/7/365 to feed his (false) pride short of feeding his stomach and convinced him that if Allah allowed Christian, Jews and Westerners to prosper it’s only so he can plunder them “ Koran 33:27 And He made you heirs of their lands, their houses, and their goods (money), and of a land which ye had not frequented (Before).”
Now, once the discussion is engaged, you have to never let him or her get the upper hand out of concern of offending them. Do it with with a smile.
Muslims offend you all day long, especially when addressing Christians, and they don’t even shy from doing it publicly and openly. They give it to you straight in the face without having the slightest consideration to your feelings. You have to pay them back, at least, with a double dose.
Let me give you an example here just for a hint on how your attitude should be, and how to keep him or her where you want them to be. We’ll go into much more than that when we get to “the questions and answers with a Muslim.”
This is a classic one he’ll hit it with in the first minutes of the conversation, to put you off balance, stir the conversation away from Islam to Christianity or Judaism if you’re Jewish. Put you on the defensive and position himself comfortably in the driver seat to make you feel his or her assurance of superiority, “a Muslim should believe in the original Bible, New Testament and the Torah that were revealed to Jesus and Moses. But the Bible that you have now has been corrupted. The proof is the different Bibles you have. That’s why Allah revealed the Koran to Mohammad and promised to keep it from corruption. And since then, Muslims have the exact same and only Koran all over the world”
Your answer:
First, I have no problem with your thinking that the Bible is corrupted. I don’t want to convert you to Christianity and you won’t hear me even mentioning it, so let’s completely forget about the Bible. Besides, why talk about a corrupted book, I'm more curious about the religion of truth. But from what I read in your own Islamic sources it seems that the Koran is not only corrupted but fabricated.
It says that Osman (the 3rd Caliph) burned 26 Korans including Mohammad’s Koran. So there was more than one Koran, otherwise why would he burn them if they’re the same? And how could you tell that it’s not one of the 26 burned that would’ve been the correct Koran. Then he ordered 4 people to write a new Koran. That’s why it is called Osman’s Koran which is kept in Topkapi’s Museum in Istanbul, and it is not even punctuated, so it’s not even like the one you have now, since no one can read Arabic without punctuations. Assuming the Koran came from Allah, why he sent it incomplete without punctuations and let it be done by human intervention, couldn't he finish the job? Arabs say that one dot in punctuation can change dramatically the meaning of words, how can we be assured that a fly didn’t rest on the papers, while they were writing the Koran, and left a dot? Don’t you say that when Allah revealed the Koran to Mohammad it was written on bones and goat's skin, where are those bones and goat's skin? Why Allah didn’t preserve them? Ancient Egyptians date back thousands of years before Mohammad, and we still have their original work on stones, papyrus, wood, sarcophagus, temple walls, Pyaramids and many other things. Doesn’t that mean that the god of the Ancient Egyptians is more capable of preserving his scripture than the Allah of Islam? Besides the fact that the Koran you have now don’t have any source to it that is identical, which mean its fabricated from nothing, with no pedigree, your claim that it’s the same Koran all over the world, (which also is not true but we’ll not discuss that now) you should give the credit to the printing technology of the kaffers that can print unlimited numbers of the same copy. Newsweek, Time magazine and playboy are also the same copies all over the world. Would that mean that Allah preserved them from corruptions? Does that make them the word of Allah? Trillions of dollar bills are the same all over the world, is it Allah that made the dollar and preserved it from being changed? … [We’ll stop our here for our example]
With only those few short .. sharp .. shocks … You shattered not only his claims, but you trashed his own Koran, you burst his superiority balloon and brought him down from his seventh heaven with no parachute and sent him running for cover... Even if you’re debating the Grand Sheikh of Al Azhar in Cairo Egypt…and the Wahabis of Saudi Arabia, none of them can deny those facts... btw .. We debated Sheikh's and Imams and they all ran for cover too ..
An experienced debater with Muslims wouldn’t have any problem to turn the claim of corruption of the Bible against him and shoot the Koran point blank with it, by showing him how he’s the one trashing his own Koran with that claim. Giving him the proof from the Koran itself. Since Mohammad himself testified to the authenticity and the preservation of the Bible, Old and New testament, in many quotations(Mohammad spoke well of the Bible to court the Christians and Jews). We can provide more proofs to show that the Bible is the book that have the biggest amount of original manuscripts that is never matched by the number of manuscripts for any other book in history with 24000 original manuscripts. There are many other questions that a Muslim can’t answer. Like, what proof you have for the corruption of the Bible? How did you know it’s corrupted, can you show the uncorrupted version to compare it with? When was it corrupted, before, during or after Mohammad? Who corrupted it, the Jews or Christians or they both conspired together? What verses were corrupted? How all the Bibles were collected from all over the world to corrupt them?... etc .. etc .. None of these questions a Muslim would be able to answer.
I just wanted to show you how we can use every Muslim’s (false) claim to corner him with it. The more a Muslim talks, the more he exposes himself. That could be reached, like anything else, with more practice in debating Muslims and deeper knowledge in both, the Bible and the Koran. But for now, we will stick to the strategy we stated above, not to let you be diverted into questions other than Islam since. Use their accusations for the Bible to make them focus on the Koran and Islam.
As for the Koran, there is still so much more to destroy that it would take a bulldozer to clean up the debris. Like showing the contradictions, the long list of errors, the abrogated quotations. Do the preserved tablets of the Koran in the possession of Allah include the abrogated verses or not? Where are the missing quotations? How about the meaningless quotations that no one understands? What about the plagiarism from different sources? How Allah who promised to preserve the Koran allows a goat to eat part of it under the bed of Mohammad? How come the most holy book of Allah's revelation would be stored under the bed of Mohammad? … Yes .. You heard that right … You can tell Muslims that Allah preserved the Koran... in the stomach of a goat …
By ibn Misr on December 30, 2007 10:07 AM
Before getting deeper into our Islamic studies here to expose what we announced in the 1st posting “Mohammad and his followers call us apes and pigs “, we will explain for those who are not experienced in understanding and getting in the mind of a Muslim, how to engage Muslims in very casual discussions and ask them questions about Islam that not only they wouldn’t be able to answer, but it will destroy every one of their claims and show them that their own logic and the teachings they believe in is not only full of contradictions and corrupted but actually causing them to be the 1st victims of their own deceptive belief’s.
In the process you will learn, no matter how much is your knowledge of Islam is now, not only the “academic” Islam for dummies, but this study will help you decipher the coded Islam that is so much used by Muslims. Especially the ones living in the West, whether it’s an individual or Muslim organization like CAIR. The other important benefit is to give you some guidelines that will allow you to get a better grasp on everything we post here, and unable you to see through the mind of a Muslim as we do, then you'll understand why Muslims act the way they do, and what's behind their every move.
Many that are considered Western scholars, historians and pundits in Islam may be very knowledgeable in the “academic” Islam and Islamic history, but unfortunately don’t grasp these very important and essential nuances unless they were native and lived for many years in an Islamic country.
I debated Muslims from everywhere almost daily for many years, and still do. So all what you’ll get here is from a practical experience.
I will start by giving you the1st rule of thumb that is essential when talking to a Muslim, we call it the 3 “S” basic formulas and it stands for:
Short, Sharp, Shock… Yes, be very suave but bold, never be intimidated and make sure to let him or her know who's superior.... Muslims need badly that shock.
Exactly like the doctor administering the his patient the electric shock to resuscitate him . Never feel embarrassed even with Muslims that you care about ... Always keep in mind, that close Muslim friends, co-workers, or the one sitting next to you on an airplane, train, subway, or even a convenience store or gas station owners where you shop and whoever you can talk to, is never embarrassed to tell you that your bible (New and Old Testament) is corrupted, your Jesus and Moses are 2nd class prophets, Christianity and Judaism are abrogated religions, Islam is the religion of truth and the fastest growing and yours is declining, he doesn’t apologize to you for his Mohammad calling you sons of apes and pigs, he doesn’t apologize either for calling you kaffer which in Islamic popular understanding equals pigs and dogs .. There is many other offensive things that we’ll expose and destroy. Muslims are the people that institutionalized offending all other people and the best we can do to them is to bring them to reality, more so if you care about them ..Then you have to be the doctor that tells the patient the truth and tell him how bad his case is ..
The 2nd equally rule of thumb, for it has been not only fundamental, but the corner stone of the whole Islamic deception (they teach it to them in mosques):
Never swallow the RUSE used by every single Muslim when you question about Islam. Especially, their Sheikh's, Imams, officials and the representatives of their organizations. And that is letting him or her get off the hook by falling into his or her diversion which consists of dragging you into Christianity or Judaism whether on the pretense of showing similarities, comparisons or outright accusations and defamation.
Let me explain how important this rule is. When you follow our postings as we go forward, you will know, with ample proofs (from their own books) and without the slightest shadow of a doubt, that Islam have nothing to stand on. Except some paganistic rituals, sexual promiscuity (ever wondered why a Muslim’s life is centered on sex, treating women as sexual object and the sexual orgy they’re longing for in the afterlife), Mohammad’s debauchery and his teachings on how to attack, rob, abduct women and enslave people.That’s the summary of Islam. Besides that, Islam have neither a spiritual or moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. In other words there is nothing else that Islam stands on.
For that reason, and to keep Islam on life support and standing like a corpse on artificial limps, Islamic religious authorities, without exception and all along the 14 centuries of Islam, used the Ruse of justifying Islam by, attacking Christianity, Judaism and prohibit the reading or possession (not of playboy or porn magazines) of the Bible by Muslims.There are no Friday sermons in all Islamic countries (without exception) that don’t include the usual load of dirt and all their Allah’s curses on Christianity, and the kaffers(Christians and Jews), the sons of apes and pigs (not Judaism, since they know it’s not a missionary religion and they don’t fear Muslim conversions to Judaism). To a lesser extent, in the West they limit themselves (knowing they’re on candid camera and monitored) to negative coded criticism.
Here is an easy exercise for you. Watch any Muslim being questioned on matters relating to Islam on TV and see for yourself how many times he would refer to Christianity or Judaism or using the general term of “this is in all religions” to dodge the questions.
So when you’re discussing Islam with a Muslim you have to remember it’s like trying to catch fish in the sea by hand (but we’ll give you the net to use), and as soon you ask him about Islam he will try to run away as fast as he can to Christianity and the Bible.Then you should know that he’s cornered and you should drag him back to Islam. I’ll tell you how latter in the guidelines.
A Muslim could be (Takia oblige) the most decent, charming, friendly, helpful, funniest, socialite, peaceful, good mannered, knowledgeable whether professionally or on many other topics, educated and many other attributes that I may have skipped. But when the discussion touch on Islam, then you have to realize that you’re not talking to a rational person at all no matter if he have all the PhD’s in the world. Islam is a brain eraser. No one with a sound rational mind would believe the nonsense, immoralities and contradictions in Islam, let alone being proud of the most dishonorable and criminal life of Mohammad, and continue believing in him. Calling him the most “honorable” of all prophets.
A Muslim is fed since his birth, to the point of bursting, that he’s a member of the most privileged and best people of all creation ever produced by Allah. "Koran 3:110 Ye are the best of Peoples, evolved for mankind”. Coupled with being injected (also to the point of bursting) with the inferiority of all other people especially Christians and Jews the sons of apes and pigs.
For more than 14 centuries, the failing, backward and for the majority completely bankrupted (literally on every level) Islamic societies and (gangsters) rulers had nothing to offer their populations other than misery and desperation with no hope for a better life (in this world). To compensate for their shortcomings, they drilled in the Muslim brain that belief of superiority, and filled him with Islam 24/7/365 to feed his (false) pride short of feeding his stomach and convinced him that if Allah allowed Christian, Jews and Westerners to prosper it’s only so he can plunder them “ Koran 33:27 And He made you heirs of their lands, their houses, and their goods (money), and of a land which ye had not frequented (Before).”
Now, once the discussion is engaged, you have to never let him or her get the upper hand out of concern of offending them. Do it with with a smile.
Muslims offend you all day long, especially when addressing Christians, and they don’t even shy from doing it publicly and openly. They give it to you straight in the face without having the slightest consideration to your feelings. You have to pay them back, at least, with a double dose.
Let me give you an example here just for a hint on how your attitude should be, and how to keep him or her where you want them to be. We’ll go into much more than that when we get to “the questions and answers with a Muslim.”
This is a classic one he’ll hit it with in the first minutes of the conversation, to put you off balance, stir the conversation away from Islam to Christianity or Judaism if you’re Jewish. Put you on the defensive and position himself comfortably in the driver seat to make you feel his or her assurance of superiority, “a Muslim should believe in the original Bible, New Testament and the Torah that were revealed to Jesus and Moses. But the Bible that you have now has been corrupted. The proof is the different Bibles you have. That’s why Allah revealed the Koran to Mohammad and promised to keep it from corruption. And since then, Muslims have the exact same and only Koran all over the world”
Your answer:
First, I have no problem with your thinking that the Bible is corrupted. I don’t want to convert you to Christianity and you won’t hear me even mentioning it, so let’s completely forget about the Bible. Besides, why talk about a corrupted book, I'm more curious about the religion of truth. But from what I read in your own Islamic sources it seems that the Koran is not only corrupted but fabricated.
It says that Osman (the 3rd Caliph) burned 26 Korans including Mohammad’s Koran. So there was more than one Koran, otherwise why would he burn them if they’re the same? And how could you tell that it’s not one of the 26 burned that would’ve been the correct Koran. Then he ordered 4 people to write a new Koran. That’s why it is called Osman’s Koran which is kept in Topkapi’s Museum in Istanbul, and it is not even punctuated, so it’s not even like the one you have now, since no one can read Arabic without punctuations. Assuming the Koran came from Allah, why he sent it incomplete without punctuations and let it be done by human intervention, couldn't he finish the job? Arabs say that one dot in punctuation can change dramatically the meaning of words, how can we be assured that a fly didn’t rest on the papers, while they were writing the Koran, and left a dot? Don’t you say that when Allah revealed the Koran to Mohammad it was written on bones and goat's skin, where are those bones and goat's skin? Why Allah didn’t preserve them? Ancient Egyptians date back thousands of years before Mohammad, and we still have their original work on stones, papyrus, wood, sarcophagus, temple walls, Pyaramids and many other things. Doesn’t that mean that the god of the Ancient Egyptians is more capable of preserving his scripture than the Allah of Islam? Besides the fact that the Koran you have now don’t have any source to it that is identical, which mean its fabricated from nothing, with no pedigree, your claim that it’s the same Koran all over the world, (which also is not true but we’ll not discuss that now) you should give the credit to the printing technology of the kaffers that can print unlimited numbers of the same copy. Newsweek, Time magazine and playboy are also the same copies all over the world. Would that mean that Allah preserved them from corruptions? Does that make them the word of Allah? Trillions of dollar bills are the same all over the world, is it Allah that made the dollar and preserved it from being changed? … [We’ll stop our here for our example]
With only those few short .. sharp .. shocks … You shattered not only his claims, but you trashed his own Koran, you burst his superiority balloon and brought him down from his seventh heaven with no parachute and sent him running for cover... Even if you’re debating the Grand Sheikh of Al Azhar in Cairo Egypt…and the Wahabis of Saudi Arabia, none of them can deny those facts... btw .. We debated Sheikh's and Imams and they all ran for cover too ..
An experienced debater with Muslims wouldn’t have any problem to turn the claim of corruption of the Bible against him and shoot the Koran point blank with it, by showing him how he’s the one trashing his own Koran with that claim. Giving him the proof from the Koran itself. Since Mohammad himself testified to the authenticity and the preservation of the Bible, Old and New testament, in many quotations(Mohammad spoke well of the Bible to court the Christians and Jews). We can provide more proofs to show that the Bible is the book that have the biggest amount of original manuscripts that is never matched by the number of manuscripts for any other book in history with 24000 original manuscripts. There are many other questions that a Muslim can’t answer. Like, what proof you have for the corruption of the Bible? How did you know it’s corrupted, can you show the uncorrupted version to compare it with? When was it corrupted, before, during or after Mohammad? Who corrupted it, the Jews or Christians or they both conspired together? What verses were corrupted? How all the Bibles were collected from all over the world to corrupt them?... etc .. etc .. None of these questions a Muslim would be able to answer.
I just wanted to show you how we can use every Muslim’s (false) claim to corner him with it. The more a Muslim talks, the more he exposes himself. That could be reached, like anything else, with more practice in debating Muslims and deeper knowledge in both, the Bible and the Koran. But for now, we will stick to the strategy we stated above, not to let you be diverted into questions other than Islam since. Use their accusations for the Bible to make them focus on the Koran and Islam.
As for the Koran, there is still so much more to destroy that it would take a bulldozer to clean up the debris. Like showing the contradictions, the long list of errors, the abrogated quotations. Do the preserved tablets of the Koran in the possession of Allah include the abrogated verses or not? Where are the missing quotations? How about the meaningless quotations that no one understands? What about the plagiarism from different sources? How Allah who promised to preserve the Koran allows a goat to eat part of it under the bed of Mohammad? How come the most holy book of Allah's revelation would be stored under the bed of Mohammad? … Yes .. You heard that right … You can tell Muslims that Allah preserved the Koran... in the stomach of a goat …
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Duncan Hunter Wake Up !
Greetings Duncan,
I would like to help. I think you are the only candidate on either side who addresses and has solutions for the most pressing issues of our time. You are also the only candidate on either side who has actually done more than just talk. In short, at this point you have my vote. This, in spite of having been a Democrat since 1958.
But honestly, your newsletter below really sucks. It looks like no one is really trying. First of all it always lands in my spam folder. Many folks have their spam automatically deleted. I suggest you find a way to fix that.
Next, the body of your newsletter asks for volunteers and contributions. That's fine, but I would like to see some updates on 'what have you done for me lately'. This is politics not a damned social group where we know all about each other. Get Serious or you will Fail!
Last, are those Gmail addresses down there ? If you built any credibility in the header or the body you flushed it right there. Everyone knows that Gmail is for people who don't even want to check their email. Besides that, Google is probably monitoring everything in and out of your email folders.
Listen man, I want you to win, not just be some statistic in this race. I want you to take charge and stop illegals and bring an end to the money pit that Dubya has dug for us. This country needs real changes and the average voter is catching on to the business as usual mindset on the hill.
I don't know if you have noticed, but millions of voters are switching to registered Independents from both sides. This may be the beginning of the end for organized political parties. Don't laugh, we are fed up. You can no longer count on the apathetic voter to automatically vote you in!
If you want help with this newsletter, which is your only personal contact, I can recommend a few professional writers who believe in you and would be happy to help.
You are circling the drain ...
Josh
It's crunch time in Iowa and
YOU
can make the difference!
Attention Iowa residents and grassroots supporters of Duncan Hunter!
It's crunch time!
The Iowa caucus is fast approaching - only 5 days away!
We believe the grassroots folks - YOU - can make THE difference!
Many people have not yet decided who they will vote for - and many won't decide until they step into the voting booth!
What we are asking everyone in or near Iowa to do is simple!
Contact your Iowa State Director for the Hunter Campaign as soon as you can and ask for a stack of brochures - their contact information is below.
Then, on Jan 3rd, after you have placed your vote for Duncan Hunter, go outside your polling place, stand 100 feet from the doors, and pass out the brochures to voters who are coming in!
We need representation at all of the caucus sites! Will YOU step up and be the one to make a difference in your area?
Like I said, many have not decided yet and YOU can make the difference just by showing them that support for Duncan Hunter is building - and letting them know where he stands on the issues important to YOU and to them.
It won't take much of your time - and you're going to be at the polling place already.
Get a couple hundred brochures and pass them out. Answer questions about Duncan Hunter. Wear a Duncan Hunter button, t-shirt, hat, or sticker.
We also need volunteers who are willing to speak at the caucus sites on behalf of Duncan Hunter! If you want to speak contact the state directors listed below and provide your name, city, county, site and precinct.
Just get the word out! We're counting on YOU!
To get brochures or volunteer please contact Greg at mrgogrant@gmail.com, Tim at hawkguy4@gmail.com, or Sean at sean@gohunter2008.org.
As always, thanks for your support!
I would like to help. I think you are the only candidate on either side who addresses and has solutions for the most pressing issues of our time. You are also the only candidate on either side who has actually done more than just talk. In short, at this point you have my vote. This, in spite of having been a Democrat since 1958.
But honestly, your newsletter below really sucks. It looks like no one is really trying. First of all it always lands in my spam folder. Many folks have their spam automatically deleted. I suggest you find a way to fix that.
Next, the body of your newsletter asks for volunteers and contributions. That's fine, but I would like to see some updates on 'what have you done for me lately'. This is politics not a damned social group where we know all about each other. Get Serious or you will Fail!
Last, are those Gmail addresses down there ? If you built any credibility in the header or the body you flushed it right there. Everyone knows that Gmail is for people who don't even want to check their email. Besides that, Google is probably monitoring everything in and out of your email folders.
Listen man, I want you to win, not just be some statistic in this race. I want you to take charge and stop illegals and bring an end to the money pit that Dubya has dug for us. This country needs real changes and the average voter is catching on to the business as usual mindset on the hill.
I don't know if you have noticed, but millions of voters are switching to registered Independents from both sides. This may be the beginning of the end for organized political parties. Don't laugh, we are fed up. You can no longer count on the apathetic voter to automatically vote you in!
If you want help with this newsletter, which is your only personal contact, I can recommend a few professional writers who believe in you and would be happy to help.
You are circling the drain ...
Josh
YOU
can make the difference!
Attention Iowa residents and grassroots supporters of Duncan Hunter!
It's crunch time!
The Iowa caucus is fast approaching - only 5 days away!
We believe the grassroots folks - YOU - can make THE difference!
Many people have not yet decided who they will vote for - and many won't decide until they step into the voting booth!
What we are asking everyone in or near Iowa to do is simple!
Contact your Iowa State Director for the Hunter Campaign as soon as you can and ask for a stack of brochures - their contact information is below.
Then, on Jan 3rd, after you have placed your vote for Duncan Hunter, go outside your polling place, stand 100 feet from the doors, and pass out the brochures to voters who are coming in!
We need representation at all of the caucus sites! Will YOU step up and be the one to make a difference in your area?
Like I said, many have not decided yet and YOU can make the difference just by showing them that support for Duncan Hunter is building - and letting them know where he stands on the issues important to YOU and to them.
It won't take much of your time - and you're going to be at the polling place already.
Get a couple hundred brochures and pass them out. Answer questions about Duncan Hunter. Wear a Duncan Hunter button, t-shirt, hat, or sticker.
We also need volunteers who are willing to speak at the caucus sites on behalf of Duncan Hunter! If you want to speak contact the state directors listed below and provide your name, city, county, site and precinct.
Just get the word out! We're counting on YOU!
To get brochures or volunteer please contact Greg at mrgogrant@gmail.com, Tim at hawkguy4@gmail.com, or Sean at sean@gohunter2008.org.
As always, thanks for your support!
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Muslims Disrespect for Denmark's Generosity
Decision Time
By Susan MacAllen
In 1978-9 I was living and studying in Denmark . But in 1978 - even in Copenhagen, one didn't see Muslim immigrants. The Danish population embraced visitors, celebrated the exotic, went out of its way to protect each of its citizens. It was proud of its new brand of socialist liberalism - one in development since the conservatives had lost power in 1929 - a system where no worker had to struggle to survive, where one ultimately could count upon the state as in, perhaps, no other western nation at the time.
The rest of Europe saw the Scandinavians as free-thinking, progressive and infinitely generous in their welfare policies. Denmark boasted low crime rates, devotion to the environment, a superior educational system and a history of humanitarianism.
Denmark was also most generous in its immigration policies - it offered the best welcome in Europe to the new immigrant: generous welfare payments from first arrival plus additional perks in transportation, housing and education. It was determined to set a world example for inclusiveness and multiculturalism. How could it have predicted that one day in 2005 a series of political cartoons in a newspaper would spark violence that would leave dozens dead in the streets - all because its commitment to multiculturalism would come back to bite?
By the 1990's the growing urban Muslim population was obvious - and its unwillingness to integrate into Danish society was obvious. Years of immigrants had settled into Muslim-exclusive enclaves. As the Muslim leadership became more vocal about what they considered the decadence of Denmark 's liberal way of life, the Danes - once so welcoming - began to feel slighted. Many Danes had begun to see Islam as incompatible with their long-standing values: belief in personal liberty and free speech, in equality for women, in tolerance for other ethnic groups, and a deep pride in Danish heritage and history.
The New York Post in 2002 ran an article by Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard, in which they forecasted accurately that the growing immigrant problem in Denmark would explode. In the article they reported:
"Muslim immigrants constitute 5 percent of the population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending."
"Muslims are only 4 percent of Denmark 's 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country's convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes."
"Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less to mix with the indigenous population. A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would readily marry a Dane."
"Forced marriages - promising a newborn daughter in Denmark to a male cousin in the home country, then compelling her to marry him, sometimes on pain of death - are one problem"
"Muslim leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark 's Muslim population grows large enough - a not-that-remote prospect. If present trends persist, one sociologist estimates, every third inhabitant of Denmark in 40 years will be Muslim."
It is easy to understand why a growing number of Danes would feel that Muslim immigrants show little respect for Danish values and laws. An example is the phenomenon common to other European countries and the U.S. : some Muslims in Denmark who opted to leave the Muslim faith have been murdered in the name of Islam, while others hide in fear for their lives. Jews are also threatened and harassed openly by Muslim leaders in Denmark , a country where once Christian citizens worked to smuggle out nearly all of their 7,000 Jews by night to Sweden - before the Nazis could invade. I think of my Danish friend Elsa - who as a teenager had dreaded crossing the street to the bakery every morning under the eyes of occupying Nazi soldiers - and I wonder what she would say today.
In 2001, Denmark elected the most conservative government in some 70 years - one that had some decidedly non-generous ideas about liberal unfettered immigration. Today Denmark has the strictest immigration policies in Europe . (Its effort to protect itself has been met with accusations of "racism" by liberal media across Europe - even as other governments struggle to right the social problems wrought by years of too-lax immigration.)
If you wish to become Danish, you must attend three years of language classes. You must pass a test on Denmark's history, culture, and a Danish language test. You must live in Denmark for 7 years before applying for citizenship. You must demonstrate an intent to work, and have a job waiting. If you wish to bring a spouse into Denmark, you must both be over 24 years of age, and you won't find it so easy anymore to move your friends and family to Denmark with you
You will not be allowed to build a mosque in Copenhagen . Although your children have a choice of some 30 Arabic culture and language schools in Denmark , they will be strongly encouraged to assimilate to Danish society in ways that past immigrants weren't.
In 2006, the Danish minister for employment, Claus Hjort Frederiksen, spoke publicly of the burden of Muslim immigrants on the Danish welfare system, and it was horrifying: the government's welfare committee had calculated that if immigration from Third World countries were blocked, 75 percent of the cuts needed to sustain the huge welfare system in coming decades would be unnecessary. In other words, the welfare system as it existed was being exploited by immigrants to the point of eventually bankrupting the government. "We are simply forced to adopt a new policy on immigration. The calculations of the welfare committee are terrifying and show how unsuccessful the integration of immigrants has been up to now," he said.
A large thorn in the side of Denmark's imams is the Minister of Immigration and Integration, Rikke Hvilshoj. She makes no bones about the new policy toward immigration, "The number of foreigners coming to the country makes a difference," Hvilshøj says, "There is an inverse correlation between how many come here and how well we can receive the foreigners that come." And on Muslim immigrants needing to demonstrate a willingness to blend in, "In my view, Denmark should be a country with room for different cultures and religions. Some values, however, are more important than others. We refuse to question democracy, equal rights, and freedom of speech."
Hvilshoj has paid a price for her show of backbone. Perhaps to test her resolve, the leading radical imam in Denmark , Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban, demanded that the government pay blood money to the family of a Muslim who was murdered in a suburb of Copenhagen , stating that the family's thirst for revenge could be thwarted for money. When Hvilshoj dismissed his demand, he argued that in Muslim culture the payment of retribution money was common, to which Hvilshoj replied that what is done in a Muslim country is not necessarily what is done in Denmark.
The Muslim reply came soon after: her house was torched while she, her husband and children slept. All managed to escape unharmed, but she and her family were moved to a secret location and she and other ministers were assigned bodyguards for the first time - in a country where such murderous violence was once so scarce.
Her government has slid to the right, and her borders have tightened. Many believe that what happens in the next decade will determine whether Denmark survives as a bastion of good living, humane thinking and social responsibility, or whether it becomes a nation at civil war with supporters of Sharia law.
And meanwhile, Americans clamor for stricter immigration policies, and demand an end to state welfare programs that allow many immigrants to live on the public dole. As we in America look at the enclaves of Muslims amongst us, and see those who enter our shores too easily , dare live on our taxes, yet refuse to embrace our culture, respect our traditions, participate in our legal system, obey our laws, speak our language, appreciate our history . . . we would do well to look to Denmark, and say a prayer for her future and for our own.
By Susan MacAllen
In 1978-9 I was living and studying in Denmark . But in 1978 - even in Copenhagen, one didn't see Muslim immigrants. The Danish population embraced visitors, celebrated the exotic, went out of its way to protect each of its citizens. It was proud of its new brand of socialist liberalism - one in development since the conservatives had lost power in 1929 - a system where no worker had to struggle to survive, where one ultimately could count upon the state as in, perhaps, no other western nation at the time.
The rest of Europe saw the Scandinavians as free-thinking, progressive and infinitely generous in their welfare policies. Denmark boasted low crime rates, devotion to the environment, a superior educational system and a history of humanitarianism.
Denmark was also most generous in its immigration policies - it offered the best welcome in Europe to the new immigrant: generous welfare payments from first arrival plus additional perks in transportation, housing and education. It was determined to set a world example for inclusiveness and multiculturalism. How could it have predicted that one day in 2005 a series of political cartoons in a newspaper would spark violence that would leave dozens dead in the streets - all because its commitment to multiculturalism would come back to bite?
By the 1990's the growing urban Muslim population was obvious - and its unwillingness to integrate into Danish society was obvious. Years of immigrants had settled into Muslim-exclusive enclaves. As the Muslim leadership became more vocal about what they considered the decadence of Denmark 's liberal way of life, the Danes - once so welcoming - began to feel slighted. Many Danes had begun to see Islam as incompatible with their long-standing values: belief in personal liberty and free speech, in equality for women, in tolerance for other ethnic groups, and a deep pride in Danish heritage and history.
The New York Post in 2002 ran an article by Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard, in which they forecasted accurately that the growing immigrant problem in Denmark would explode. In the article they reported:
"Muslim immigrants constitute 5 percent of the population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending."
"Muslims are only 4 percent of Denmark 's 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country's convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes."
"Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less to mix with the indigenous population. A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would readily marry a Dane."
"Forced marriages - promising a newborn daughter in Denmark to a male cousin in the home country, then compelling her to marry him, sometimes on pain of death - are one problem"
"Muslim leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark 's Muslim population grows large enough - a not-that-remote prospect. If present trends persist, one sociologist estimates, every third inhabitant of Denmark in 40 years will be Muslim."
It is easy to understand why a growing number of Danes would feel that Muslim immigrants show little respect for Danish values and laws. An example is the phenomenon common to other European countries and the U.S. : some Muslims in Denmark who opted to leave the Muslim faith have been murdered in the name of Islam, while others hide in fear for their lives. Jews are also threatened and harassed openly by Muslim leaders in Denmark , a country where once Christian citizens worked to smuggle out nearly all of their 7,000 Jews by night to Sweden - before the Nazis could invade. I think of my Danish friend Elsa - who as a teenager had dreaded crossing the street to the bakery every morning under the eyes of occupying Nazi soldiers - and I wonder what she would say today.
In 2001, Denmark elected the most conservative government in some 70 years - one that had some decidedly non-generous ideas about liberal unfettered immigration. Today Denmark has the strictest immigration policies in Europe . (Its effort to protect itself has been met with accusations of "racism" by liberal media across Europe - even as other governments struggle to right the social problems wrought by years of too-lax immigration.)
If you wish to become Danish, you must attend three years of language classes. You must pass a test on Denmark's history, culture, and a Danish language test. You must live in Denmark for 7 years before applying for citizenship. You must demonstrate an intent to work, and have a job waiting. If you wish to bring a spouse into Denmark, you must both be over 24 years of age, and you won't find it so easy anymore to move your friends and family to Denmark with you
You will not be allowed to build a mosque in Copenhagen . Although your children have a choice of some 30 Arabic culture and language schools in Denmark , they will be strongly encouraged to assimilate to Danish society in ways that past immigrants weren't.
In 2006, the Danish minister for employment, Claus Hjort Frederiksen, spoke publicly of the burden of Muslim immigrants on the Danish welfare system, and it was horrifying: the government's welfare committee had calculated that if immigration from Third World countries were blocked, 75 percent of the cuts needed to sustain the huge welfare system in coming decades would be unnecessary. In other words, the welfare system as it existed was being exploited by immigrants to the point of eventually bankrupting the government. "We are simply forced to adopt a new policy on immigration. The calculations of the welfare committee are terrifying and show how unsuccessful the integration of immigrants has been up to now," he said.
A large thorn in the side of Denmark's imams is the Minister of Immigration and Integration, Rikke Hvilshoj. She makes no bones about the new policy toward immigration, "The number of foreigners coming to the country makes a difference," Hvilshøj says, "There is an inverse correlation between how many come here and how well we can receive the foreigners that come." And on Muslim immigrants needing to demonstrate a willingness to blend in, "In my view, Denmark should be a country with room for different cultures and religions. Some values, however, are more important than others. We refuse to question democracy, equal rights, and freedom of speech."
Hvilshoj has paid a price for her show of backbone. Perhaps to test her resolve, the leading radical imam in Denmark , Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban, demanded that the government pay blood money to the family of a Muslim who was murdered in a suburb of Copenhagen , stating that the family's thirst for revenge could be thwarted for money. When Hvilshoj dismissed his demand, he argued that in Muslim culture the payment of retribution money was common, to which Hvilshoj replied that what is done in a Muslim country is not necessarily what is done in Denmark.
The Muslim reply came soon after: her house was torched while she, her husband and children slept. All managed to escape unharmed, but she and her family were moved to a secret location and she and other ministers were assigned bodyguards for the first time - in a country where such murderous violence was once so scarce.
Her government has slid to the right, and her borders have tightened. Many believe that what happens in the next decade will determine whether Denmark survives as a bastion of good living, humane thinking and social responsibility, or whether it becomes a nation at civil war with supporters of Sharia law.
And meanwhile, Americans clamor for stricter immigration policies, and demand an end to state welfare programs that allow many immigrants to live on the public dole. As we in America look at the enclaves of Muslims amongst us, and see those who enter our shores too easily , dare live on our taxes, yet refuse to embrace our culture, respect our traditions, participate in our legal system, obey our laws, speak our language, appreciate our history . . . we would do well to look to Denmark, and say a prayer for her future and for our own.
Finance Shari'a Style
Cordless Bungee Jumping—Shari'a-style
By Alyssa A. Lappen
http://www.terrorfinance.org/the_terror_finance_blog/
As noted today in Pajamas Media, notwithstanding flashy headlines extolling Shari’a finance (Islamic banking) and Wall Street bankers jumping into the market, investing or participating in shari'a finance is akin to bungee jumping without a cord—or following lemmings over a cliff.
But the banking industry has a short memory. In 1955, Citibank established the Saudi American Bank in Jeddah and added a Riyadh branch in 1966. But on February 12, 1980, Saudi Arabia confiscated Citibank's business by royal decree, changed its name to Samba, and forced America's premier bank to accept a subservient role, staffing its old bank—with a promise not to take any profits.
Yet, Shari’a is “the path of Allah,” Nizam Yaquby told October conference-goers--although the purportedly “ethical” and “socially responsible” investing supports neither environmentalism nor “renewable” growth.
A 20th century construct, without basis in Islamic history, it often funds destruction. This “invented tradition” empowers Islamic radicals, writes USC King Faisal Professor of Islamic Thought, Timur Kuran, in Islam and Mammon: “Neither classical nor medieval Islamic civilization featured banks in the modern sense, let alone ‘Islamic’ banks...”
Consider its downside risks.
With 19.99% of Nasdaq in hand, Bourse Dubai, the Dubai International Financial Exchange (DIFX) parent—certified for “Islamic ‘purity’” by Bahrain’s Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions (AAIOFI)—now plans to “rebrand” America’s international over-the-counter market as Nasdaq-DIFX.
What does this mean for presumably “unIslamic” Nasdaq companies (like Israeli generic drug giant, Teva)? Supposedly, Bourse Dubai will be “restricted to 5 percent voting rights” in Nasdaq. But in anticipation of Nasdaq-DIFX’s “rebranding,” DIFX named four new board members.
Boards of directors generally call the shots.
Meanwhile, Citgroup is receiving a second-generation, $7.5 billion Islamic-cash-bailout from the ultra-conservative United Arab Emirates (UAE) sheikdom, Abu Dhabi.
Its initial, 1991 Islamic-rescue followed billions in bad loans, single-quarter losses of $855 million, and U.S. Federal Reserve Board concerns about Citibank’s potential failure.
Suddenly, Citi’s then-Middle East business chief, Shaukat Aziz—fresh from seven years in Riyadh running Citi's confiscated bank, and hobnobbing with Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal—convinced the latter to trade $600 million for shareholder-rights, Bangladesh’s Depardes reported in June 2004. 1 He now has 3.6%. Aziz later headed Citicorp Islamic Bank, and maybe initiated Citi’s supposedly prospering Shari’a finance business.
But who controls whom? Today, doubling as Pakistan’s Finance and Prime Ministers, Aziz supports “Shariah compliant banking,” which the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) in 2005 strategically planned to promote “as a parallel system.” He’s discussed its potential with Bahraini Bank Alsalam CEO, Yousif Taqi.
Likewise, bin Talal wants to dominate U.S. businesses. Rather than boycott, “Arabs...stand more to benefit from maintaining trade ties with the US because the trade balance … is in our favor,” he told Saudi Arabia’s Arab News daily on May 1, 2002.
Both men’s ideas fit the 1928 cloth of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna, whose disciples tailor-made it into shari’a finance—specifically to supersede Western banks, markets and democracies through “parallel economic” and financial institutions. It rests on shari’a—the 7th Century Qur’anic legal code developed by Mohammed’s followers—which clerics consider one, indivisible package, by definition seeking global Islamic supremacy and law.
With wife-beating, stoning women, dismembering thieves, hanging homosexuals, supremacist ideology and an annual head tax (jizya) on non-Muslim subjects—shari’a also commands Muslims to fund jihad (financial jihad—al Jihad bi-al-Mal). As in Qur’an 61:10-11, “strive for the cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives...” and Qur’an 49:15. “Financial Jihad [is]…more important...than self-sacrificing,” says Saudi cleric and Muslim Brother Hamud bin Uqla al-Shuaibi.
The 1982 Muslim Brotherhood document, “Towards a Worldwide Strategy for Islamic Policy”—discovered by Swiss police in November 2001 and known as the Project—maps al-Banna’s plan. His successors, and author MB spiritual leader Yusuf Qaradawi, Swiss authorities say, order Muslims to engage “economic institutions adequate to support the cause financially” in directives covering roughly 14 pages, headlined “departure points.”
Elsewhere, Qaradawi decrees, “holy war…is an Islamic duty... [F]ighting…is the Way of Allah for which zakat must be spent.” His 1999 “Fiqh az-Zakat” describes the “most deserving” zakat and jihad, “...to rebuild Islamic society and state and to implement the Islamic way of life in the political, cultural and economic domains.”
Itself now partly owned by bin Talal, the Wall Street Journal in November 2007 ironically noted the tragedy that bad management and “blundering U.S. monetary policy” had again left Citigroup prey to Arab sheiks. Citi got its cash transfusion by granting “only” a 4.9% “minority stake”—and no board seats—magically for 0.1% under the 5% necessitating U.S. Federal Reserve Board approval.
The Fed should intervene anyway—given the avid and ongoing, apparent UAE observance of zakat and jihad directives from Muslim Brotherhood leaders like Qaradawi:
The UAE banks wired most of the funds for the 9/11 attacks.
In 2006, UAE donated $100 million to house Palestinian Authority prisoners and suicide bombers’ families, named for the late father of the current UAE president, who over 30 years donated millions to PLO, Hamas and Islamic Jihad terror.
Hamas in July 2005, thanked Al-Nahayan’s “sisterly UAE” for its “limitless [financial] support...,” and “aid for our Mujahid,” in other words, Hamas jihadist “charitable societies.”
The Palestinian Authority in May 2005 itemized millions of additional UAE U.S.-dollar aid, including $3 million paid directly to the Al Aqsa Intifada Fund.
UAE president Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nahayan’s late, terror-financier father also “owned the infamous [global] Bank of Commerce and Credit International” (BCCI)—which bilked depositors of billions before being shuttered in 1991; funded terrorist groups, states and projects like Hezbollah, al Qaeda, Syria, Iran and Pakistani nuclear bomb manufacturing; and was created “to help the world of Islam, and [as] the best way to fight the evil influence of the Zionists,” as noted by Rachel Ehrenfeld in Evil Money (Harper Collins, 1992, pp. 160, 164-5, 169-70).
In October 2007, Dubai violated World Trade Organization (WTO) rules—banning the Israelis from the Federation of International Freight Forwarders and Customs Clearing Agents world congress. Dubai Ports World and its government holding company prohibit trade with Israel.
In 2003, the UAE established a federal agency specifically to collect zakat on government tax revenues from “companies listed on the Dubai Financial Market and Abu Dhabi Securities Market... oil-producing companies and branches of foreign banks,” obviously including U.S. oil companies and banks. This year alone, the UAE zakat tax agency collected an estimated $13.5 billion.
By Alyssa A. Lappen
http://www.terrorfinance.org/the_terror_finance_blog/
As noted today in Pajamas Media, notwithstanding flashy headlines extolling Shari’a finance (Islamic banking) and Wall Street bankers jumping into the market, investing or participating in shari'a finance is akin to bungee jumping without a cord—or following lemmings over a cliff.
But the banking industry has a short memory. In 1955, Citibank established the Saudi American Bank in Jeddah and added a Riyadh branch in 1966. But on February 12, 1980, Saudi Arabia confiscated Citibank's business by royal decree, changed its name to Samba, and forced America's premier bank to accept a subservient role, staffing its old bank—with a promise not to take any profits.
Yet, Shari’a is “the path of Allah,” Nizam Yaquby told October conference-goers--although the purportedly “ethical” and “socially responsible” investing supports neither environmentalism nor “renewable” growth.
A 20th century construct, without basis in Islamic history, it often funds destruction. This “invented tradition” empowers Islamic radicals, writes USC King Faisal Professor of Islamic Thought, Timur Kuran, in Islam and Mammon: “Neither classical nor medieval Islamic civilization featured banks in the modern sense, let alone ‘Islamic’ banks...”
Consider its downside risks.
With 19.99% of Nasdaq in hand, Bourse Dubai, the Dubai International Financial Exchange (DIFX) parent—certified for “Islamic ‘purity’” by Bahrain’s Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions (AAIOFI)—now plans to “rebrand” America’s international over-the-counter market as Nasdaq-DIFX.
What does this mean for presumably “unIslamic” Nasdaq companies (like Israeli generic drug giant, Teva)? Supposedly, Bourse Dubai will be “restricted to 5 percent voting rights” in Nasdaq. But in anticipation of Nasdaq-DIFX’s “rebranding,” DIFX named four new board members.
Boards of directors generally call the shots.
Meanwhile, Citgroup is receiving a second-generation, $7.5 billion Islamic-cash-bailout from the ultra-conservative United Arab Emirates (UAE) sheikdom, Abu Dhabi.
Its initial, 1991 Islamic-rescue followed billions in bad loans, single-quarter losses of $855 million, and U.S. Federal Reserve Board concerns about Citibank’s potential failure.
Suddenly, Citi’s then-Middle East business chief, Shaukat Aziz—fresh from seven years in Riyadh running Citi's confiscated bank, and hobnobbing with Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal—convinced the latter to trade $600 million for shareholder-rights, Bangladesh’s Depardes reported in June 2004. 1 He now has 3.6%. Aziz later headed Citicorp Islamic Bank, and maybe initiated Citi’s supposedly prospering Shari’a finance business.
But who controls whom? Today, doubling as Pakistan’s Finance and Prime Ministers, Aziz supports “Shariah compliant banking,” which the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) in 2005 strategically planned to promote “as a parallel system.” He’s discussed its potential with Bahraini Bank Alsalam CEO, Yousif Taqi.
Likewise, bin Talal wants to dominate U.S. businesses. Rather than boycott, “Arabs...stand more to benefit from maintaining trade ties with the US because the trade balance … is in our favor,” he told Saudi Arabia’s Arab News daily on May 1, 2002.
Both men’s ideas fit the 1928 cloth of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna, whose disciples tailor-made it into shari’a finance—specifically to supersede Western banks, markets and democracies through “parallel economic” and financial institutions. It rests on shari’a—the 7th Century Qur’anic legal code developed by Mohammed’s followers—which clerics consider one, indivisible package, by definition seeking global Islamic supremacy and law.
With wife-beating, stoning women, dismembering thieves, hanging homosexuals, supremacist ideology and an annual head tax (jizya) on non-Muslim subjects—shari’a also commands Muslims to fund jihad (financial jihad—al Jihad bi-al-Mal). As in Qur’an 61:10-11, “strive for the cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives...” and Qur’an 49:15. “Financial Jihad [is]…more important...than self-sacrificing,” says Saudi cleric and Muslim Brother Hamud bin Uqla al-Shuaibi.
The 1982 Muslim Brotherhood document, “Towards a Worldwide Strategy for Islamic Policy”—discovered by Swiss police in November 2001 and known as the Project—maps al-Banna’s plan. His successors, and author MB spiritual leader Yusuf Qaradawi, Swiss authorities say, order Muslims to engage “economic institutions adequate to support the cause financially” in directives covering roughly 14 pages, headlined “departure points.”
Elsewhere, Qaradawi decrees, “holy war…is an Islamic duty... [F]ighting…is the Way of Allah for which zakat must be spent.” His 1999 “Fiqh az-Zakat” describes the “most deserving” zakat and jihad, “...to rebuild Islamic society and state and to implement the Islamic way of life in the political, cultural and economic domains.”
Itself now partly owned by bin Talal, the Wall Street Journal in November 2007 ironically noted the tragedy that bad management and “blundering U.S. monetary policy” had again left Citigroup prey to Arab sheiks. Citi got its cash transfusion by granting “only” a 4.9% “minority stake”—and no board seats—magically for 0.1% under the 5% necessitating U.S. Federal Reserve Board approval.
The Fed should intervene anyway—given the avid and ongoing, apparent UAE observance of zakat and jihad directives from Muslim Brotherhood leaders like Qaradawi:
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
FOX Guards Wolf House ...
Fox Guarding the Wolf House
By Joe Kaufman
FrontPageMagazine.com | Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Fox News has long been considered a beacon to those that distrust televised liberal media, meaning every channel other than Fox. One of the indicators of the station’s right-leaning bent is that it has, for the most part, gotten the ‘War on Terrorism’ correct. However, with the undue influence of a Saudi Prince related to militant causes and with this month’s acquisition of Beliefnet, a religious resource website that proudly promotes radical Islam, signs show that the war coverage may soon be taking a turn for the worse.
In September of 2005, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal purchased 5.46 per cent of Class B voting shares in News Corp, the company that owns Fox News and a number of other media and entertainment entities. This had replaced the three per cent stake in Class A non-voting shares bin Talal had previously held through his investment corporation, Kingdom Holding Company (KHC).
With his newfound voting rights, bin Talal stated his intention of supporting Rupert Murdoch, the principal owner of News Corp, helping Murdoch to stay in power and avoid hostile takeover by other interested investors. Some have said that this was like making a deal with the devil, as Murdoch has been left vulnerable to the whims of an individual that has been involved in despicable causes.
In April of 2002, bin Talal had donated $27 million during a Saudi telethon that was raising money for the families of suicide bombers. As well, he had given $500,000 to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to be used towards the distribution and propagation of a set of Islamist books for American libraries. The set included Jamal Badawi’s Gender Equity in Islam, which sanctions the beating of women by their husbands, and a version of the Quran, Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s The Meaning of THE HOLY QURAN, which has been banned by the Los Angeles school system.
Utilizing his position of power within Fox News (today, he is the second largest shareholder), bin Talal has worked to influence programming at the station. An infamous example of this was reported in a December 2005 article found in WorldNetDaily, stating:
During the violent street protests in France one month ago, the prince said, Fox News ran a banner at the bottom of the screen that said “Muslim riots.”
“I picked up the phone and called Murdoch ... [and told him] these are not Muslim riots, these are riots out of poverty,” al-Walid said.
“Within 30 minutes, the title was changed from Muslim riots to civil riots.”
This incident was precisely the type of scenario that then-Mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani tried to avoid, when after the 9/11 attacks, he rejected a $10 million check from bin Talal for the renovation of New York, that was attached to statements made by the Prince critical of the United States’ relationship to Israel. The question now is how many more incidents, such as the one concerning the French Muslim riots, have occured without the notice of the American public? And how far has bin Talal’s influence been able to reach?
The answer to the latter question may very well be in News Corp’s December 4th acquisition of Beliefnet, an internet-based religious information source.
Beliefnet came on the scene, first as a website in February of 2000 and then as a corporation in May of 2000, acting as basically a clearinghouse for religious thought. On the website, each of the world’s major religions were (are) given their own sections. This didn’t seem to be a problem, as favoritism towards one religion over another was nonexistant. However, within the Islam section, extremists began to gain a foothold.
On December 5, 2000, Beliefnet published an exclusive article written by the National Communications Director of the CAIR, Ibrahim Hooper, entitled ‘Why the Fury?’ a.k.a. ‘Why the Rage?’ [The article is still up on Beliefnet.] CAIR was created in June of 1994 as part of the Hamas terror network. Since then, the group has had a number of its officials charged with terrorist activity. Hooper, himself, has refused to condemn Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations.
On February 8, 2001, Beliefnet, at the top of the homepage of its Islam section, refered to former Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon, as a “tyrant” and published an article calling Prime Minister Sharon a “war criminal.” The article, ‘Ariel Sharon: The War Criminal Takes Over,’ like Hooper’s, is still up on Beliefnet.
On October 13, 2001, Beliefnet prominently placed on its website a piece, what it called a “rallying cry,” by then-Vice President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Ingrid Mattson, entitled ‘American Muslims, It’s Time for Us to Lead.’ ISNA, an umbrella group for radical mosques and Islamic centers throughout the United States and Canada, was recently named an “Unindicted Co-conspirator” by the U.S. government in connection to the raising of millions of dollars for Hamas. [As was CAIR.]
On November 5, 2002, Beliefnet (Beliefnet Books) introduced to its audience a compilation of essays, entitled Taking Back Islam, that comprised of pieces authored by a number of Islamists, such as: Mattson; MPAC Executive Director Salam Al-Marayati; CAIR National Legal Director Arsalan Iftikhar; and Yusuf Islam (formerly Cat Stevens), who was barred from entry into the United States, in September of 2004, for having suspected ties to terrorists.
Today, Beliefnet’s Islam section is entirely controlled by, and the content of it is entirely consumed by, radical Muslims.
The editor of Beliefnet-Islam is Dilshad Ali. Besides being affiliated with Beliefnet, Ali is also a correspondent for Islam Online, a site that issues religious rulings (Fatwas) in support of Palestinian suicide bombings, terrorist attacks against American troops, and the death penalty for homosexuals, including the throwing of homosexuals from tall buildings (“Death Falls”).
Indeed, as Fox Entertainment Group’s well recognized logo was pasted to Beliefnet, the face of Siraj Wahhaj adorned the site as an “Islamic Inspiration.” Wahhaj, a Brooklyn imam, was named as an “Unindicted Co-Conspirator” to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and served as a witness for the spiritual leader of the attack, Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, during Abdel-Rahman’s trial.
Diagonal to Wahhaj’s face was (and currently is) the face of Hesham Hassaballa, a co-founder and former Executive Board member of CAIR-Chicago (CAIR-Illinois) and former writer for CAIR's (dissolved) Independent Writer's Syndicate (IWS). Hassaballa, on his blog, G-d, Faith, and a Pen, has promoted such Hamas-related charities as Islamic Relief and KindHearts.
In addition to the two people just mentioned, on the same page could (can) be seen a fairly large image of Shahed Amanullah, the Director of Beliefnet’s blog, Hungry for Ramadan. Aside from the blog, Amanullah is an advisor to the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), an Islamist political lobby group that has, in the past, defended Hezbollah and has called for Israel's destruction. Beliefnet refers to him as an “award-winning Muslim journalist.”
In announcing the deal between his group and News Corp, Beliefnet’s Editor-in-Chief Steve Waldman praised News Corp, saying that the company has enormous reach and that “its proficiency in the areas of video, social networking and media in general is unsurpassed.” Likewise, Fox executive, Dan Fawcett, lauded Beliefnet, stating: “Beliefnet has garnered respect for its commitment to quality, editorial strength and unbiased approach to faith and spirituality from a broad range of consumers, religious and political leaders, journalists and advertisers.”
But is the “respect” that the Fox exec is speaking of truly derived from the places mentioned or could it be that it is coming from somewhere or someone else? And given all of the above, is it possible that his initials are ABT?
Fox News has a niche in our society. Its greatness is that – just as the station advertises – it has brought “fairness” and “balance” to a left-leaning TV news media and information gathering culture. It would, without a doubt, be a terrible day if that balance, in the near future, should somehow tip towards the enemy.
By Joe Kaufman
FrontPageMagazine.com | Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Fox News has long been considered a beacon to those that distrust televised liberal media, meaning every channel other than Fox. One of the indicators of the station’s right-leaning bent is that it has, for the most part, gotten the ‘War on Terrorism’ correct. However, with the undue influence of a Saudi Prince related to militant causes and with this month’s acquisition of Beliefnet, a religious resource website that proudly promotes radical Islam, signs show that the war coverage may soon be taking a turn for the worse.
In September of 2005, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal purchased 5.46 per cent of Class B voting shares in News Corp, the company that owns Fox News and a number of other media and entertainment entities. This had replaced the three per cent stake in Class A non-voting shares bin Talal had previously held through his investment corporation, Kingdom Holding Company (KHC).
With his newfound voting rights, bin Talal stated his intention of supporting Rupert Murdoch, the principal owner of News Corp, helping Murdoch to stay in power and avoid hostile takeover by other interested investors. Some have said that this was like making a deal with the devil, as Murdoch has been left vulnerable to the whims of an individual that has been involved in despicable causes.
In April of 2002, bin Talal had donated $27 million during a Saudi telethon that was raising money for the families of suicide bombers. As well, he had given $500,000 to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to be used towards the distribution and propagation of a set of Islamist books for American libraries. The set included Jamal Badawi’s Gender Equity in Islam, which sanctions the beating of women by their husbands, and a version of the Quran, Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s The Meaning of THE HOLY QURAN, which has been banned by the Los Angeles school system.
Utilizing his position of power within Fox News (today, he is the second largest shareholder), bin Talal has worked to influence programming at the station. An infamous example of this was reported in a December 2005 article found in WorldNetDaily, stating:
During the violent street protests in France one month ago, the prince said, Fox News ran a banner at the bottom of the screen that said “Muslim riots.”
“I picked up the phone and called Murdoch ... [and told him] these are not Muslim riots, these are riots out of poverty,” al-Walid said.
“Within 30 minutes, the title was changed from Muslim riots to civil riots.”
This incident was precisely the type of scenario that then-Mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani tried to avoid, when after the 9/11 attacks, he rejected a $10 million check from bin Talal for the renovation of New York, that was attached to statements made by the Prince critical of the United States’ relationship to Israel. The question now is how many more incidents, such as the one concerning the French Muslim riots, have occured without the notice of the American public? And how far has bin Talal’s influence been able to reach?
The answer to the latter question may very well be in News Corp’s December 4th acquisition of Beliefnet, an internet-based religious information source.
Beliefnet came on the scene, first as a website in February of 2000 and then as a corporation in May of 2000, acting as basically a clearinghouse for religious thought. On the website, each of the world’s major religions were (are) given their own sections. This didn’t seem to be a problem, as favoritism towards one religion over another was nonexistant. However, within the Islam section, extremists began to gain a foothold.
On December 5, 2000, Beliefnet published an exclusive article written by the National Communications Director of the CAIR, Ibrahim Hooper, entitled ‘Why the Fury?’ a.k.a. ‘Why the Rage?’ [The article is still up on Beliefnet.] CAIR was created in June of 1994 as part of the Hamas terror network. Since then, the group has had a number of its officials charged with terrorist activity. Hooper, himself, has refused to condemn Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations.
On February 8, 2001, Beliefnet, at the top of the homepage of its Islam section, refered to former Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon, as a “tyrant” and published an article calling Prime Minister Sharon a “war criminal.” The article, ‘Ariel Sharon: The War Criminal Takes Over,’ like Hooper’s, is still up on Beliefnet.
On October 13, 2001, Beliefnet prominently placed on its website a piece, what it called a “rallying cry,” by then-Vice President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Ingrid Mattson, entitled ‘American Muslims, It’s Time for Us to Lead.’ ISNA, an umbrella group for radical mosques and Islamic centers throughout the United States and Canada, was recently named an “Unindicted Co-conspirator” by the U.S. government in connection to the raising of millions of dollars for Hamas. [As was CAIR.]
On November 5, 2002, Beliefnet (Beliefnet Books) introduced to its audience a compilation of essays, entitled Taking Back Islam, that comprised of pieces authored by a number of Islamists, such as: Mattson; MPAC Executive Director Salam Al-Marayati; CAIR National Legal Director Arsalan Iftikhar; and Yusuf Islam (formerly Cat Stevens), who was barred from entry into the United States, in September of 2004, for having suspected ties to terrorists.
Today, Beliefnet’s Islam section is entirely controlled by, and the content of it is entirely consumed by, radical Muslims.
The editor of Beliefnet-Islam is Dilshad Ali. Besides being affiliated with Beliefnet, Ali is also a correspondent for Islam Online, a site that issues religious rulings (Fatwas) in support of Palestinian suicide bombings, terrorist attacks against American troops, and the death penalty for homosexuals, including the throwing of homosexuals from tall buildings (“Death Falls”).
Indeed, as Fox Entertainment Group’s well recognized logo was pasted to Beliefnet, the face of Siraj Wahhaj adorned the site as an “Islamic Inspiration.” Wahhaj, a Brooklyn imam, was named as an “Unindicted Co-Conspirator” to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and served as a witness for the spiritual leader of the attack, Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, during Abdel-Rahman’s trial.
Diagonal to Wahhaj’s face was (and currently is) the face of Hesham Hassaballa, a co-founder and former Executive Board member of CAIR-Chicago (CAIR-Illinois) and former writer for CAIR's (dissolved) Independent Writer's Syndicate (IWS). Hassaballa, on his blog, G-d, Faith, and a Pen, has promoted such Hamas-related charities as Islamic Relief and KindHearts.
In addition to the two people just mentioned, on the same page could (can) be seen a fairly large image of Shahed Amanullah, the Director of Beliefnet’s blog, Hungry for Ramadan. Aside from the blog, Amanullah is an advisor to the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), an Islamist political lobby group that has, in the past, defended Hezbollah and has called for Israel's destruction. Beliefnet refers to him as an “award-winning Muslim journalist.”
In announcing the deal between his group and News Corp, Beliefnet’s Editor-in-Chief Steve Waldman praised News Corp, saying that the company has enormous reach and that “its proficiency in the areas of video, social networking and media in general is unsurpassed.” Likewise, Fox executive, Dan Fawcett, lauded Beliefnet, stating: “Beliefnet has garnered respect for its commitment to quality, editorial strength and unbiased approach to faith and spirituality from a broad range of consumers, religious and political leaders, journalists and advertisers.”
But is the “respect” that the Fox exec is speaking of truly derived from the places mentioned or could it be that it is coming from somewhere or someone else? And given all of the above, is it possible that his initials are ABT?
Fox News has a niche in our society. Its greatness is that – just as the station advertises – it has brought “fairness” and “balance” to a left-leaning TV news media and information gathering culture. It would, without a doubt, be a terrible day if that balance, in the near future, should somehow tip towards the enemy.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Arizona Enforces
Blazing Arizona ... an Opinion by the New York Times
Published: December 18, 2007
On Jan. 1, Arizona intends to become the first state to try to muscle its way out of its immigration problems on its own. That is when, barring a last-minute setback in court, it is to begin enforcing a new state law that harshly punishes businesses that knowingly hire undocumented immigrants. It is a two-strike law, suspending a business’s license on the first offense and revoking it on the second. It is the strictest workplace-enforcement law in the country.
We have always said that workplace laws should be enforced vigorously — as part of a comprehensive, nationwide immigration system that doesn’t just punish, but tries to actually solve the problems that foster and sustain the breaking of immigration laws. The boosters of the Arizona law, including the Minutemen border vigilantes who have made “January First!” an anti-immigrant rallying cry, have a much narrower goal: the biggest purge of illegal immigrants in the Southwest since the federal government’s Operation Wetback in 1954.
If that happens, the immigrants will take a big chunk of Arizona’s growth and economic vitality with them — and not necessarily back across the international border. The collateral damage will be severe as citizens and legal immigrants are also thrown out of work, as businesses struggle to find workers in a state with a 3.3 percent unemployment rate and as sleazy employers move more workers off the books, the better to abuse and exploit them. And the national problem of undocumented immigration will be no closer to a solution.
There are many compassion-and-common-sense criticisms of Arizona’s Fair and Legal Employment Act: stories about families torn apart, breadwinners deported and citizen children on public assistance. They make little headway with the law-and-order crowd. Nor does the fact that many hard-line defenders of workplace enforcement show a lopsided devotion to federal laws; they seldom complain when employers abuse undocumented immigrants and steal their wages, even though those violations worsen job conditions and pay for American workers, too.
For now, let’s just point out that Arizona’s plunge into enforcement-only immigration policy highlights the folly and inadequacy of that approach, particularly when it is left to a crazy quilt of state laws. America is a country where millions of illegal immigrants have entered for years all but invited and mostly not pursued. They have become integral to our economy, although now — thanks to harsher enforcement and the defeat of comprehensive immigration reform in Congress — most have no way to become legal, no options except slipping back into destitution on the other side of the border.
There is no way for Arizona or any other state to get businesses back on a legal footing without exacting a great economic and human toll.
It could be that Arizona’s enforcement of the law will be calm and measured. But we worry about Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix and two-thirds of the state’s population. Maricopa’s county attorney, Andrew Thomas, and county sheriff, Joe Arpaio, are prone to media-driven stunts. Sheriff Arpaio makes a show of his meanness, hounding and humiliating prisoners and forming his deputies into squads that check people’s clothes and accents before demanding their papers.
Arizona is home to many moderate politicians, like Gov. Janet Napolitano, who were all too aware of the bill’s problems, and yet it became law. Many say the Minutemen and their allies had offered an ultimatum: approve this bill or face a citizen’s initiative on the 2008 ballot that would be even harsher and blunter, and all but impossible to repair. That promise was reneged on; petitions for the Minutemen’s initiative are being collected now.
As Arizona exacts its punishment on the undocumented workers who have made it so prosperous, it runs the risk of proving itself tough but not smart.
Published: December 18, 2007
On Jan. 1, Arizona intends to become the first state to try to muscle its way out of its immigration problems on its own. That is when, barring a last-minute setback in court, it is to begin enforcing a new state law that harshly punishes businesses that knowingly hire undocumented immigrants. It is a two-strike law, suspending a business’s license on the first offense and revoking it on the second. It is the strictest workplace-enforcement law in the country.
We have always said that workplace laws should be enforced vigorously — as part of a comprehensive, nationwide immigration system that doesn’t just punish, but tries to actually solve the problems that foster and sustain the breaking of immigration laws. The boosters of the Arizona law, including the Minutemen border vigilantes who have made “January First!” an anti-immigrant rallying cry, have a much narrower goal: the biggest purge of illegal immigrants in the Southwest since the federal government’s Operation Wetback in 1954.
If that happens, the immigrants will take a big chunk of Arizona’s growth and economic vitality with them — and not necessarily back across the international border. The collateral damage will be severe as citizens and legal immigrants are also thrown out of work, as businesses struggle to find workers in a state with a 3.3 percent unemployment rate and as sleazy employers move more workers off the books, the better to abuse and exploit them. And the national problem of undocumented immigration will be no closer to a solution.
There are many compassion-and-common-sense criticisms of Arizona’s Fair and Legal Employment Act: stories about families torn apart, breadwinners deported and citizen children on public assistance. They make little headway with the law-and-order crowd. Nor does the fact that many hard-line defenders of workplace enforcement show a lopsided devotion to federal laws; they seldom complain when employers abuse undocumented immigrants and steal their wages, even though those violations worsen job conditions and pay for American workers, too.
For now, let’s just point out that Arizona’s plunge into enforcement-only immigration policy highlights the folly and inadequacy of that approach, particularly when it is left to a crazy quilt of state laws. America is a country where millions of illegal immigrants have entered for years all but invited and mostly not pursued. They have become integral to our economy, although now — thanks to harsher enforcement and the defeat of comprehensive immigration reform in Congress — most have no way to become legal, no options except slipping back into destitution on the other side of the border.
There is no way for Arizona or any other state to get businesses back on a legal footing without exacting a great economic and human toll.
It could be that Arizona’s enforcement of the law will be calm and measured. But we worry about Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix and two-thirds of the state’s population. Maricopa’s county attorney, Andrew Thomas, and county sheriff, Joe Arpaio, are prone to media-driven stunts. Sheriff Arpaio makes a show of his meanness, hounding and humiliating prisoners and forming his deputies into squads that check people’s clothes and accents before demanding their papers.
Arizona is home to many moderate politicians, like Gov. Janet Napolitano, who were all too aware of the bill’s problems, and yet it became law. Many say the Minutemen and their allies had offered an ultimatum: approve this bill or face a citizen’s initiative on the 2008 ballot that would be even harsher and blunter, and all but impossible to repair. That promise was reneged on; petitions for the Minutemen’s initiative are being collected now.
As Arizona exacts its punishment on the undocumented workers who have made it so prosperous, it runs the risk of proving itself tough but not smart.
Friday, December 21, 2007
CAIR Loses Again
One for Savage, zero for CAIR
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/927
By Judi McLeod
Take away their deceitful props and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is like all other big-talking bullies: pathetic, sniveling and alone.
In going after top rated radio talk show host Michael Savage, CAIR trotted out a list of advertisers they laid claim to scaring off from advertising on Savage Nation.
When the dust settled, it was all CAIR braying brouhaha.
Several of the companies CAIR loudly cited in their so-called boycott campaign say they don’t know what the Islamic lobby group is talking about.
In their own defiant words, announcing that Universal Orlando Resorts had joined their Savage Nation advertising boycott, CAIR recently stated: “Advertisers that have already stopped airing or refuse to air commercials on Savage Nation include AutoZone, Citrix TrustedID, JCPenney, OfficeMax, Wal-Mart and AT&T.”
Going out on the hunt, investigative Internet giant WorldNetDaily caught CAIR in an embarrassing position.
...”But now AutoZone has told WND the CAIR campaign had nothing to do with its advertising decision, and it had chosen not to advertise on any radio talk shows—of all parts of the spectrum—years before the CAIR effort.” (WND, Dec. 11, 2007).
Taking the cowardly way out, CAIR officials declined to respond to WND inquiries about why it is listing companies as part of its boycott campaign that they say have not participated in the boycott.
CAIR didn’t know that a lot more than bluster is needed to sustain a boycott.
“Another major company CAIR claims has joined the boycott of Michael Savage is JCPenney. But as with AutoZone, JCPenney officials told WND readers they were not making any special provision in their advertising policy that would make them part of a protest campaign, but officials did not respond directly to WND inquiries.
“JCPenney did not `pull’ advertising from the show. JCPenney has had a long-standing policy about not advertising on any show that can be construed as controversial. An error in upholding this policy was made by a few local stations, and it has now been clarified,” the company told a WND reader.
Wal-Mart admits that it has asked radio networks to ensure that Wal-Mart ads do not run in programming “that we deem controversial” and is sending out content guideline reminders to radio networks and stations, according to that company.
(Too bad Wal-Mart shoppers couldn’t have the same protection against-Mart products from China before the latest recalls.)
While companies cited in the boycott like AutoZone and JCPenney have removed themselves as CAIR props, CAIR still faces a Michael Savage lawsuit over its alleged misappropriation of Savage’s radio broadcast material. In the lawsuit, which has garnered huge public support, the mince-no-words Savage depicts CAIR as a “vehicle of international terrorism.”
Savage’s lawsuit alleges copyright infringement by CAIR, which the lawsuit says seeks to do “material harm to those voices who speak against the violent agenda of CAIR’s clients.”
Filed in U.S. District Court in California, the suit seeks damages equal to the ongoing donations from CAIR supporters “who expect CAIR to act in this manner in exchange for continuing financial support” as well as “actual damages according to proof.”
Judging by scores of letters to Canada Free Press whose anti-CAIR stories were posted to the Michael Savage website, legions of people are already boycotting companies—at least two of which we now know were only used by CAIR as props.
Meanwhile mark that 1 for Michael Savage and zero for the world’s largest, George Soros and Media Matters-supported Islamic lobby group.
And with the wings already pulled off this always-buzzing blue-bottle housefly, it’s going to be difficult for it to fly away and land elsewhere any time soon.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/927
By Judi McLeod
Take away their deceitful props and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is like all other big-talking bullies: pathetic, sniveling and alone.
In going after top rated radio talk show host Michael Savage, CAIR trotted out a list of advertisers they laid claim to scaring off from advertising on Savage Nation.
When the dust settled, it was all CAIR braying brouhaha.
Several of the companies CAIR loudly cited in their so-called boycott campaign say they don’t know what the Islamic lobby group is talking about.
In their own defiant words, announcing that Universal Orlando Resorts had joined their Savage Nation advertising boycott, CAIR recently stated: “Advertisers that have already stopped airing or refuse to air commercials on Savage Nation include AutoZone, Citrix TrustedID, JCPenney, OfficeMax, Wal-Mart and AT&T.”
Going out on the hunt, investigative Internet giant WorldNetDaily caught CAIR in an embarrassing position.
...”But now AutoZone has told WND the CAIR campaign had nothing to do with its advertising decision, and it had chosen not to advertise on any radio talk shows—of all parts of the spectrum—years before the CAIR effort.” (WND, Dec. 11, 2007).
Taking the cowardly way out, CAIR officials declined to respond to WND inquiries about why it is listing companies as part of its boycott campaign that they say have not participated in the boycott.
CAIR didn’t know that a lot more than bluster is needed to sustain a boycott.
“Another major company CAIR claims has joined the boycott of Michael Savage is JCPenney. But as with AutoZone, JCPenney officials told WND readers they were not making any special provision in their advertising policy that would make them part of a protest campaign, but officials did not respond directly to WND inquiries.
“JCPenney did not `pull’ advertising from the show. JCPenney has had a long-standing policy about not advertising on any show that can be construed as controversial. An error in upholding this policy was made by a few local stations, and it has now been clarified,” the company told a WND reader.
Wal-Mart admits that it has asked radio networks to ensure that Wal-Mart ads do not run in programming “that we deem controversial” and is sending out content guideline reminders to radio networks and stations, according to that company.
(Too bad Wal-Mart shoppers couldn’t have the same protection against-Mart products from China before the latest recalls.)
While companies cited in the boycott like AutoZone and JCPenney have removed themselves as CAIR props, CAIR still faces a Michael Savage lawsuit over its alleged misappropriation of Savage’s radio broadcast material. In the lawsuit, which has garnered huge public support, the mince-no-words Savage depicts CAIR as a “vehicle of international terrorism.”
Savage’s lawsuit alleges copyright infringement by CAIR, which the lawsuit says seeks to do “material harm to those voices who speak against the violent agenda of CAIR’s clients.”
Filed in U.S. District Court in California, the suit seeks damages equal to the ongoing donations from CAIR supporters “who expect CAIR to act in this manner in exchange for continuing financial support” as well as “actual damages according to proof.”
Judging by scores of letters to Canada Free Press whose anti-CAIR stories were posted to the Michael Savage website, legions of people are already boycotting companies—at least two of which we now know were only used by CAIR as props.
Meanwhile mark that 1 for Michael Savage and zero for the world’s largest, George Soros and Media Matters-supported Islamic lobby group.
And with the wings already pulled off this always-buzzing blue-bottle housefly, it’s going to be difficult for it to fly away and land elsewhere any time soon.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Lakota Sioux Withdraw From US
Descendants of Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse break away from US
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary
warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with
the United States, leaders said Wednesday.
"We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those
who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to
join us," long-time Indian rights activist Russell Means told a handful
of reporters and a delegation from the Bolivian embassy, gathered in a
church in a run-down neighborhood of Washington for a news conference.
A delegation of Lakota leaders delivered a message to the State
Department on Monday, announcing they were unilaterally withdrawing from
treaties they signed with the federal government of the United States,
some of them more than 150 years old.
They also visited the Bolivian, Chilean, South African and Venezuelan
embassies, and will continue on their diplomatic mission and take it
overseas in the coming weeks and months, they told the news conference.
Lakota country includes parts of the states of Nebraska, South Dakota,
North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.
The new country would issue its own passports and driving licences, and
living there would be tax-free -- provided residents renounce their US
citizenship, Means said.
The treaties signed with the United States are merely "worthless words
on worthless paper," the Lakota freedom activists say on their website.
The treaties have been "repeatedly violated in order to steal our
culture, our land and our ability to maintain our way of life," the
reborn freedom movement says.
Withdrawing from the treaties was entirely legal, Means said.
"This is according to the laws of the United States, specifically
article six of the constitution," which states that treaties are the
supreme law of the land, he said.
"It is also within the laws on treaties passed at the Vienna Convention
and put into effect by the US and the rest of the international
community in 1980. We are legally within our rights to be free and
independent," said Means.
The Lakota relaunched their journey to freedom in 1974, when they
drafted a declaration of continuing independence -- an overt play on the
title of the United States' Declaration of Independence from England.
Thirty-three years have elapsed since then because "it takes critical
mass to combat colonialism and we wanted to make sure that all our ducks
were in a row," Means said.
One duck moved into place in September, when the United Nations adopted
a non-binding declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples -- despite
opposition from the United States, which said it clashed with its own
laws.
"We have 33 treaties with the United States that they have not lived by.
They continue to take our land, our water, our children," Phyllis Young,
who helped organize the first international conference on indigenous
rights in Geneva in 1977, told the news conference.
The US "annexation" of native American land has resulted in once proud
tribes such as the Lakota becoming mere "facsimiles of white people,"
said Means.
Oppression at the hands of the US government has taken its toll on the
Lakota, whose men have one of the shortest life expectancies -- less
than 44 years -- in the world.
Lakota teen suicides are 150 percent above the norm for the United
States; infant mortality is five times higher than the US average; and
unemployment is rife, according to the Lakota freedom movement's
website.
"Our people want to live, not just survive or crawl and be mascots,"
said Young.
"We are not trying to embarrass the United States. We are here to
continue the struggle for our children and grandchildren," she said,
predicting that the battle would not be won in her lifetime.
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary
warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with
the United States, leaders said Wednesday.
"We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those
who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to
join us," long-time Indian rights activist Russell Means told a handful
of reporters and a delegation from the Bolivian embassy, gathered in a
church in a run-down neighborhood of Washington for a news conference.
A delegation of Lakota leaders delivered a message to the State
Department on Monday, announcing they were unilaterally withdrawing from
treaties they signed with the federal government of the United States,
some of them more than 150 years old.
They also visited the Bolivian, Chilean, South African and Venezuelan
embassies, and will continue on their diplomatic mission and take it
overseas in the coming weeks and months, they told the news conference.
Lakota country includes parts of the states of Nebraska, South Dakota,
North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.
The new country would issue its own passports and driving licences, and
living there would be tax-free -- provided residents renounce their US
citizenship, Means said.
The treaties signed with the United States are merely "worthless words
on worthless paper," the Lakota freedom activists say on their website.
The treaties have been "repeatedly violated in order to steal our
culture, our land and our ability to maintain our way of life," the
reborn freedom movement says.
Withdrawing from the treaties was entirely legal, Means said.
"This is according to the laws of the United States, specifically
article six of the constitution," which states that treaties are the
supreme law of the land, he said.
"It is also within the laws on treaties passed at the Vienna Convention
and put into effect by the US and the rest of the international
community in 1980. We are legally within our rights to be free and
independent," said Means.
The Lakota relaunched their journey to freedom in 1974, when they
drafted a declaration of continuing independence -- an overt play on the
title of the United States' Declaration of Independence from England.
Thirty-three years have elapsed since then because "it takes critical
mass to combat colonialism and we wanted to make sure that all our ducks
were in a row," Means said.
One duck moved into place in September, when the United Nations adopted
a non-binding declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples -- despite
opposition from the United States, which said it clashed with its own
laws.
"We have 33 treaties with the United States that they have not lived by.
They continue to take our land, our water, our children," Phyllis Young,
who helped organize the first international conference on indigenous
rights in Geneva in 1977, told the news conference.
The US "annexation" of native American land has resulted in once proud
tribes such as the Lakota becoming mere "facsimiles of white people,"
said Means.
Oppression at the hands of the US government has taken its toll on the
Lakota, whose men have one of the shortest life expectancies -- less
than 44 years -- in the world.
Lakota teen suicides are 150 percent above the norm for the United
States; infant mortality is five times higher than the US average; and
unemployment is rife, according to the Lakota freedom movement's
website.
"Our people want to live, not just survive or crawl and be mascots,"
said Young.
"We are not trying to embarrass the United States. We are here to
continue the struggle for our children and grandchildren," she said,
predicting that the battle would not be won in her lifetime.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Jefferson's Ghost
Another letter from The Ghost of Thomas Jefferson
Sent to me anonymous | 12/17/07 | The Ghost of Thomas Jefferson
Once the Founding Fathers had broken the chains of tyranny they realized that what stood before them was a task unequaled in history. Civilizations have always risen and fallen, usually due to the enlightened or misguided paths the leaders chose. Having set the stage for a new civilization guided by the ideals of personal responsibility, honor, and freedom, the men who cast off the oppressors of their time found that creating a nation bound by laws that prohibited a government that set itself apart from the people was a task not easily accomplished.
To express the difficulty they faced to future generations so that their intent and desires would not and could not be questioned, they documented much of their discussions. The prime example is of course the Federalist Papers. Notes from the First and Second Continental Congress provide insight as well. Though these documents do exist and are exquisitely detailed as to the intent of the Founding Fathers, most American citizens do not know or understand what is contained within these historic pages. Sadly, while the technological knowledge base has increased over the centuries, the fundamental understanding of history and civic lessons of the past are being neglected, dooming the United States to follow other civilizations that fell to the burdensome weight of their governments. This lack of education is the leading culprit that places the United States in the dire position it now is.
Recent passage of laws such as the misleadingly named Patriot Act and the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act has subtly eroded away the freedoms recognized in the Bill of Rights. The lack of public outcry to such travesties of justice and freedom is purely shocking.
The men who created this new nation knew that the right to express discontent to the Government was a paramount right that only existed if the ability to vocalize such redress of grievance was reinforced by the capability to physically prevent the Government from taking an action that the citizenry felt compelled to stop. This is the foundation of the recognition of the right to use force to defend life, liberty and freedom. The Founding Fathers outlined this in the Second Amendment with the clear intention, as shown by documentation of the period, to prevent a new dictatorship from occurring in the new United States.
A perfect example of the wisdom of the Founding Fathers in action dates back to the late nineteen-forties. Athens, Tennessee became a battleground when armed citizens prevented election fraud and the foundations of a local tyrant. Yet, how many civics textbooks used in the school systems in our nation have even a single sentence in reference to this small but historically significant event?
The men who stood against tyranny in Athens, Tennessee believed in the words and deeds of the Founding Fathers. Instead of kneeling to the iron fist of a dictator, these men risked their lives to uphold the belief that no man is above the law.
Unfortunately, the events in Tennessee were nearly a decade and a half late. During the nineteen-twenties, the first real nationwide push to dictate restrictions upon the citizens became real. Prohibitionists demonized imbibing of alcohol and successfully barred the practice by forcing their position on everyone, even those who disagreed. Two things of paramount importance happened with the passage of the Amendment. The first thing to occur was the willful disregard of the public to abide by the restriction. This set into motion a new view of the Government and laws in which were passed. The response by the Government was one that haunts the nation to this day. The creation of what would be considered one of the most hated agencies associated with the United States Government came into being. When Prohibition was abolished, instead of learning from the experience, the United States Government attempted to follow the same insane path by passing into law the 1934 National Firearms Act. The publicized goal of this law was to prevent access to machine guns and certain other arms by the criminal element that came to exist due directly to the failed attempt at banning alcohol. A database was created and a tax was imposed on the transfer of machine guns, silencers, and long guns with barrels shorter than a specific length. Though the law was highly unconstitutional, most people remained silent on the matter since the precedent had been set less than a decade before when the citizens ignored Prohibition. This silence was considered approval by a greatly misdirected Congress. A new department came into being solely designed to manage the database and to aid in enforcing the law. Within a few decades, this department would grow to become a vile example of tyranny within the borders of the United States.
When Congress passed the 1968 Gun Control Act, one of the worst blows to the Constitution occurred. A seemingly insignificant phrase contained within the new law set the stage for decades of horror. The law delegated to the Attorney General the power to determine the status of a firearm based upon its sporting suitability. The so-called sporting purpose clause allowed the Attorney General to unconstitutionally interpret the law recklessly and loosely. It wasn’t long before the duty of determining sporting purpose was further delegated to the BATF with disastrous results.
Since that time, the BATF has repeatedly re-interpreted the sporting purpose clause to suit its needs of the moment leading to unjust prosecutions and unjustifiable deaths. Instead of addressing those seeking a redress of grievance, Congress has repeatedly ignored complaints from the public and professional firearms community. The result of this has been an emboldening of action by the BATF further infringing upon the rights and freedoms of citizens.
This has culminated to the point where the BATF has openly begun to operate outside the law. Ignoring legal mandate, the BATF is now repeatedly creating evidence using the sporting purpose clause to justify their actions. By using an undefined term called “readily restorable”, meaning that a firearm can be made into a machine gun without setting standards for what defines readily, the BATF is now making determinations with no basis in scientific procedures or standards, leaving the public openly questioning what is legal under BATF mandate and what isn’t.
To say that choices for Congress and the Presidency are lacking is an understatement. No longer do people of good character and upstanding moral qualities offer to sacrifice their time to perform the civic duty of becoming an elected official. Instead, those who would seek to increase their personal power and glory attempt to command the field. With this appalling situation the citizens must seek justice through the courts. When District of Columbia v. Heller was appealed to the Supreme Court, the possibility of justice prevailing became a possibility leaving the political spectrum behind.
This possibility concerns the BATF greatly. Congress has made itself an accomplice to the illegal actions of the BATF by refusing to address the illegal actions of the agency and when it invoked “National Security” to conceal the committee hearings regarding the confirmation of Mr. Michael Sullivan to the position of Director of the BATFE. Instead of addressing the concerns of the people, Congress has decided to separate itself from the people even further. BATF has for many years lobbied Congress, though highly illegal, for its own ends. Without an opportunity to lobby the Court, the BATFE must now decide on how it will address future issues should it survive intact after the District of Columbia v. Heller decision comes down.
The conduct of the BATFE will most likely be of concern to the Court in their decision making process. At least one Justice is familiar with the process required by the BATFE regarding the NFA. Documentation available through the Congressional Research Staff and other documentation available on the internet regarding the less than appropriate conduct of the BATFE and the unprofessional actions by employees of the BATFE in court and during professional contact with the firearms industry should have a great impact on the Court.
Would the Founding Fathers approve of the nation as it rests today? That is something every citizen must ask. It is not time to water that famous tree while hope still exists. Should that change, undoubtedly the citizens will come to understand what their forefathers knew at Concord, Lexington and not so long ago in Athens.
With warmest regards-
The Ghost of Thomas Jefferson
Sent to me anonymous | 12/17/07 | The Ghost of Thomas Jefferson
Once the Founding Fathers had broken the chains of tyranny they realized that what stood before them was a task unequaled in history. Civilizations have always risen and fallen, usually due to the enlightened or misguided paths the leaders chose. Having set the stage for a new civilization guided by the ideals of personal responsibility, honor, and freedom, the men who cast off the oppressors of their time found that creating a nation bound by laws that prohibited a government that set itself apart from the people was a task not easily accomplished.
To express the difficulty they faced to future generations so that their intent and desires would not and could not be questioned, they documented much of their discussions. The prime example is of course the Federalist Papers. Notes from the First and Second Continental Congress provide insight as well. Though these documents do exist and are exquisitely detailed as to the intent of the Founding Fathers, most American citizens do not know or understand what is contained within these historic pages. Sadly, while the technological knowledge base has increased over the centuries, the fundamental understanding of history and civic lessons of the past are being neglected, dooming the United States to follow other civilizations that fell to the burdensome weight of their governments. This lack of education is the leading culprit that places the United States in the dire position it now is.
Recent passage of laws such as the misleadingly named Patriot Act and the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act has subtly eroded away the freedoms recognized in the Bill of Rights. The lack of public outcry to such travesties of justice and freedom is purely shocking.
The men who created this new nation knew that the right to express discontent to the Government was a paramount right that only existed if the ability to vocalize such redress of grievance was reinforced by the capability to physically prevent the Government from taking an action that the citizenry felt compelled to stop. This is the foundation of the recognition of the right to use force to defend life, liberty and freedom. The Founding Fathers outlined this in the Second Amendment with the clear intention, as shown by documentation of the period, to prevent a new dictatorship from occurring in the new United States.
A perfect example of the wisdom of the Founding Fathers in action dates back to the late nineteen-forties. Athens, Tennessee became a battleground when armed citizens prevented election fraud and the foundations of a local tyrant. Yet, how many civics textbooks used in the school systems in our nation have even a single sentence in reference to this small but historically significant event?
The men who stood against tyranny in Athens, Tennessee believed in the words and deeds of the Founding Fathers. Instead of kneeling to the iron fist of a dictator, these men risked their lives to uphold the belief that no man is above the law.
Unfortunately, the events in Tennessee were nearly a decade and a half late. During the nineteen-twenties, the first real nationwide push to dictate restrictions upon the citizens became real. Prohibitionists demonized imbibing of alcohol and successfully barred the practice by forcing their position on everyone, even those who disagreed. Two things of paramount importance happened with the passage of the Amendment. The first thing to occur was the willful disregard of the public to abide by the restriction. This set into motion a new view of the Government and laws in which were passed. The response by the Government was one that haunts the nation to this day. The creation of what would be considered one of the most hated agencies associated with the United States Government came into being. When Prohibition was abolished, instead of learning from the experience, the United States Government attempted to follow the same insane path by passing into law the 1934 National Firearms Act. The publicized goal of this law was to prevent access to machine guns and certain other arms by the criminal element that came to exist due directly to the failed attempt at banning alcohol. A database was created and a tax was imposed on the transfer of machine guns, silencers, and long guns with barrels shorter than a specific length. Though the law was highly unconstitutional, most people remained silent on the matter since the precedent had been set less than a decade before when the citizens ignored Prohibition. This silence was considered approval by a greatly misdirected Congress. A new department came into being solely designed to manage the database and to aid in enforcing the law. Within a few decades, this department would grow to become a vile example of tyranny within the borders of the United States.
When Congress passed the 1968 Gun Control Act, one of the worst blows to the Constitution occurred. A seemingly insignificant phrase contained within the new law set the stage for decades of horror. The law delegated to the Attorney General the power to determine the status of a firearm based upon its sporting suitability. The so-called sporting purpose clause allowed the Attorney General to unconstitutionally interpret the law recklessly and loosely. It wasn’t long before the duty of determining sporting purpose was further delegated to the BATF with disastrous results.
Since that time, the BATF has repeatedly re-interpreted the sporting purpose clause to suit its needs of the moment leading to unjust prosecutions and unjustifiable deaths. Instead of addressing those seeking a redress of grievance, Congress has repeatedly ignored complaints from the public and professional firearms community. The result of this has been an emboldening of action by the BATF further infringing upon the rights and freedoms of citizens.
This has culminated to the point where the BATF has openly begun to operate outside the law. Ignoring legal mandate, the BATF is now repeatedly creating evidence using the sporting purpose clause to justify their actions. By using an undefined term called “readily restorable”, meaning that a firearm can be made into a machine gun without setting standards for what defines readily, the BATF is now making determinations with no basis in scientific procedures or standards, leaving the public openly questioning what is legal under BATF mandate and what isn’t.
To say that choices for Congress and the Presidency are lacking is an understatement. No longer do people of good character and upstanding moral qualities offer to sacrifice their time to perform the civic duty of becoming an elected official. Instead, those who would seek to increase their personal power and glory attempt to command the field. With this appalling situation the citizens must seek justice through the courts. When District of Columbia v. Heller was appealed to the Supreme Court, the possibility of justice prevailing became a possibility leaving the political spectrum behind.
This possibility concerns the BATF greatly. Congress has made itself an accomplice to the illegal actions of the BATF by refusing to address the illegal actions of the agency and when it invoked “National Security” to conceal the committee hearings regarding the confirmation of Mr. Michael Sullivan to the position of Director of the BATFE. Instead of addressing the concerns of the people, Congress has decided to separate itself from the people even further. BATF has for many years lobbied Congress, though highly illegal, for its own ends. Without an opportunity to lobby the Court, the BATFE must now decide on how it will address future issues should it survive intact after the District of Columbia v. Heller decision comes down.
The conduct of the BATFE will most likely be of concern to the Court in their decision making process. At least one Justice is familiar with the process required by the BATFE regarding the NFA. Documentation available through the Congressional Research Staff and other documentation available on the internet regarding the less than appropriate conduct of the BATFE and the unprofessional actions by employees of the BATFE in court and during professional contact with the firearms industry should have a great impact on the Court.
Would the Founding Fathers approve of the nation as it rests today? That is something every citizen must ask. It is not time to water that famous tree while hope still exists. Should that change, undoubtedly the citizens will come to understand what their forefathers knew at Concord, Lexington and not so long ago in Athens.
With warmest regards-
The Ghost of Thomas Jefferson
Monday, December 17, 2007
Muslims Taking Over Meditation Rooms
Muslim Students Take Over 'Meditation Room' in Minnesota
Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 8:26:07 am PST
We've covered several cases like this one at LGF, enough to say that
it appears to be a trend; Muslim students take over public
meditation rooms at universities and turn them into de facto
mosques. Katherine Kersten has the latest example:
Normandale's `meditation room' is home to a single faith.
Last week, I visited a Muslim place of worship. A schedule for
Islam's five daily prayers was posted at the entrance, near a sign
requesting that shoes be removed. Inside, a barrier divided men's
and women's prayer space, an arrow informed worshippers of the
direction of Mecca, and literature urged women to cover their faces.
Sound like a mosque?
The place I'm describing is the "meditation room" at Normandale
Community College, a 9,200-student public institution in Bloomington.
Until recently, the room was the school's only usable racquetball
court. College administrators converted the court into a meditation
room when construction forced closure of the previous meditation
room.
A row of chest-high barriers splits the room into sex-segregated
sections. In the smaller, enclosed area for women sits a pile of
shawls and head-coverings. Literature titled "Hijaab [covering] and
Modesty" was prominently placed there, instructing women on proper
Islamic behavior.
They should cover their faces and stay at home, it said, and their
speech should not "be such that it is heard."
"Enter into Islaam completely and accept all the rulings of Islaam,"
the tract read in part. "It should not be that you accept what
entertains your desires and leave what opposes your desires; this is
from the manners of the Jews."
"[T]he Jews and the Christians" are described as "the enemies of
Allaah's religion." The document adds: "Remember that you will never
succeed while you follow these people."
www.littlegreenfootballs.com
Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 8:26:07 am PST
We've covered several cases like this one at LGF, enough to say that
it appears to be a trend; Muslim students take over public
meditation rooms at universities and turn them into de facto
mosques. Katherine Kersten has the latest example:
Normandale's `meditation room' is home to a single faith.
Last week, I visited a Muslim place of worship. A schedule for
Islam's five daily prayers was posted at the entrance, near a sign
requesting that shoes be removed. Inside, a barrier divided men's
and women's prayer space, an arrow informed worshippers of the
direction of Mecca, and literature urged women to cover their faces.
Sound like a mosque?
The place I'm describing is the "meditation room" at Normandale
Community College, a 9,200-student public institution in Bloomington.
Until recently, the room was the school's only usable racquetball
court. College administrators converted the court into a meditation
room when construction forced closure of the previous meditation
room.
A row of chest-high barriers splits the room into sex-segregated
sections. In the smaller, enclosed area for women sits a pile of
shawls and head-coverings. Literature titled "Hijaab [covering] and
Modesty" was prominently placed there, instructing women on proper
Islamic behavior.
They should cover their faces and stay at home, it said, and their
speech should not "be such that it is heard."
"Enter into Islaam completely and accept all the rulings of Islaam,"
the tract read in part. "It should not be that you accept what
entertains your desires and leave what opposes your desires; this is
from the manners of the Jews."
"[T]he Jews and the Christians" are described as "the enemies of
Allaah's religion." The document adds: "Remember that you will never
succeed while you follow these people."
www.littlegreenfootballs.com
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Paltalk Hosts Terrorist Chat
EXCLUSIVE: Joseph Shahda Discloses Paltalk hosts Al Qaeda, Hizballah and Hamas terror chat rooms
December 11, 2007
by Joseph Shahda
Paltalk (www.paltalk.com) is one of the most popular voice chat rooms hosting companies in the world. Paltalk hosts tens of thousands of voice chat rooms covering music, entertainment, politics, religion, and Islamic terrorist chat rooms.
That is correct. Paltalk hosts Islamic terrorist chat rooms that support Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups such as Hizballah and Hamas.
The most popular Al Qaeda chat room on Paltalk is called "Al Ansar Ansar Al Mujahdeen" which translates to "The Supporters of Moujhdeen". The members of this chat room are rabid Al Qaeda supporters. They post communiqués released by Al Qaeda media groups, including terrorist propaganda materials and violent terrorist materials on how to conduct terrorist acts. The members of the chat rooms take the microphone (the voice feature) and talk about Jihad and call for violent terrorist acts.
In the "Ansar Al Mujahdeen" room there have been live interviews conducted with actual Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq. They conducted Q & A sessions with these terrorists. This chat room is well known on Paltalk and the Terrorist Cyberspace. Other terrorist forums refer to what is happening in "Ansar Al Mujahdeen" chat room and they encourage members of the other forums to join this chat room. The advantage of "Ansar Al Mujahdeen" chat room over the other terrorist forums is that it is a live action debate with voice features which make it very attractive for the terrorists.
Last week, after many years of allowing this popular Al Qaeda terrorist chat room to function and after many complaints against the room, Paltalk Corporation finally decided to shut down the "Ansar Al Moujahdeen" chat room. Unfortunately, the chat room is up again under a slightly modified name "Al Ansarr Ansar Al Mougahedeen" with a new owner nickname and many of the members changed their user names (nicknames). I noticed some of the members of the Al Qaeda chat room now have colored nicknames; i.e., they are paying a yearly subscription to Paltalk. In its previous guise, before this terrorist chat room was shut down, these same members had black nicknames; i.e., they did not pay any fee to participate. In addition, many of these electronic Jihadis are paying an annual fee to access the Al Qaeda chat room.
I find it difficult to believe that Paltalk Corporation can be fooled so easily. It remains to be seen whether money and financial profit are the main reason for allowing this Al Qaeda terrorist chat room to restart. But it is an illustration of how powerful the Terrorist Cyberspace is, when Paltalk permits this Al Qaeda terrorist chat room to continue. It is very unfortunate that our US Internet monitoring Counter Terrorism agencies have not forced Paltalk to immediately and permanently shut down these terrorist chat rooms. Perhaps, they believe that they can get actionable intelligence from these rooms. Based on hundreds of hours monitoring of these terrorist chat rooms on Paltalk, I am very convinced that there is no significant actionable intelligence to be obtained from them. In the contrary, these rooms are doing far more damage to the US and the world security with each passing minute as long as they operate.
On the top banner of the Al Ansarr Ansar Al Mougahedeen chat room screen they have link to a You Tube video about the destruction of a US Army HumVee south of Baghdad. In the text screen shown above they are rejoicing the death of 10 UN employees in Algeria who were killed today, December 11, 2007, by Al Qaeda terrorists.
December 11, 2007
by Joseph Shahda
Paltalk (www.paltalk.com) is one of the most popular voice chat rooms hosting companies in the world. Paltalk hosts tens of thousands of voice chat rooms covering music, entertainment, politics, religion, and Islamic terrorist chat rooms.
That is correct. Paltalk hosts Islamic terrorist chat rooms that support Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups such as Hizballah and Hamas.
The most popular Al Qaeda chat room on Paltalk is called "Al Ansar Ansar Al Mujahdeen" which translates to "The Supporters of Moujhdeen". The members of this chat room are rabid Al Qaeda supporters. They post communiqués released by Al Qaeda media groups, including terrorist propaganda materials and violent terrorist materials on how to conduct terrorist acts. The members of the chat rooms take the microphone (the voice feature) and talk about Jihad and call for violent terrorist acts.
In the "Ansar Al Mujahdeen" room there have been live interviews conducted with actual Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq. They conducted Q & A sessions with these terrorists. This chat room is well known on Paltalk and the Terrorist Cyberspace. Other terrorist forums refer to what is happening in "Ansar Al Mujahdeen" chat room and they encourage members of the other forums to join this chat room. The advantage of "Ansar Al Mujahdeen" chat room over the other terrorist forums is that it is a live action debate with voice features which make it very attractive for the terrorists.
Last week, after many years of allowing this popular Al Qaeda terrorist chat room to function and after many complaints against the room, Paltalk Corporation finally decided to shut down the "Ansar Al Moujahdeen" chat room. Unfortunately, the chat room is up again under a slightly modified name "Al Ansarr Ansar Al Mougahedeen" with a new owner nickname and many of the members changed their user names (nicknames). I noticed some of the members of the Al Qaeda chat room now have colored nicknames; i.e., they are paying a yearly subscription to Paltalk. In its previous guise, before this terrorist chat room was shut down, these same members had black nicknames; i.e., they did not pay any fee to participate. In addition, many of these electronic Jihadis are paying an annual fee to access the Al Qaeda chat room.
I find it difficult to believe that Paltalk Corporation can be fooled so easily. It remains to be seen whether money and financial profit are the main reason for allowing this Al Qaeda terrorist chat room to restart. But it is an illustration of how powerful the Terrorist Cyberspace is, when Paltalk permits this Al Qaeda terrorist chat room to continue. It is very unfortunate that our US Internet monitoring Counter Terrorism agencies have not forced Paltalk to immediately and permanently shut down these terrorist chat rooms. Perhaps, they believe that they can get actionable intelligence from these rooms. Based on hundreds of hours monitoring of these terrorist chat rooms on Paltalk, I am very convinced that there is no significant actionable intelligence to be obtained from them. In the contrary, these rooms are doing far more damage to the US and the world security with each passing minute as long as they operate.
On the top banner of the Al Ansarr Ansar Al Mougahedeen chat room screen they have link to a You Tube video about the destruction of a US Army HumVee south of Baghdad. In the text screen shown above they are rejoicing the death of 10 UN employees in Algeria who were killed today, December 11, 2007, by Al Qaeda terrorists.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
The Irish Farmer
An Irish farmer walking through his field, notices a man drinking out of a pond.
The Irish farmer shouted:
"Paid a yfed a dwr, maer gwerthin wedi cachu un a for."
Which in Gaelic means:
"Don't drink the water the cows have shit in it."
The man shouts back:
"I'm a Muslim, I don't understand. Please speak in English."
The Irish farmer says:
"Use two hands, it holds more"!!!
The Irish farmer shouted:
"Paid a yfed a dwr, maer gwerthin wedi cachu un a for."
Which in Gaelic means:
"Don't drink the water the cows have shit in it."
The man shouts back:
"I'm a Muslim, I don't understand. Please speak in English."
The Irish farmer says:
"Use two hands, it holds more"!!!
Fear of Islam
December 11, 2007
MSNBC Senior Political Analyst admits he's afraid to criticize Islam publicly.
Lawrence O’Donnell, Jr., is MSNBC’s Senior Political Analyst and a panelist on “The McLaughlin Group.” He has won a reputation over the years for a volcanic temper, and has gained attention recently for an emotional attack on Mormonism. But will he speak out about the elements of Islam that Islamic jihadists are using to recruit and motivate terrorists? Don't hold your breath. Here he is with Hugh Hewitt, via Hot Air:
Lawrence O'Donnell is emblematic of the cowardice of the mainstream media in the face of the biggest crisis of our age. He is no different in this cowardice from virtually everyone else in the mainstream media. The only difference is that he admits it.
MSNBC Senior Political Analyst admits he's afraid to criticize Islam publicly.
Lawrence O’Donnell, Jr., is MSNBC’s Senior Political Analyst and a panelist on “The McLaughlin Group.” He has won a reputation over the years for a volcanic temper, and has gained attention recently for an emotional attack on Mormonism. But will he speak out about the elements of Islam that Islamic jihadists are using to recruit and motivate terrorists? Don't hold your breath. Here he is with Hugh Hewitt, via Hot Air:
HH: Would you say the same things about Mohammed as you just said about Joseph Smith?
LO’D: Oh, well, I’m afraid of what the…that’s where I’m really afraid. I would like to criticize Islam much more than I do publicly, but I’m afraid for my life if I do.
HH: Well, that’s candid.
LO’D: Mormons are the nicest people in the world. They’re not going to ever…
HH: So you can be bigoted towards Mormons, because they’ll just send you a strudel.
LO’D: They’ll never take a shot at me. Those other people, I’m not going to say a word about them.
HH: They’ll send you a strudel. The Mormons will bake you a cake and be nice to you.
LO’D: I agree.
HH: Lawrence O’Donnell, I appreciate your candor.
Lawrence O'Donnell is emblematic of the cowardice of the mainstream media in the face of the biggest crisis of our age. He is no different in this cowardice from virtually everyone else in the mainstream media. The only difference is that he admits it.
Sunday, December 09, 2007
Open Letter from Anti-Cair
The following is the personal opinion of Andrew Whitehead, founder of Anti-CAIR.
On 5 December, JihadWatch posted an article referring to an online posting made by IslamOnline.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019040.php
As I do not speak/read Arabic, I am relying on the translation provided by JihadWatch.
According to JihadWatch's translation, IslamOnline has implied that Anti-CAIR is engaged in activities on behalf of Michael Savage in his lawsuit against the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
While Anti-CAIR supports Savage's free speech rights, we are not spearheading any coalition nor organizing opposition to CAIR's newest group, "Hate Hurts America" (HHA).
My support for Savage, and others attacked by CAIR, is based on my belief in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; that all Americans are created equal; that all Americans have the right to be equal before the law, and that the Constitution, not Islamic law, should be the touchstone of civil society. In my opinion, CAIR does not believe that all people are created equal, does not abide by or believe in the Judeo-Christian values that are the bedrock of our society, nor support the fundamental principles that inform our legal system (a system, however, that CAIR will happily abuse to advance its agenda).
IslamOnline seems offended because Anti-CAIR takes CAIR/HHA to task for failing to defend Daniel Pipes, Steve Emerson, Robert Spencer and Joe Kaufman, calling these distinguished Americans "most hostile to Islam." While these gentlemen do not need me to defend them, I can say I have never heard or read of any of them using hateful language against peaceful Muslims.
Peaceful members of any religion know that they can find sanctuary in the United States. We Americans know, from our founding, what it means to be persecuted for our religious beliefs; we know what it means to be run out of a country. We have reached out to Jews, Catholics, Lutherans, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and even "home grown" religions like the Mormons. All have found America a welcoming place. We are equally welcoming of Islam; but do not make the mistake of assuming our acceptance implies surrender. Islam is welcome - so long as its adherents respect and accept the basic values and practices of our government and our people.
We Americans are, for the most part, a very tolerant people. Radical Islam has mistaken that tolerance for weakness. Radical Islam has completely failed to understand the resolve of most Americans when it comes to the global battle to exterminate radical Islam. Radical Islamists view the statements of some elected "leaders" in support of radical Islam as "proof" that America is on the verge of surrendering Iraq and Afghanistan to radical Islam. They hear the words of some of our leaders and believe that all our leaders are of the opinion that we have lost the battle against Islamist terror.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Radical Islamists tend to originate in countries that have no freedom of speech, nor religion; where the leaders all speak in the same voice; where any type of public dissent is ruthlessly suppressed, all in the "name of Allah". When they hear five or six American congressional leaders saying that the United States has lost the war, they assume that these "leaders" are speaking for America, not understanding that under our Republican Democracy, even America-haters have the opportunity to be elected to high office.
What the editorialists of IslamOnline have failed to understand is that by tolerating groups like CAIR in North America, we are not signaling that we agree with them. After all, we have the Ku Klux Klan and American NAZI Party in the USA as well, but we don't base our public policy on what these these groups might prefer.
If IslamOnline and other peaceful Muslim groups want to show America the peaceful side of Islam, the first step they should take is to disown CAIR.
Andrew Whitehead
Director
Anti-CAIR
ajwhitehead@anti-cair-net.org
www.anti-cair-net.org
On 5 December, JihadWatch posted an article referring to an online posting made by IslamOnline.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019040.php
As I do not speak/read Arabic, I am relying on the translation provided by JihadWatch.
According to JihadWatch's translation, IslamOnline has implied that Anti-CAIR is engaged in activities on behalf of Michael Savage in his lawsuit against the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
While Anti-CAIR supports Savage's free speech rights, we are not spearheading any coalition nor organizing opposition to CAIR's newest group, "Hate Hurts America" (HHA).
My support for Savage, and others attacked by CAIR, is based on my belief in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; that all Americans are created equal; that all Americans have the right to be equal before the law, and that the Constitution, not Islamic law, should be the touchstone of civil society. In my opinion, CAIR does not believe that all people are created equal, does not abide by or believe in the Judeo-Christian values that are the bedrock of our society, nor support the fundamental principles that inform our legal system (a system, however, that CAIR will happily abuse to advance its agenda).
IslamOnline seems offended because Anti-CAIR takes CAIR/HHA to task for failing to defend Daniel Pipes, Steve Emerson, Robert Spencer and Joe Kaufman, calling these distinguished Americans "most hostile to Islam." While these gentlemen do not need me to defend them, I can say I have never heard or read of any of them using hateful language against peaceful Muslims.
Peaceful members of any religion know that they can find sanctuary in the United States. We Americans know, from our founding, what it means to be persecuted for our religious beliefs; we know what it means to be run out of a country. We have reached out to Jews, Catholics, Lutherans, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and even "home grown" religions like the Mormons. All have found America a welcoming place. We are equally welcoming of Islam; but do not make the mistake of assuming our acceptance implies surrender. Islam is welcome - so long as its adherents respect and accept the basic values and practices of our government and our people.
We Americans are, for the most part, a very tolerant people. Radical Islam has mistaken that tolerance for weakness. Radical Islam has completely failed to understand the resolve of most Americans when it comes to the global battle to exterminate radical Islam. Radical Islamists view the statements of some elected "leaders" in support of radical Islam as "proof" that America is on the verge of surrendering Iraq and Afghanistan to radical Islam. They hear the words of some of our leaders and believe that all our leaders are of the opinion that we have lost the battle against Islamist terror.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Radical Islamists tend to originate in countries that have no freedom of speech, nor religion; where the leaders all speak in the same voice; where any type of public dissent is ruthlessly suppressed, all in the "name of Allah". When they hear five or six American congressional leaders saying that the United States has lost the war, they assume that these "leaders" are speaking for America, not understanding that under our Republican Democracy, even America-haters have the opportunity to be elected to high office.
What the editorialists of IslamOnline have failed to understand is that by tolerating groups like CAIR in North America, we are not signaling that we agree with them. After all, we have the Ku Klux Klan and American NAZI Party in the USA as well, but we don't base our public policy on what these these groups might prefer.
If IslamOnline and other peaceful Muslim groups want to show America the peaceful side of Islam, the first step they should take is to disown CAIR.
Andrew Whitehead
Director
Anti-CAIR
ajwhitehead@anti-cair-net.org
www.anti-cair-net.org
Friday, December 07, 2007
Outside, Looking In ...
We rarely get a chance to see another country's editorial about the USA .
Read this excerpt from a Romanian Newspaper. The article was written by Mr. Cornel Nistorescu and published under the title 'C'ntarea Americii, meaning 'Ode To America' in the Romanian newspaper Evenimentulzilei 'The Daily Event' or 'News of the Day'
~An Ode to America~
Why are Americans so united? They would not resemble one another even if you painted them all one color! They speak all the languages of the world and form an astonishing mixture of civilizations and religious beliefs.
Still, the American tragedy turned three hundred million people into a hand put on the heart.
Nobody rushed to accuse the White House, the Army, or the Secret Service that they are only a bunch of losers.
Nobody rushed to empty their bank accounts.
Nobody rushed out onto the streets nearby to gape about.
Instead the Americans volunteered to donate blood and to give a helping hand.
After the first moments of panic, they raised their flag over the smoking ruins, putting on T-shirts, caps and ties in the colors of the national flag. They placed flags on buildings and cars as if in every place and on every car a government official or the president was passing. On every occasion, they started singing:'God Bless America!'
I watched the live broadcast and rerun after rerun for hours listening to the story of the guy who went down one hundred floors with a woman in a wheelchair without knowing who she was, or of the Californian hockey player, who gave his life fighting with the terrorists and prevented the plane from hitting a target that could have killed other hundreds or thousands of people.
How on earth were they able to respond united as one human being? Imperceptibly, with every word and musical note, the memory of some turned into a modern myth of tragic heroes. And with every phone call, millions and millions of dollars were put into a collection aimed at rewarding not a man or a family, but a spirit, which no money can buy.
What on earth can unite the Americans in such a way?
Their land? Their history? Their economic Power? Money?
I tried for hours to find an answer, humming songs and murmuring phrases with the risk of sounding commonplace, I thought things over, I reached but only one conclusion... Only freedom can work such miracles.
Cornel Nistorescu
Read this excerpt from a Romanian Newspaper. The article was written by Mr. Cornel Nistorescu and published under the title 'C'ntarea Americii, meaning 'Ode To America' in the Romanian newspaper Evenimentulzilei 'The Daily Event' or 'News of the Day'
~An Ode to America~
Why are Americans so united? They would not resemble one another even if you painted them all one color! They speak all the languages of the world and form an astonishing mixture of civilizations and religious beliefs.
Still, the American tragedy turned three hundred million people into a hand put on the heart.
Nobody rushed to accuse the White House, the Army, or the Secret Service that they are only a bunch of losers.
Nobody rushed to empty their bank accounts.
Nobody rushed out onto the streets nearby to gape about.
Instead the Americans volunteered to donate blood and to give a helping hand.
After the first moments of panic, they raised their flag over the smoking ruins, putting on T-shirts, caps and ties in the colors of the national flag. They placed flags on buildings and cars as if in every place and on every car a government official or the president was passing. On every occasion, they started singing:'God Bless America!'
I watched the live broadcast and rerun after rerun for hours listening to the story of the guy who went down one hundred floors with a woman in a wheelchair without knowing who she was, or of the Californian hockey player, who gave his life fighting with the terrorists and prevented the plane from hitting a target that could have killed other hundreds or thousands of people.
How on earth were they able to respond united as one human being? Imperceptibly, with every word and musical note, the memory of some turned into a modern myth of tragic heroes. And with every phone call, millions and millions of dollars were put into a collection aimed at rewarding not a man or a family, but a spirit, which no money can buy.
What on earth can unite the Americans in such a way?
Their land? Their history? Their economic Power? Money?
I tried for hours to find an answer, humming songs and murmuring phrases with the risk of sounding commonplace, I thought things over, I reached but only one conclusion... Only freedom can work such miracles.
Cornel Nistorescu
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Iran's Nuclear Weapons Program
Decoding the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate
on Iran's Nuclear Weapons Program
Jerusalem Data Brief
http://www.jcpa.org
Gerald M. Steinberg
The U.S. government's latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) has concluded that Iran froze its active efforts to manufacture nuclear weapons in 2003, and will not have such a capability until at least 2012. While the NIE states that the U.S. intelligence community has "high confidence" that the Iranians halted their nuclear weapons program in 2003, it also states that it has only "moderate confidence" that Tehran has not restarted the program.
In contrast, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has said that while it is "apparently true that in 2003, Iran stopped pursuing its military nuclear program for a certain period of time," nonetheless, he adds that "in our estimation, since then it is apparently continuing with its program to produce a nuclear weapon."
A number of factors can explain these differences in assessments. Israel, the prime potential target for a nuclear Iran, cannot afford to take the chance of underestimating the threat, and therefore relies on what policy-makers refer to as a "worst-case" analysis. This means that the focus is on Iranian capabilities, rather than intentions, which can only be guessed.
Israeli analysts have long warned their U.S. counterparts about the potential for a parallel "black" Iranian weapons program, based on a small nuclear reactor producing plutonium, and following the North Korean model. Indeed, Iran is known to be constructing just such a reactor at Arak, leaving room for another undetected facility.
From the portions of the NIE report that have been released, it appears that much of the assessment is based not on technical capabilities and information gathered from satellites and other sources, but rather on attempts to understand Iranian intentions. But intentions are the most unreliable dimension in the realm of intelligence, and often reflect the interests, biases, and expectations of the assessor.
The U.S. government's latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) has concluded that Iran froze its active efforts to manufacture nuclear weapons in 2003, and will not have such a capability until at least 2012. While the NIE states that the U.S. intelligence community has "high confidence" that the Iranians halted their nuclear weapons program in 2003, it also states that it has only "moderate confidence" that Tehran has not restarted the program.1 In contrast, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has said that while it is "apparently true that in 2003, Iran stopped pursuing its military nuclear program for a certain period of time," nonetheless, he adds that "in our estimation, since then it is apparently continuing with its program to produce a nuclear weapon."2
This assessment contrasts sharply with estimates that, if left undisturbed, Iran will cross the threshold in the next year or two - and the evidence for the NIE's sweeping claim is unclear. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recently confirmed official Iranian claims to have completed construction of the 3,000 centrifuges necessary to produce enough highly enriched uranium for at least one nuclear weapon per year. This is also the basis for the statements from Israeli military and intelligence officials which view the next year - 2008 - as critical for stopping Iran before the finish line.
A number of factors can explain these differences in assessments. Israel, the prime potential target for a nuclear Iran, cannot afford to take the chance of underestimating the threat, and therefore relies on what policy-makers refer to as a "worst-case" analysis. This means that the focus is on Iranian capabilities, rather than intentions, which can only be guessed.
Using this approach, when Iran reaches the technological potential to produce enough fissile material necessary to make a nuclear weapon, it will be considered to be a nuclear weapons state, capable of threatening Israel with annihilation. And while the details of Iran's weapons fabrication efforts can be hidden and are less likely to be known to intelligence agencies, the operating assumption is that there are secret facilities where this may be taking place. Indeed, Israeli analysts have long warned their U.S. counterparts about the potential for a parallel "black" Iranian weapons program, based on a small nuclear reactor producing plutonium, and following the North Korean model. Indeed, Iran is known to be constructing just such a reactor at Arak, leaving room for another undetected facility.
The consequences of a small, secret Iranian nuclear program are less significant for the U.S., given its massive military superiority over Iran. Therefore, there is more room for political factors and influence in the official U.S. estimates. After having warned of a massive Iraqi program to produce weapons of mass destruction in 2003, and then finding no evidence following the invasion, the U.S. intelligence agencies may be trying to restore their image by going to the other extreme and underestimating the pace of Iran's nuclear weapons program. And Iran may very well continue to face difficulties in operating a very complex system of thousands of centrifuges spinning in unison and moving uranium to ever higher levels of enrichment without contamination.
However, from the portions of the NIE report that have been released, it appears that much of the assessment is based not only on technical capabilities and information gathered from satellites and other sources, but rather on attempts to understand Iranian intentions. But intentions are the most unreliable dimension in the realm of intelligence, and often reflect the interests, biases, and expectations of the assessor. While the construction of a massive centrifuge facility at Natanz to produce weapons grade uranium may not be the optimum path to nuclear weapons from an American perspective, this may be the best option open to Iran, and cannot be discounted. The scale and cost of the Natanz nuclear complex, as well as the plutonium production reactor and other facilities are not consistent with a program limited to producing low-enriched uranium for energy production. This makes no economic sense.
The NIE report touches on the Iranian plutonium program: "We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015." But the NIE also takes into consideration that such materials might be imported: "We cannot rule out that Iran has acquired from abroad - or will acquire in the future - a nuclear weapon or enough fissile material for a weapon." U.S. arms control experts specializing in North Korea have indeed warned in the past about the scenario of North Korean exports of plutonium products to Iran as a possible shortcut to producing an Iranian bomb.3
Although President Bush responded to the NIE report by reconfirming his determination to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, the threat of attack from the U.S. in the next five years is now much less credible. Given the disquiet in the U.S. over the status of the situation in Iraq, and with an official assessment stating that Iran gave up its program to develop nuclear weapons four years ago, the president would face very strong opposition to any decision ordering U.S. forces into battle again. And the fear of a potential Iranian counterattack, in the form of mass terror and possible missile attacks against American assets in the region, would increase this opposition.
As a result, a number of Israeli analysts and officials have expressed concern and even dismay over the NIE report and its implications. Israeli officials reject the NIE conclusions, and, as noted, view the threat as far more imminent. If Israeli intelligence concludes that the red lines are closer than those perceived in the U.S., Israel could still use force unilaterally (as was the case in Prime Minister Begin's decision to destroy Iraq's Osiraq reactor in 1981). But Israeli officials have sought to avoid a situation of needing to act unilaterally again.
For Iran, the sudden change in the U.S. assessment contained in the NIE report is a mixed blessing. The good news for the Islamic regime is that the odds of American military action have declined, at least for the time being. Iran can apparently continue to develop its centrifuges and reactors without fear of a sudden U.S.-led attack, and the odds of overt Israeli action have probably also declined.
However, the intense Iranian effort to be seen as a nuclear power that can no longer be stopped has been clearly exposed as a bluff. President Ahmedinejad and other officials have invested heavily in the attempt to portray the Iranian nuclear capability as a fait accompli that must be accepted in the region and around the world. And they have been aided at times by Dr. Mohammed El Baradei, the Director General of the IAEA.
Now, however, the Iranian leadership and an increasingly restless public face at least five more years of sanctions, international isolation, and pressure. And Dr. El Baradei has pulled back from granting Iran immunity from sanctions by highlighting the history of deceit and calling for full cooperation from Teheran. Indeed, following the U.S. report, the leaders of Europe, as well as China and Russia, have reiterated the dangers that would result from an Iranian nuclear weapon capability. Thus, the celebrations in Iran may be short-sighted and short-lived. The economic and diplomatic pressure is likely to continue and even increase.
The bottom line, as noted in the NIE report and by President Bush, is that Iranian nuclear efforts remain dangerous, and that there is still time to prevent this radical regime from acquiring these weapons. How much time remains the subject of debate, and the NIE conclusions are tentative and subject to revision at any time as new information becomes available. To its credit, the NIE report admits the limitations of the U.S. intelligence community with respect to its ability to determine that the 2003 halt in the Iranian weapons program is permanent: "We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge whether Tehran is willing to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely." Clearly, the NIE conclusions now appearing in the press are not the end of the story.
on Iran's Nuclear Weapons Program
Jerusalem Data Brief
http://www.jcpa.org
Gerald M. Steinberg
The U.S. government's latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) has concluded that Iran froze its active efforts to manufacture nuclear weapons in 2003, and will not have such a capability until at least 2012. While the NIE states that the U.S. intelligence community has "high confidence" that the Iranians halted their nuclear weapons program in 2003, it also states that it has only "moderate confidence" that Tehran has not restarted the program.
In contrast, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has said that while it is "apparently true that in 2003, Iran stopped pursuing its military nuclear program for a certain period of time," nonetheless, he adds that "in our estimation, since then it is apparently continuing with its program to produce a nuclear weapon."
A number of factors can explain these differences in assessments. Israel, the prime potential target for a nuclear Iran, cannot afford to take the chance of underestimating the threat, and therefore relies on what policy-makers refer to as a "worst-case" analysis. This means that the focus is on Iranian capabilities, rather than intentions, which can only be guessed.
Israeli analysts have long warned their U.S. counterparts about the potential for a parallel "black" Iranian weapons program, based on a small nuclear reactor producing plutonium, and following the North Korean model. Indeed, Iran is known to be constructing just such a reactor at Arak, leaving room for another undetected facility.
From the portions of the NIE report that have been released, it appears that much of the assessment is based not on technical capabilities and information gathered from satellites and other sources, but rather on attempts to understand Iranian intentions. But intentions are the most unreliable dimension in the realm of intelligence, and often reflect the interests, biases, and expectations of the assessor.
The U.S. government's latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) has concluded that Iran froze its active efforts to manufacture nuclear weapons in 2003, and will not have such a capability until at least 2012. While the NIE states that the U.S. intelligence community has "high confidence" that the Iranians halted their nuclear weapons program in 2003, it also states that it has only "moderate confidence" that Tehran has not restarted the program.1 In contrast, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has said that while it is "apparently true that in 2003, Iran stopped pursuing its military nuclear program for a certain period of time," nonetheless, he adds that "in our estimation, since then it is apparently continuing with its program to produce a nuclear weapon."2
This assessment contrasts sharply with estimates that, if left undisturbed, Iran will cross the threshold in the next year or two - and the evidence for the NIE's sweeping claim is unclear. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recently confirmed official Iranian claims to have completed construction of the 3,000 centrifuges necessary to produce enough highly enriched uranium for at least one nuclear weapon per year. This is also the basis for the statements from Israeli military and intelligence officials which view the next year - 2008 - as critical for stopping Iran before the finish line.
A number of factors can explain these differences in assessments. Israel, the prime potential target for a nuclear Iran, cannot afford to take the chance of underestimating the threat, and therefore relies on what policy-makers refer to as a "worst-case" analysis. This means that the focus is on Iranian capabilities, rather than intentions, which can only be guessed.
Using this approach, when Iran reaches the technological potential to produce enough fissile material necessary to make a nuclear weapon, it will be considered to be a nuclear weapons state, capable of threatening Israel with annihilation. And while the details of Iran's weapons fabrication efforts can be hidden and are less likely to be known to intelligence agencies, the operating assumption is that there are secret facilities where this may be taking place. Indeed, Israeli analysts have long warned their U.S. counterparts about the potential for a parallel "black" Iranian weapons program, based on a small nuclear reactor producing plutonium, and following the North Korean model. Indeed, Iran is known to be constructing just such a reactor at Arak, leaving room for another undetected facility.
The consequences of a small, secret Iranian nuclear program are less significant for the U.S., given its massive military superiority over Iran. Therefore, there is more room for political factors and influence in the official U.S. estimates. After having warned of a massive Iraqi program to produce weapons of mass destruction in 2003, and then finding no evidence following the invasion, the U.S. intelligence agencies may be trying to restore their image by going to the other extreme and underestimating the pace of Iran's nuclear weapons program. And Iran may very well continue to face difficulties in operating a very complex system of thousands of centrifuges spinning in unison and moving uranium to ever higher levels of enrichment without contamination.
However, from the portions of the NIE report that have been released, it appears that much of the assessment is based not only on technical capabilities and information gathered from satellites and other sources, but rather on attempts to understand Iranian intentions. But intentions are the most unreliable dimension in the realm of intelligence, and often reflect the interests, biases, and expectations of the assessor. While the construction of a massive centrifuge facility at Natanz to produce weapons grade uranium may not be the optimum path to nuclear weapons from an American perspective, this may be the best option open to Iran, and cannot be discounted. The scale and cost of the Natanz nuclear complex, as well as the plutonium production reactor and other facilities are not consistent with a program limited to producing low-enriched uranium for energy production. This makes no economic sense.
The NIE report touches on the Iranian plutonium program: "We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015." But the NIE also takes into consideration that such materials might be imported: "We cannot rule out that Iran has acquired from abroad - or will acquire in the future - a nuclear weapon or enough fissile material for a weapon." U.S. arms control experts specializing in North Korea have indeed warned in the past about the scenario of North Korean exports of plutonium products to Iran as a possible shortcut to producing an Iranian bomb.3
Although President Bush responded to the NIE report by reconfirming his determination to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, the threat of attack from the U.S. in the next five years is now much less credible. Given the disquiet in the U.S. over the status of the situation in Iraq, and with an official assessment stating that Iran gave up its program to develop nuclear weapons four years ago, the president would face very strong opposition to any decision ordering U.S. forces into battle again. And the fear of a potential Iranian counterattack, in the form of mass terror and possible missile attacks against American assets in the region, would increase this opposition.
As a result, a number of Israeli analysts and officials have expressed concern and even dismay over the NIE report and its implications. Israeli officials reject the NIE conclusions, and, as noted, view the threat as far more imminent. If Israeli intelligence concludes that the red lines are closer than those perceived in the U.S., Israel could still use force unilaterally (as was the case in Prime Minister Begin's decision to destroy Iraq's Osiraq reactor in 1981). But Israeli officials have sought to avoid a situation of needing to act unilaterally again.
For Iran, the sudden change in the U.S. assessment contained in the NIE report is a mixed blessing. The good news for the Islamic regime is that the odds of American military action have declined, at least for the time being. Iran can apparently continue to develop its centrifuges and reactors without fear of a sudden U.S.-led attack, and the odds of overt Israeli action have probably also declined.
However, the intense Iranian effort to be seen as a nuclear power that can no longer be stopped has been clearly exposed as a bluff. President Ahmedinejad and other officials have invested heavily in the attempt to portray the Iranian nuclear capability as a fait accompli that must be accepted in the region and around the world. And they have been aided at times by Dr. Mohammed El Baradei, the Director General of the IAEA.
Now, however, the Iranian leadership and an increasingly restless public face at least five more years of sanctions, international isolation, and pressure. And Dr. El Baradei has pulled back from granting Iran immunity from sanctions by highlighting the history of deceit and calling for full cooperation from Teheran. Indeed, following the U.S. report, the leaders of Europe, as well as China and Russia, have reiterated the dangers that would result from an Iranian nuclear weapon capability. Thus, the celebrations in Iran may be short-sighted and short-lived. The economic and diplomatic pressure is likely to continue and even increase.
The bottom line, as noted in the NIE report and by President Bush, is that Iranian nuclear efforts remain dangerous, and that there is still time to prevent this radical regime from acquiring these weapons. How much time remains the subject of debate, and the NIE conclusions are tentative and subject to revision at any time as new information becomes available. To its credit, the NIE report admits the limitations of the U.S. intelligence community with respect to its ability to determine that the 2003 halt in the Iranian weapons program is permanent: "We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge whether Tehran is willing to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely." Clearly, the NIE conclusions now appearing in the press are not the end of the story.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Muslim Media Guide
The November 19, 2007, issue of PR Week (www.prweek.com) reports that CAIR (The Council on American-Islamic Relations) has created a media guide for journalists intended to “disabuse journalists of misinformation about the religion.”
What kind of “misinformation”? That the Quran teaches violence and that Islam does not respect women’s rights are two of the notable examples of “misinformation” the guide wants to address.
Why is CAIR putting money and effort into releasing a media guide entitled American Muslims: A Journalist’s Guide to Understanding Islam and Muslims?
Clearly, CAIR is concerned.
You see, up until the past few years very little accurate information was readily available to the public about what the Quran and the Hadith really say and what the life of Muhammed was really like. Colleges and universities that had Middle Eastern studies departments typically taught a sanitized, whitewashed version of Islam that ignored, rationalized or hid the truth about doctrinal and historical Islam.
Today, however, organizations like ACT for America, American Congress for Truth, and many others, are providing the American public with a clear understanding of the violence, bigotry, hatred and subjugation that is at the heart of doctrinal and historic Islam. Americans are beginning to understand that Islam is as much a political ideology of force and conquest as it is a religious belief.
CAIR will succeed in its efforts to repackage Islam only if Americans fail to look past CAIR’s public relations efforts. CAIR will fail if Americans (and American journalists) simply do a little research for themselves.
If it’s “misinformation” to assert that the Quran, the Hadith, and the words of Muhammed advocate violence and the subjugation of “infidels,” how does one explain the following?
“Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war." Qur’an:9:5
"Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission." Qur’an:9:29
"Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah." Qur’an:8:39
"So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)." Qur’an:8:39
"He said, ‘Fight them so that there is no more rebellion, and religion, all of it, is for Allah only. Allah must have no rivals.'” Ishaq:324
"Fight the unbelievers around you, and let them find harshness in you." Qur’an:9:123
These are but a handful of the hundreds of passages that exhort Muslims to kill and conquer infidels in the name of Allah. These are not words that have been fabricated by those intent on misrepresenting Islam and Muslims. Among the major religions of the world, Islam stands alone in its call to conquer “unbelievers” with the objective to forcefully convert or subjugate the entire world. Islam stands alone as a religion that commands forced conversion, submission or death in the name of its god.
To read more passages, sorted by topic, go to www.prophetofdoom.net.
The “perception problem” that CAIR is so concerned about is not the result of ill will from non-Muslims or stereotyping by those intent on misrepresenting Islam. The perception problem is rooted in the truth and history of Islam.
• The over 9,000 terrorist acts committed in the name of Islam since 9/11...
• The deadly worldwide riots protesting political caricature cartoons of Muhammed...
• The 26% of American Muslims under the age of 30 who approve of suicide bombings...
• The exhortations by Muslim clerics in America that American constitutional law must be overthrown and replaced by Islamic sharia law...
• The literature in American mosques that depict Jews as “apes” and “pigs”...
...are not some wild deviation from a religion that has, through its doctrines and history, advocated peace and tolerance. They are the inevitable fruit emanating from a root that advocates advancing the will of Allah through violence, terror, and conquest.
Are there peaceful Muslims? Of course – millions and millions of them. That there are doesn’t alter the truth of what Islam’s doctrines propagate.
CAIR and its allies have their work cut out for them. For years they have made progress, foisting a whitewashed version of Islam on America. But as the truth reaches more and more people, groups like CAIR must resort to propaganda techniques, such as calling people “Islamophobes” and “bigots,” and the publication of “media guides” intended to mislead journalists who report the news.
But they will succeed in their efforts if we sit back and do nothing. One of our ACT for America objectives is to counter political correctness and disinformation, from whatever its source, that misleads people about the true nature of political Islam.
What kind of “misinformation”? That the Quran teaches violence and that Islam does not respect women’s rights are two of the notable examples of “misinformation” the guide wants to address.
Why is CAIR putting money and effort into releasing a media guide entitled American Muslims: A Journalist’s Guide to Understanding Islam and Muslims?
Clearly, CAIR is concerned.
You see, up until the past few years very little accurate information was readily available to the public about what the Quran and the Hadith really say and what the life of Muhammed was really like. Colleges and universities that had Middle Eastern studies departments typically taught a sanitized, whitewashed version of Islam that ignored, rationalized or hid the truth about doctrinal and historical Islam.
Today, however, organizations like ACT for America, American Congress for Truth, and many others, are providing the American public with a clear understanding of the violence, bigotry, hatred and subjugation that is at the heart of doctrinal and historic Islam. Americans are beginning to understand that Islam is as much a political ideology of force and conquest as it is a religious belief.
CAIR will succeed in its efforts to repackage Islam only if Americans fail to look past CAIR’s public relations efforts. CAIR will fail if Americans (and American journalists) simply do a little research for themselves.
If it’s “misinformation” to assert that the Quran, the Hadith, and the words of Muhammed advocate violence and the subjugation of “infidels,” how does one explain the following?
“Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war." Qur’an:9:5
"Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission." Qur’an:9:29
"Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah." Qur’an:8:39
"So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)." Qur’an:8:39
"He said, ‘Fight them so that there is no more rebellion, and religion, all of it, is for Allah only. Allah must have no rivals.'” Ishaq:324
"Fight the unbelievers around you, and let them find harshness in you." Qur’an:9:123
These are but a handful of the hundreds of passages that exhort Muslims to kill and conquer infidels in the name of Allah. These are not words that have been fabricated by those intent on misrepresenting Islam and Muslims. Among the major religions of the world, Islam stands alone in its call to conquer “unbelievers” with the objective to forcefully convert or subjugate the entire world. Islam stands alone as a religion that commands forced conversion, submission or death in the name of its god.
To read more passages, sorted by topic, go to www.prophetofdoom.net.
The “perception problem” that CAIR is so concerned about is not the result of ill will from non-Muslims or stereotyping by those intent on misrepresenting Islam. The perception problem is rooted in the truth and history of Islam.
• The over 9,000 terrorist acts committed in the name of Islam since 9/11...
• The deadly worldwide riots protesting political caricature cartoons of Muhammed...
• The 26% of American Muslims under the age of 30 who approve of suicide bombings...
• The exhortations by Muslim clerics in America that American constitutional law must be overthrown and replaced by Islamic sharia law...
• The literature in American mosques that depict Jews as “apes” and “pigs”...
...are not some wild deviation from a religion that has, through its doctrines and history, advocated peace and tolerance. They are the inevitable fruit emanating from a root that advocates advancing the will of Allah through violence, terror, and conquest.
Are there peaceful Muslims? Of course – millions and millions of them. That there are doesn’t alter the truth of what Islam’s doctrines propagate.
CAIR and its allies have their work cut out for them. For years they have made progress, foisting a whitewashed version of Islam on America. But as the truth reaches more and more people, groups like CAIR must resort to propaganda techniques, such as calling people “Islamophobes” and “bigots,” and the publication of “media guides” intended to mislead journalists who report the news.
But they will succeed in their efforts if we sit back and do nothing. One of our ACT for America objectives is to counter political correctness and disinformation, from whatever its source, that misleads people about the true nature of political Islam.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)