THE PROBLEM IS ISLAM. (PART 1)
POSTED BY ANN BARNHARDT - MARCH 21, AD 2011 1:34 PM MST
It’s time again for me to lay down in writing a simple, obvious truth that everyone else is just too terrified to state. This is another one of those essays that will serve to permanently disqualify me from any vocation except self-employment for the duration of my life. So hold on to your pantyhose and put out the cat, because you know this is going to be a good read.
The issue is the muslim world. Libya. Was it right for Obama to FINALLY make a decision and move our military assets into the Libyan theater? Should we be intervening in Yemen? Should we lend tangible support to the Iranian opposition? What should have been done differently in Egypt? Was Mubarak better than a “democratically” installed Sharia theocracy? What are we supposed to be doing in all of this? Who are we supposed to be rooting for? There has to be a “right answer”, and there has to be a correct course of action in all of this.
The reason why no one can come to anything that remotely approaches a definitive “right answer” to this problem is because no one has the balls to acknowledge what the problem is. The problem is not a lack of democracy. As we are clearly seeing now, and as history repeatedly confirms, the most evil political systems ever seen on earth have ascended to power with the support of more than 50% of the populace. Therefore, democracy, or any form of representative government can not, in and of itself, be the “right answer”. The only way we are ever going to arrive at the right answer is if we first ask and honestly answer the following question: What exactly is the problem?
The problem is islam.
Let me say that again so that there is absolutely no confusion. The problem is islam. So long as islam exists on earth, there will be no peace, and there will be no freedom for those trapped inside of it. So long as islam exists, it will continue to stir up violence, aggression, war, terrorism, instability, injustice, human slavery, hopelessness, suffering, despair and unnatural, needless death. Why? BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO DO. All of those qualities are intrinsic, constitutive qualities of islam. It is a satanic system that was specifically created to be the Enemy’s response to Christ.
Mohammed did not hear a voice which he transcribed and called “the koran”. He simply sat down and wrote out a political manifesto – claiming in fully calculated deceit that it was divine - that would enable him to raise an army. There was nothing miraculous about the origin of islam in that sense. One of the obvious confirmations of this is the quality of the prose itself. If “allah” actually wrote the koran and mohammed merely transcribed it, then allah is an idiot with exceptionally poor language and composition skills. The koran reads as if it were written by a mentally deranged, barely literate Bedouin pedophile pirate con-artist . . . because it was. BUT, the system itself and the spirit of inspiration behind it is completely satanic. Islam and the koran are completely satanic in the same sense that Marxism and “The Communist Manifesto” are satanic, and in the same sense that Nazism and “Mein Kampf” are satanic. Oh, yes. The Serpent is subtle. Satan does his best work when he is merely “whispering” subconscious inspiration to fallen men. Given that islam has persisted for 1400 years and now enslaves a quarter of the human population, it is clearly satan’s masterpiece.
Given this reality, there are exactly two tactical options for the civilized world to choose from.
1. Completely isolate the muslim world. Let them have their caliphate but in a state of total quarantine.
This would involve establishing massive physical perimeter barriers on land and maintaining blockades at sea for all muslim territories. Presumably this would stretch from Morocco to Indonesia, and would be massively expensive both to construct and secure. In addition to this, all muslims would have to be expelled from all civilized nations and forcibly returned to muslim territory. In order for this to work, all civilized nations on earth would have to unite in solidarity against islam and cooperate fully and completely in building, maintaining and securing the borders.
Additionally, the quarantine would have to be TOTAL, meaning absolutely no interaction – including economic interaction. Therefore, before this strategy could be undertaken, the civilized world would need to completely free itself of any dependence on oil pumped from muslim territory.
Further, this strategy, while appearing to be the most “non-violent” option is actually the most violent, and would be a de facto death sentence, both physically and spiritually, for every person trapped inside the caliphate. Assuming that the perimeter could be constructed and then sealed, the muslim culture would necessarily begin to murder and consume itself. Remember, islam is violence, aggression, war, terrorism, instability, injustice, human slavery, hopelessness, suffering, despair and unnatural, needless death. If muslims aren’t in a position to kill “infidels”, they will simply turn on each other. This is already a proven fact, and has been for 1400 years. Sunni and Shia muslims have been at each other’s throats all along, and still are today. Only in very rare instances, such as the wars of aggression begun by muslims called “the Crusades”, wherein muslim unity was needed to fight the “infidels”, has there been any real muslim unity. Because islam has no central authority or magesterium, unlike Christianity which was specifically established by Christ Himself with a divinely protected structure of authority and infallible teaching charism, islam allows for every single self-ordained “imam” to be his own “pope” who can then alter, decide and concoct “doctrine”, and to also issue “fatwas” against any competing cleric, or entire groups of people. Islam has been specifically designed to discourage unity, thus always fomenting and encouraging conflicts and wars within the caliphate itself.
Next, islam is incapable of supporting a vibrant economy. Islam teaches that all human endeavors and productivity are contrary to the will of allah. Any person who spends any time or effort doing anything except studying the koran and praying to allah is an infidel. Additionally, islam teaches that the only way that a person can be GUARANTEED of “salvation” or “paradise” is to die in jihad. Therefore, muslims will ALWAYS be in a state of war against someone, including other muslims, because if there were total peace, there would be no means to achieve “salvation” according to muslim teaching.
Finally, the quarantine option would be a failure in charity on the part of Christendom. By quarantining these people, we would be giving up on them, which is the opposite of charity, or love. Quarantined muslims would have absolutely no chance or hope of hearing the Gospel, and would have no hope of ever escaping the cult of islam. While this option might serve to help keep our hands physically clean, we would have the spiritual stain of our failure in charity to answer for upon our judgement.
THE PROBLEM IS ISLAM. (PART 2)
POSTED BY ANN BARNHARDT - MARCH 21, AD 2011 1:32 PM MST
This brings us to option #2, which is actually the more viable and certainly the more loving and charitable option.
2. Fight a Final Crusade and exterminate islam from the face of the earth once and for all.
Yep. I said it, and I mean it. This option isn’t really an “option” at all, because this is where we are heading whether we like it or not. There is going to be a massive, final war between islam and the civilized world at some point. The only real question is, how long are we going to stall it off? A week? A month? A year? A decade? A century? Some would argue that the Final Crusade actually began on 9/11, and that we have been fighting minor skirmishes ever since. Perhaps. If that is the case, the civilized world clearly does not understand that it is in a fight for its very survival. There isn’t room enough in this world for both human civilization AND islam. One side is going to be destroyed by the other. If islam wins, then humanity will be dead as well, because it will be just a matter of time before islam consumes itself, as outlined above. If civilization wins, humanity will continue, knowledge and technology will increase, there will be joy and laughter and goodness, and human beings will be free to seek and find God. In this way, islam is exactly like cancer. Either a person destroys the cancer within them and survives, or the cancer wins and both the person AND the cancer die. Given that the civilized world still doesn’t understand what is going on, I don’t think it is fair to say that the Final Crusade has begun. It will begin when we comprehend that it is us or them – kill or be killed. Let’s do a quick exercise in linguistics which will prove that extermination of the islamic political system is the only real, practical and charitable option that we have.
Consider the following statement:
The Nazi Party, its philosophy and goal set was evil and had to be stopped. There is no room for the Nazi philosophy in a civilized world, and thus the only acceptable outcome of World War II was the total extermination of the Nazi Party. While the main objective of fighting World War II was to repel and then exterminate the Nazi scourge from overrun nations, the secondary objective was also to liberate the German people themselves from the bonds of the totalitarian Nazi regime.
Now, let’s look at the same statement, but replace “Nazi” with “muslim”:
Islam, its philosophy and goal set is evil and has to be stopped. There is no room for the muslim philosophy in a civilized world, and thus the only acceptable outcome of the Final Crusade is the total extermination of islam. While the main objective of fighting the Final Crusade is to repel and then exterminate the muslim scourge from overrun nations, the secondary objective is also to liberate the currently-muslim people themselves from the bonds of the totalitarian muslim caliphate.
The two statements are pluperfect analogues because Nazism and islam are pluperfect analogues. Both are TOTALITARIAN POLITICAL SYSTEMS. The only tactical difference is that mohammed used the beard of religion and claimed divine inspiration right out of the gate. This has allowed islam to use civilization’s own freedom of religious conscience principle against it. Hitler was indeed trying to slowly create a new pagan religion, with the German/Aryan nation cast as “the father”, Hitler himself cast as “the son” and the “messiah”, and the Nazi Party as “the holy spirit”, but was never far enough along in that process to be able to wield the accusation of “intolerance”. To illustrate this point, let’s reverse our linguistic example:
Islam is a religion and thus is equal to all other religions. Islam is protected under the First Amendment, and all civilized people must fight to defend a person’s right to practice islam completely unencumbered. Islam seeks only peace through the voluntary application of Sharia law. Just because some muslims have used violence as a way of advancing their cause does not mean that all muslims are violent. Violence is a perversion of true Islamic philosophy. Most muslims are peace-loving, and we should support and embrace them into our culture.
Now, the same statement, but replacing “muslim” with “Nazi”.
Nazism is a religion and thus is equal to all other religions. Nazism is protected under the First Amendment, and all civilized people must fight to defend a person’s right to practice Nazism completely unencumbered. Nazism seeks only peace through the voluntary application of the laws of the Third Reich. Just because some Nazis have used violence as a way of advancing their cause does not mean that all Nazis are violent. Violence is a perversion of true Nazi philosophy. Most Nazis are peace-loving, and we should support and embrace them in our culture.
Have I made my point?
(Aside: How long do you think it will take some leftist to pull that last paragraph, put my name over it as the author, and then claim that they have proof that I am a Nazi? That’s how these sad, pathetic people roll. It WILL happen. It’s just a matter of how long it takes them to do it. C’est la vie.)
We don’t flinch at the reality of Nazism, nor at the necessity to exterminate it from the face of the earth, because we accurately call it what it is: a totalitarian political system. But because we have been brainwashed and conditioned by the left to self-loathe our own Judeo-Christian culture, reject critical thinking, and embrace islam as a constitutionally-protected religion, we refuse to acknowledge the plain, simple fact there will be no peace unless and until islam is exterminated from the face of the earth. We keep telling ourselves that “democracy” is the answer and that if we just facilitate voting in muslim countries, everything will be fine, and the entire world will be enveloped in peace, rainbows, gumdrops and unicorn farts. Because all “religions” are good and equal, and anyone who says different is a bigot and an intolerant hater.
There is going to be a war. A big one. Probably the biggest ever. But it has to be fought, because the stakes are no less than the fate of the entire human race. The problem is islam. There is no such thing as a "healthy muslim society" because islam is a cancer upon human civilization. The solution is nothing less than the complete extermination of the muslim political system in order to save the people inside of it. If you have a cancerous tumor, you cut it out - you don't try to fix the person while simultaneously protecting the tumor. We have done this before. We did this just seventy short years ago. We CAN do it again. All we need is the courage to face the truth, and the fortitude to do what we know we must.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
FBI Confirms CAIR Ties Cut ... Finally
March 22, 2011
FBI chief confirms ties cut to CAIR
The WorldNetDaily story below reports that during congressional testimony last week FBI Director Robert Mueller confirmed that the FBI has no formal outreach relationship with CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
At long last Director Mueller has acknowledged what the FBI has been doing since it cut off such outreach efforts two years ago. Even “establishment media” outlets such as the Washington Post have finally published reports about CAIR’s links to terrorism. Better late than never!
FBI chief confirms ties cut with U.S. Muslim group
Agency bans outreach due to terrorist links
Posted: March 18, 2011
2:00 am Eastern
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=276289
© 2011 WorldNetDaily
In stunning testimony on Capitol Hill, the head of the FBI explained his agency has cut off ties to the most influential Muslim organization in America due to concerns over its leaders' association with terrorism.
Since the Justice Department linked the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations to a 2008 terror-finance case, the FBI has refused to work directly with the group's national office or any of its 30-plus chapters across the country.
Wednesday's hearing held by the House Judiciary Committee marked the first time FBI Director Robert Mueller has narrowed down the cause of concern to CAIR's "national leadership."
"We have no formal relationship with CAIR because of concerns with regard to the national leadership," Mueller testified.
CAIR's current executive director is Nihad Awad.
Wiretap evidence from the Holy Land Foundation terror-finance case put Awad at a Philadelphia meeting of Hamas leaders that was secretly recorded by the FBI. Participants hatched a plot to disguise payments to Hamas terrorists as charity. Wiretaps also record them stating the need to deceive Americans about their true aims.
The secret meeting, held in the 1990s at a Courtyard by Marriott hotel, was called to order by CAIR founding chairman Omar Ahmad. Both he and Awad launched CAIR not long after the meeting.
Mueller acknowledged the wiretap evidence during the House Judiciary Committee hearing.
The Justice Department designated Ahmad and CAIR as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land trial, the largest terror-finance case in U.S. history. A federal jury convicted Holy Land's leaders on all 108 counts.
Ahmad stepped down from CAIR's board of directors shortly after his federal designation.
Among other evidence collected by the FBI, the names of both Ahmad and Awad – who remains at CAIR's helm and regularly appears on Fox News and other media – appear in a secret phone book alongside key Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzouk, whom the government says directed and coordinated Hamas terrorist attacks on civilians in Israel. Hamas also has murdered more than 17 Americans and has been listed as a U.S.-designated terror group since the 1990s.
During the Holy Land trial, U.S. prosecutors alleged that CAIR's ties to Hamas are "ongoing." In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, FBI Assistant Director Richard Power suggested Ahmad and Awad remain under federal scrutiny.
Last year, federal prosecutors subpoenaed boxes of internal CAIR records uncovered by the authors of the "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America." The bestselling book exposes the inner workings and finances of CAIR and other front groups for the radical Muslim Brotherhood in America. The Brotherhood, a worldwide jihadist movement based in Egypt and funded by Saudi Arabia, is the parent of both Hamas and al-Qaida.
This month, for the first time, both the Associated Press and Washington Post published stories confirming CAIR's links to terrorism and its federal designation as an unindicted co-conspirator.
House Judiciary Committee member Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, said he was dismayed FBI headquarters only recently cut off outreach to CAIR, when its case agents had gathered evidence of the tax-exempt group's terrorist ties years earlier.
"I'm just surprised that it took the evidence that the FBI had being introduced at trial in order to sever the relationship with CAIR," Gohmert said.
In a 2009 letter to Mueller, Democrat Sen. Charles Schumer of the Senate Judiciary Committee requested that the ban on CAIR be enforced "government-wide."
FBI chief confirms ties cut to CAIR
The WorldNetDaily story below reports that during congressional testimony last week FBI Director Robert Mueller confirmed that the FBI has no formal outreach relationship with CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
At long last Director Mueller has acknowledged what the FBI has been doing since it cut off such outreach efforts two years ago. Even “establishment media” outlets such as the Washington Post have finally published reports about CAIR’s links to terrorism. Better late than never!
FBI chief confirms ties cut with U.S. Muslim group
Agency bans outreach due to terrorist links
Posted: March 18, 2011
2:00 am Eastern
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=276289
© 2011 WorldNetDaily
In stunning testimony on Capitol Hill, the head of the FBI explained his agency has cut off ties to the most influential Muslim organization in America due to concerns over its leaders' association with terrorism.
Since the Justice Department linked the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations to a 2008 terror-finance case, the FBI has refused to work directly with the group's national office or any of its 30-plus chapters across the country.
Wednesday's hearing held by the House Judiciary Committee marked the first time FBI Director Robert Mueller has narrowed down the cause of concern to CAIR's "national leadership."
"We have no formal relationship with CAIR because of concerns with regard to the national leadership," Mueller testified.
CAIR's current executive director is Nihad Awad.
Wiretap evidence from the Holy Land Foundation terror-finance case put Awad at a Philadelphia meeting of Hamas leaders that was secretly recorded by the FBI. Participants hatched a plot to disguise payments to Hamas terrorists as charity. Wiretaps also record them stating the need to deceive Americans about their true aims.
The secret meeting, held in the 1990s at a Courtyard by Marriott hotel, was called to order by CAIR founding chairman Omar Ahmad. Both he and Awad launched CAIR not long after the meeting.
Mueller acknowledged the wiretap evidence during the House Judiciary Committee hearing.
The Justice Department designated Ahmad and CAIR as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land trial, the largest terror-finance case in U.S. history. A federal jury convicted Holy Land's leaders on all 108 counts.
Ahmad stepped down from CAIR's board of directors shortly after his federal designation.
Among other evidence collected by the FBI, the names of both Ahmad and Awad – who remains at CAIR's helm and regularly appears on Fox News and other media – appear in a secret phone book alongside key Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzouk, whom the government says directed and coordinated Hamas terrorist attacks on civilians in Israel. Hamas also has murdered more than 17 Americans and has been listed as a U.S.-designated terror group since the 1990s.
During the Holy Land trial, U.S. prosecutors alleged that CAIR's ties to Hamas are "ongoing." In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, FBI Assistant Director Richard Power suggested Ahmad and Awad remain under federal scrutiny.
Last year, federal prosecutors subpoenaed boxes of internal CAIR records uncovered by the authors of the "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America." The bestselling book exposes the inner workings and finances of CAIR and other front groups for the radical Muslim Brotherhood in America. The Brotherhood, a worldwide jihadist movement based in Egypt and funded by Saudi Arabia, is the parent of both Hamas and al-Qaida.
This month, for the first time, both the Associated Press and Washington Post published stories confirming CAIR's links to terrorism and its federal designation as an unindicted co-conspirator.
House Judiciary Committee member Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, said he was dismayed FBI headquarters only recently cut off outreach to CAIR, when its case agents had gathered evidence of the tax-exempt group's terrorist ties years earlier.
"I'm just surprised that it took the evidence that the FBI had being introduced at trial in order to sever the relationship with CAIR," Gohmert said.
In a 2009 letter to Mueller, Democrat Sen. Charles Schumer of the Senate Judiciary Committee requested that the ban on CAIR be enforced "government-wide."
Monday, March 21, 2011
Anti-Semitism 2.0
Anti-Semitism 2.0
by Mudar Zahran
March 21, 2011 at 5:00 am
http://www.hudson-ny.org/1979/anti-semitism-20
The concept of the "evil Jew" has made a well-disguised comeback: Criticizing Israel and Zionists, is now deemed a legitimate option to cursing Jews and Judaism. Not only is it open, socially acceptable and legal, but it can actually bring prosperity and popularity. This new form of anti-Semitism 2.0 is well-covered-up, harder to trace and poses a much deeper danger to the modern way of life of the civilized world than the earlier crude form of it, as it slowly and gradually works on delegitimizing Jews to the point where it eventually becomes acceptable to target Jews, first verbally, then physically -- all done in a cosmopolitan style where the anti-Semites are well-groomed speakers and headline writers in jackets and ties; and not just Arab, but American and European, from "sanitized" news coverage of the most bloodthirsty radicals, to charges against Israel in which facts are distorted, selectively omitted or simply untrue, as in former President Jimmy Carter's book on Israel.
Why would a Palestinian be writing this? The answer is simple: The Palestinians have been used as fuel for the new form of anti-Semitism; this has hurt the Palestinians and exposed them to unprecedented and purposely media-ignored abuse by Arab governments, including some of those who claim love for the Palestinians, yet in fact only bear hatred to Jews. This has resulted in Palestinian cries for justice, equality, freedom and even basic human rights being ignored while the world getting consumed with delegitimizing Israel from either ignorance or malice.
Worse, just as the old form of anti-Semitism has proven itself a threat as poisonous to its supporters, as it was to the Jews, the new form of anti-Semitism 2.0 could prove itself the same -- all the more likely as we see the world tolerating Iran's nuclear ambitions not necessarily out of love for the Mullah's regime, but instead because of mental fixation against Israel.
Such bias against Israel cannot be "accidental" or merely "unfortunate." No other nation has received the amount of scrutinizing, criticism, coverage, demonization and delegitimization. In fact the question to be asked is not whether there is bias against Israel; but rather why there is bias against Israel?
While honest coverage is a pride claimed by all modern media, news reports are assigned according to every editor's choice, this has resulted in a wide editorial bias against Israel and its actions. What makes things worse is the fact that there are no adverse consequences -- such as "lack of access" or physical retribution -- against whoever writes lies about Israel, an open society with a free press. More than 80 human rights non-governmental organizations operate within Israel, constantly monitoring and criticizing it with nothing to worry about -- either professionally or politically --therefore, anyone who misreports or misrepresents facts, or even who lies, is free to keep doing so -- including the the Israelis. For example, the English language newspaper of choice for foreign journalists, Ha'aretz, does not even contain a corrections column. Reporters are told only to write about "The Conflict," and if they do not file by six pm, they are out of a job -- while conflicts which are claiming lives, such as the slaughter of the Assyrians in Iraq, are forgotten. The global media seem to be so consumed by the conflict in Israel which, as dramatic as this may still be, still has claimed only a fraction of the total number of victims of other conflicts.
Bias against Israel does not stop with the media; international organizations exhibit a similar pattern. The recent governmental meltdowns in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya have exposed that Arab dictators keep cash and property in Western countries, where they are able to roam freely, while many Israeli politicians have to think twice before they set a foot in Europe for fear of being arrested for "war crimes." Also, Israeli military actions seem to receive more scrutinizing from the international community than the rest of the world's militaries: the UN Security Council still stands reluctant to tackle Qadafi's ongoing atrocities against protesters, but shows no hesitation in investigating even wild claims against Israel.
Recent protests in Arab countries have provided further proof of the media's selective coverage. While young peaceful protesters are being shot by the Jordanian King's guards or attacked by what doctors describe as "a mysterious teargas" in Yemen, the media fail to provide proper coverage for any of that; on the other side, a car accident involving a Palestinian boy and an Israeli driver made global headline news.
Further, amid recent protests in Arab countries, most global media outlets refrained from taking a position on the power-contested Arab dictators; but they have never failed to present pre-packaged anti-Israeli positions when they cover Palestinian uprisings. This extends to perplexing twists: when the protests in Libya started, for example, Sheikh Al-Qaradawi, a leading Muslim scholar and no friend of Israel,, appeared on Al-Jazeera, saying, "Qaddafi has done to his people what the Zionists would never do to the Palestinians," yet this strong statement from an unlikely source never made it to the Western media.
Media bias against Israel dies not harm only Israelis; it comes at very dear price to us, the Palestinians. In July of 2010, for example, a seasoned journalist Robert Fisk interviewed a group of right-wing ultra-conservative East Bank-Jordanians who were calling on King Abdullah of Jordan to strip the Palestinian majority of their citizenship and property. The group, mostly made up of retired Jordanian servicemen and journalists were also calling for ending the peace treaty with Israel and "establishing it as an enemy state." Despite my attempts to contact Mr. Fisk –-along with another Jordanian-Palestinian journalist---to warn him of the people he was going to meet, he nonetheless, published an article entitled, "Why Is Jordan Occupied by Palestinians?" -- Which was mainly a manifesto for those with whom he had met. They then publicized the article as a global media victory for themselves, and drove the Palestinians of Jordan into even deeper fear for their own safety in a country where they are already oppressed by security agencies; virtually barred from any government or local authority positions, excluded from state universities, despite paying "a university tax", as well as other taxes and tariffs --which their fellow Jordanians of Bedouins heritage are exempted from-- and regularly and openly insulted by the government-run Jordanian media calling for them to be expelled.
The day before Mr. Fisk met with the extremist group, one of their members, a retired intelligence officer now turned writer, published an article calling on the Jordanian intelligence service to "chop off Mudar Zahran's head in the UK without any observance of diplomatic restraints;" would Mr. Fisk have met with an Israeli journalist calling for the Mossad to behead a Palestinian on British soil?
Anti-Semitism and the image of the "evil Jew" find their roots deep in Europe's intellectualism, from Shakespeare to Nietzsche, not to mention the fraudulent Franco-Russian Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The pretexts for Hitler's Nazi ideology existed vigorously before he came to power. Hitler probably manifested more of a crude exposure of a public trend, exacerbated by a terrible economy, except that the suffering Hitler brought to the world was not limited to Jews. It took the destruction of entire nations and the deaths of millions for people to realize that racism and extremism can be as dangerous to the oppressors and the haters as it is the oppressed and the hated.
As a result, European societies of today collectively renounce racism and anti-Semitism, but even though the haters encountered rejection and exclusion, they were nonetheless able to find an alternative pathway by prospering on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. As it has raged -- and continues to rage -- for sixty years, the global media have found a lively source of news material that is endlessly interesting as a conflict between "two religions," "two ethnicities," and the line between the West, represented by Israel, and the East, represented by the Palestinians and Arabs in general.
This form of hatred is hurting us all; it must be countered.
by Mudar Zahran
March 21, 2011 at 5:00 am
http://www.hudson-ny.org/1979/anti-semitism-20
The concept of the "evil Jew" has made a well-disguised comeback: Criticizing Israel and Zionists, is now deemed a legitimate option to cursing Jews and Judaism. Not only is it open, socially acceptable and legal, but it can actually bring prosperity and popularity. This new form of anti-Semitism 2.0 is well-covered-up, harder to trace and poses a much deeper danger to the modern way of life of the civilized world than the earlier crude form of it, as it slowly and gradually works on delegitimizing Jews to the point where it eventually becomes acceptable to target Jews, first verbally, then physically -- all done in a cosmopolitan style where the anti-Semites are well-groomed speakers and headline writers in jackets and ties; and not just Arab, but American and European, from "sanitized" news coverage of the most bloodthirsty radicals, to charges against Israel in which facts are distorted, selectively omitted or simply untrue, as in former President Jimmy Carter's book on Israel.
Why would a Palestinian be writing this? The answer is simple: The Palestinians have been used as fuel for the new form of anti-Semitism; this has hurt the Palestinians and exposed them to unprecedented and purposely media-ignored abuse by Arab governments, including some of those who claim love for the Palestinians, yet in fact only bear hatred to Jews. This has resulted in Palestinian cries for justice, equality, freedom and even basic human rights being ignored while the world getting consumed with delegitimizing Israel from either ignorance or malice.
Worse, just as the old form of anti-Semitism has proven itself a threat as poisonous to its supporters, as it was to the Jews, the new form of anti-Semitism 2.0 could prove itself the same -- all the more likely as we see the world tolerating Iran's nuclear ambitions not necessarily out of love for the Mullah's regime, but instead because of mental fixation against Israel.
Such bias against Israel cannot be "accidental" or merely "unfortunate." No other nation has received the amount of scrutinizing, criticism, coverage, demonization and delegitimization. In fact the question to be asked is not whether there is bias against Israel; but rather why there is bias against Israel?
While honest coverage is a pride claimed by all modern media, news reports are assigned according to every editor's choice, this has resulted in a wide editorial bias against Israel and its actions. What makes things worse is the fact that there are no adverse consequences -- such as "lack of access" or physical retribution -- against whoever writes lies about Israel, an open society with a free press. More than 80 human rights non-governmental organizations operate within Israel, constantly monitoring and criticizing it with nothing to worry about -- either professionally or politically --therefore, anyone who misreports or misrepresents facts, or even who lies, is free to keep doing so -- including the the Israelis. For example, the English language newspaper of choice for foreign journalists, Ha'aretz, does not even contain a corrections column. Reporters are told only to write about "The Conflict," and if they do not file by six pm, they are out of a job -- while conflicts which are claiming lives, such as the slaughter of the Assyrians in Iraq, are forgotten. The global media seem to be so consumed by the conflict in Israel which, as dramatic as this may still be, still has claimed only a fraction of the total number of victims of other conflicts.
Bias against Israel does not stop with the media; international organizations exhibit a similar pattern. The recent governmental meltdowns in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya have exposed that Arab dictators keep cash and property in Western countries, where they are able to roam freely, while many Israeli politicians have to think twice before they set a foot in Europe for fear of being arrested for "war crimes." Also, Israeli military actions seem to receive more scrutinizing from the international community than the rest of the world's militaries: the UN Security Council still stands reluctant to tackle Qadafi's ongoing atrocities against protesters, but shows no hesitation in investigating even wild claims against Israel.
Recent protests in Arab countries have provided further proof of the media's selective coverage. While young peaceful protesters are being shot by the Jordanian King's guards or attacked by what doctors describe as "a mysterious teargas" in Yemen, the media fail to provide proper coverage for any of that; on the other side, a car accident involving a Palestinian boy and an Israeli driver made global headline news.
Further, amid recent protests in Arab countries, most global media outlets refrained from taking a position on the power-contested Arab dictators; but they have never failed to present pre-packaged anti-Israeli positions when they cover Palestinian uprisings. This extends to perplexing twists: when the protests in Libya started, for example, Sheikh Al-Qaradawi, a leading Muslim scholar and no friend of Israel,, appeared on Al-Jazeera, saying, "Qaddafi has done to his people what the Zionists would never do to the Palestinians," yet this strong statement from an unlikely source never made it to the Western media.
Media bias against Israel dies not harm only Israelis; it comes at very dear price to us, the Palestinians. In July of 2010, for example, a seasoned journalist Robert Fisk interviewed a group of right-wing ultra-conservative East Bank-Jordanians who were calling on King Abdullah of Jordan to strip the Palestinian majority of their citizenship and property. The group, mostly made up of retired Jordanian servicemen and journalists were also calling for ending the peace treaty with Israel and "establishing it as an enemy state." Despite my attempts to contact Mr. Fisk –-along with another Jordanian-Palestinian journalist---to warn him of the people he was going to meet, he nonetheless, published an article entitled, "Why Is Jordan Occupied by Palestinians?" -- Which was mainly a manifesto for those with whom he had met. They then publicized the article as a global media victory for themselves, and drove the Palestinians of Jordan into even deeper fear for their own safety in a country where they are already oppressed by security agencies; virtually barred from any government or local authority positions, excluded from state universities, despite paying "a university tax", as well as other taxes and tariffs --which their fellow Jordanians of Bedouins heritage are exempted from-- and regularly and openly insulted by the government-run Jordanian media calling for them to be expelled.
The day before Mr. Fisk met with the extremist group, one of their members, a retired intelligence officer now turned writer, published an article calling on the Jordanian intelligence service to "chop off Mudar Zahran's head in the UK without any observance of diplomatic restraints;" would Mr. Fisk have met with an Israeli journalist calling for the Mossad to behead a Palestinian on British soil?
Anti-Semitism and the image of the "evil Jew" find their roots deep in Europe's intellectualism, from Shakespeare to Nietzsche, not to mention the fraudulent Franco-Russian Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The pretexts for Hitler's Nazi ideology existed vigorously before he came to power. Hitler probably manifested more of a crude exposure of a public trend, exacerbated by a terrible economy, except that the suffering Hitler brought to the world was not limited to Jews. It took the destruction of entire nations and the deaths of millions for people to realize that racism and extremism can be as dangerous to the oppressors and the haters as it is the oppressed and the hated.
As a result, European societies of today collectively renounce racism and anti-Semitism, but even though the haters encountered rejection and exclusion, they were nonetheless able to find an alternative pathway by prospering on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. As it has raged -- and continues to rage -- for sixty years, the global media have found a lively source of news material that is endlessly interesting as a conflict between "two religions," "two ethnicities," and the line between the West, represented by Israel, and the East, represented by the Palestinians and Arabs in general.
This form of hatred is hurting us all; it must be countered.
FUKUSHIMA
German physicist Peter Heller makes a passionate plea for a return to science on the nuclear energy issue. He wonders if ignorance and fear will cause us to abandon the legacies of Einstein, Heisenberg and others.
Fukushima
By Dr Peter Heller, http://www.science-skeptical.de
Astronomer, Physicist
There’s no place on earth I would rather be right now than at Fukushima – right in the atomic power plant, at the centre of the event. I say this because I am a physicist and there is no other place that could be more exciting and interesting for a physicist. The same goes for many, if not most physicists and engineers, on the planet.
Already at a young age I knew one day I would study physics. As a boy, I received a telescope for Christmas, and from that point on my view was fixed on the night sky; gazing at star clusters, nebula and galaxies was my favourite preoccupation. It was only later that I learned that these lights and the twinkling in eyepiece were actually the expressions of a chaotic and violent force of nature – the direct conversion of matter into energy during the fusion of an atomic nucleus.
My curiosity carried me, as if on a high, through 10 semesters of study and subsequent graduation. It was a time of discovery that involved the tedious task of understanding. At times I felt exasperation and self doubt with respect to the sheer complexity and breadth of what there was to learn. Yet, there were times of joy whenever the fog lifted and the clarity and beauty of physical descriptions of natural phenomena moved in its place. It was a time that, unfortunately, passed all too quickly and is now some years in the past.
The great minds that accompanied me through my studies were Planck, Sommerfeld, Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg, and a host of others who, for us physicists, are still very much alive today. They are great thinkers who contributed to unravelling the puzzles of nature and the forces which keep the world together through the most minute structures. I devoured the stories of Otto Hahn and Lise Meitner, of Enrico Fermi and Edward Teller – to name a few – and on how they created completely new technologies from theoretical concepts, how the energy stored in the nucleus of an atom could be used for the good of man and how it became possible in a single process to tap into this source of affordable, clean and plentiful energy on a large scale as never seen by man. Electricity illuminates our world, drives our machines, allow us to communicate over great distances, thus making our lives easier and more comfortable. It is a source of energy that staves off poverty and enables prosperity.
Electricity: manufactured by splitting atomic nuclei with neutrons, gained through the direct conversion of mass into energy. It is the principle by which (via the reverse process of fusion) the stars twinkle in the night sky, a principle by which our sun enables life on our planet.
As a physicist it fills me with great joy and pride to see how man is able to rouse this force of nature at the most minute structural level, then amplify, control, and use it for our benefit. As a physicist I have the fundamental understanding of the processes – I can imagine them and describe them. As a physicist I have neither fear of an atomic power plant nor of radioactivity. Ultimately I know that it is a natural phenomenon that is always around us, one we can never escape – and one that we never need to escape. And I know the first as a symbol of man’s capability to steer the forces of nature. As a physicist I have no fear of what nature has to offer. Rather I have respect. And this respect beckons us to seize the chances like those offered by neutrons, which can split nuclei and thus convert matter into energy. Anything else would be ignorance and cowardice.
Dark times in history
There were times in history when ignorance and cowardice overshadowed human life. It was a time when our ancestors were forced to lead a life filled with superstition and fear because it was forbidden to use creativity and fantasy. Religious dogma, like the earth being the centre of the universe, or creationism, forbade people to question. The forbiddance of opening a human body and examining it prevented questions from being answered. Today these medieval rules appear backwards and close-minded. We simply cannot imagine this way of thinking could have any acceptance.
But over the recent days I have grown concerned that we are headed again for such dark times. Hysterical and sensationalist media reporting, paired with a remarkably stark display of ignorance of technical and scientific interrelations, and the attempt by a vast majority of journalists to fan the public’s angst and opposition to nuclear energy – pure witch-burning disguised as modernity.
Freedom of research
So it fills me with sadness and anger on how the work of the above mentioned giants of physics is now being dragged through the mud, how the greatest scientific discoveries of the 20th century are being redefined and criminalized. The current debate in Germany is also a debate on freedom of research. The stigmatization and ostracism of nuclear energy, the demand for an immediate stop of its use, is also the demand for the end of its research and development. No job possibilities also means no students, which means no faculty, which then means the end of the growth of our knowledge. Stopping nuclear energy is nothing less than rejecting the legacy of Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr and all others. It is tantamount to scrapping it, labelling it as dangerous – all in a fit of ignorance. And just as creationists attempt to ban the theory of evolution from the school books, it almost seems as if every factual and neutral explanation in Germany is now in the process of being deleted.
The media suggests a nuclear catastrophe, a mega-meltdown, and that the apocalypse has already begun. It is almost as if the 10,000 deaths in Japan were actually victims of nuclear energy, and not the earthquake or the tsunami. Here again one has to remind us that Fukushima was first hit by an unimaginable 9.0 earthquake and then by a massive 10-meter wave of water just an hour later. As a result, the facility no longer found itself in a highly technological area, but surrounded by a desert of rubble. All around the power plant the infrastructure, residential areas, traffic routes, energy and communication networks are simply no longer there. They were wiped out. Yet, after an entire week, the apocalypse still has not come to pass. Only relatively small amounts of radioactive materials have leaked out and have had only a local impact. If one considers the pure facts exclusively, i.e. only the things we really know, then it exposes the unfounded interpretations of scientific illiterates in the media. One can only arrive to one conclusion: This sorrowful state will remain so.
In truth, this does not show that the ideologically motivated, fear-laden admonitions and warnings were correct. Fukushima illustrates that we are indeed able to control atomic energy. Fukushima shows that we can master it even when natural disasters beyond planning befall us. Still, at Fukushima the conflict between human creativity/competence continues to clamour against the bond energy in atomic nuclei. It’s a struggle that that shows what human intelligence, knowledge gained, passion, boldness, respect, and capability to learn allow us to do. Personally this does not fill me with apprehension, but with hope. Man can meet this challenge not only because he has to, but most of all because he wants to.
Even though I have not practiced physics for some time now, I will never be anything other than a scientist and researcher, and there would be no other place I would rather be than on site at Fukushima. There is no other place at the moment where so much can be learned about atomic energy, which keeps our world together deep inside, and the technical possibilities to benefit from it. Do we have the courage to learn? Do we accept – with respect and confidence – the opportunities we are confronted with? Fukushima will show us possibilities on how to use the direct conversion of matter into energy in a better and safer way, something that Einstein and others could have only dreamed of.
I am a physicist. My wish is to live in a world that is willing to learn and to improve whatever is good. I would only like to live in a world where great strides in physics are viewed with fascination, pride, and hope because they show us the way to a better future. I would only like to live in a world that has the courage for a better world. Any other world for me is unacceptable. Never. That’s why I am going to fight for this world, without ever relenting.
————————————————–
Translated from the German, with the permission of Peter Heller, by Bernd Felsche and Pierre Gosselin. Original text appeared here: http://www.science-skeptical.de/blog/fukushima/004149/
Fukushima
By Dr Peter Heller, http://www.science-skeptical.de
Astronomer, Physicist
There’s no place on earth I would rather be right now than at Fukushima – right in the atomic power plant, at the centre of the event. I say this because I am a physicist and there is no other place that could be more exciting and interesting for a physicist. The same goes for many, if not most physicists and engineers, on the planet.
Already at a young age I knew one day I would study physics. As a boy, I received a telescope for Christmas, and from that point on my view was fixed on the night sky; gazing at star clusters, nebula and galaxies was my favourite preoccupation. It was only later that I learned that these lights and the twinkling in eyepiece were actually the expressions of a chaotic and violent force of nature – the direct conversion of matter into energy during the fusion of an atomic nucleus.
My curiosity carried me, as if on a high, through 10 semesters of study and subsequent graduation. It was a time of discovery that involved the tedious task of understanding. At times I felt exasperation and self doubt with respect to the sheer complexity and breadth of what there was to learn. Yet, there were times of joy whenever the fog lifted and the clarity and beauty of physical descriptions of natural phenomena moved in its place. It was a time that, unfortunately, passed all too quickly and is now some years in the past.
The great minds that accompanied me through my studies were Planck, Sommerfeld, Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg, and a host of others who, for us physicists, are still very much alive today. They are great thinkers who contributed to unravelling the puzzles of nature and the forces which keep the world together through the most minute structures. I devoured the stories of Otto Hahn and Lise Meitner, of Enrico Fermi and Edward Teller – to name a few – and on how they created completely new technologies from theoretical concepts, how the energy stored in the nucleus of an atom could be used for the good of man and how it became possible in a single process to tap into this source of affordable, clean and plentiful energy on a large scale as never seen by man. Electricity illuminates our world, drives our machines, allow us to communicate over great distances, thus making our lives easier and more comfortable. It is a source of energy that staves off poverty and enables prosperity.
Electricity: manufactured by splitting atomic nuclei with neutrons, gained through the direct conversion of mass into energy. It is the principle by which (via the reverse process of fusion) the stars twinkle in the night sky, a principle by which our sun enables life on our planet.
As a physicist it fills me with great joy and pride to see how man is able to rouse this force of nature at the most minute structural level, then amplify, control, and use it for our benefit. As a physicist I have the fundamental understanding of the processes – I can imagine them and describe them. As a physicist I have neither fear of an atomic power plant nor of radioactivity. Ultimately I know that it is a natural phenomenon that is always around us, one we can never escape – and one that we never need to escape. And I know the first as a symbol of man’s capability to steer the forces of nature. As a physicist I have no fear of what nature has to offer. Rather I have respect. And this respect beckons us to seize the chances like those offered by neutrons, which can split nuclei and thus convert matter into energy. Anything else would be ignorance and cowardice.
Dark times in history
There were times in history when ignorance and cowardice overshadowed human life. It was a time when our ancestors were forced to lead a life filled with superstition and fear because it was forbidden to use creativity and fantasy. Religious dogma, like the earth being the centre of the universe, or creationism, forbade people to question. The forbiddance of opening a human body and examining it prevented questions from being answered. Today these medieval rules appear backwards and close-minded. We simply cannot imagine this way of thinking could have any acceptance.
But over the recent days I have grown concerned that we are headed again for such dark times. Hysterical and sensationalist media reporting, paired with a remarkably stark display of ignorance of technical and scientific interrelations, and the attempt by a vast majority of journalists to fan the public’s angst and opposition to nuclear energy – pure witch-burning disguised as modernity.
Freedom of research
So it fills me with sadness and anger on how the work of the above mentioned giants of physics is now being dragged through the mud, how the greatest scientific discoveries of the 20th century are being redefined and criminalized. The current debate in Germany is also a debate on freedom of research. The stigmatization and ostracism of nuclear energy, the demand for an immediate stop of its use, is also the demand for the end of its research and development. No job possibilities also means no students, which means no faculty, which then means the end of the growth of our knowledge. Stopping nuclear energy is nothing less than rejecting the legacy of Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr and all others. It is tantamount to scrapping it, labelling it as dangerous – all in a fit of ignorance. And just as creationists attempt to ban the theory of evolution from the school books, it almost seems as if every factual and neutral explanation in Germany is now in the process of being deleted.
The media suggests a nuclear catastrophe, a mega-meltdown, and that the apocalypse has already begun. It is almost as if the 10,000 deaths in Japan were actually victims of nuclear energy, and not the earthquake or the tsunami. Here again one has to remind us that Fukushima was first hit by an unimaginable 9.0 earthquake and then by a massive 10-meter wave of water just an hour later. As a result, the facility no longer found itself in a highly technological area, but surrounded by a desert of rubble. All around the power plant the infrastructure, residential areas, traffic routes, energy and communication networks are simply no longer there. They were wiped out. Yet, after an entire week, the apocalypse still has not come to pass. Only relatively small amounts of radioactive materials have leaked out and have had only a local impact. If one considers the pure facts exclusively, i.e. only the things we really know, then it exposes the unfounded interpretations of scientific illiterates in the media. One can only arrive to one conclusion: This sorrowful state will remain so.
In truth, this does not show that the ideologically motivated, fear-laden admonitions and warnings were correct. Fukushima illustrates that we are indeed able to control atomic energy. Fukushima shows that we can master it even when natural disasters beyond planning befall us. Still, at Fukushima the conflict between human creativity/competence continues to clamour against the bond energy in atomic nuclei. It’s a struggle that that shows what human intelligence, knowledge gained, passion, boldness, respect, and capability to learn allow us to do. Personally this does not fill me with apprehension, but with hope. Man can meet this challenge not only because he has to, but most of all because he wants to.
Even though I have not practiced physics for some time now, I will never be anything other than a scientist and researcher, and there would be no other place I would rather be than on site at Fukushima. There is no other place at the moment where so much can be learned about atomic energy, which keeps our world together deep inside, and the technical possibilities to benefit from it. Do we have the courage to learn? Do we accept – with respect and confidence – the opportunities we are confronted with? Fukushima will show us possibilities on how to use the direct conversion of matter into energy in a better and safer way, something that Einstein and others could have only dreamed of.
I am a physicist. My wish is to live in a world that is willing to learn and to improve whatever is good. I would only like to live in a world where great strides in physics are viewed with fascination, pride, and hope because they show us the way to a better future. I would only like to live in a world that has the courage for a better world. Any other world for me is unacceptable. Never. That’s why I am going to fight for this world, without ever relenting.
————————————————–
Translated from the German, with the permission of Peter Heller, by Bernd Felsche and Pierre Gosselin. Original text appeared here: http://www.science-skeptical.de/blog/fukushima/004149/
T-Mobile Editorial
T-Mobile, Fail
I see T-Mobile is being 'acquired' by AT&T ... didn't the Federal Government break up an AT&T Monopoly just a few years back?
But, that's not what this is about. What it is about is a failure of corporate entities to respect their customers. Not unusual, but getting much worse.
Late last year I ordered a Data Stick for broadband access from T-Mobile. I liked the idea of unlimited broadband access for only about $40 a month. Of course, if I had received what they promised, I would not be writing this.
I got the Data Stick, activated it using the credit card I use for such things, and discovered it did not work. I called their customer service number to report my dissatisfaction and was told to return the device within 15 days and I would be opted out under their "Buyers Remorse Program". Sounded fair enough.
Using the enclosed return shipment sticker, I returned the device to T-Mobile in Dallas where it was signed for by an employee. Less than 15 days had elapsed so I figured the deal was done.
I waited several days to hear from T-Mobile that they had the device and that my account was closed with a $0 balance. But no notice came. I called T-Mobile again to check on things and was told by 'Willa' that I need not worry, the account would be closed at the end of the next billing cycle and I would owe nothing. Red Flag!
The next day I received a bill from T-Mobile for $57. I called again and was told by another drone that I could disregard the bill because my account was set to be closed and reset to zero balance. But I was suspicious and upon checking with my credit card company discovered that T-Moble had extracted the $57 from my account.
Now, I am becoming a bit angry and frustrated having been lied to and charged for something I did not possess and never used at all.
I contacted my credit card company, told them to reverse the billing by T-Mobile and block them from billing again ... ever.
The next month I received yet another bill from T-Mobile for $40 ... apparently for broadband usage ... so I called their customer service again and was told the usual, I can just ignore that and all is well, yadda yadda ...
This is when I decided to go elsewhere for help. First I contacted and filed a formal complaint with The Texas State Attorney General. I also filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission through econsumer.gov. How much good this will do, I do not know, but they have a good track record.
The next month I received a third bill for a device I do not possess and broadband usage I did not access, ever. This time the bill was for $50. The bill was very confusing, containing charges which had been added then subtracted and other charges which they claim I still owe.
Each bill has been a different amount and that in itself is very odd considering I have done nothing to even deserve being billed for in the first place. Also, according to the fine print in the bill, if I do not pay this immediately I will be turned over to collections.
This prompted a second and third on line complaint from me with the Attorney General, and just for backup I sent a formal letter to his office in Austin. I also sent formal letters to T-Mobile Financial in California as well as T-Mobile Billing in Dallas.
If T-Mobile's goal is to anger and frustrate their customers, they have succeeded. If their goal is to provide customers with a pleasant experience, they have failed. Simple as that.
It occurs to me that it is their main goal to extract money from everyone they can. First by billing your credit card or bank account for services not rendered, and secondly by sending bill after bill hoping you will weaken and pay after being threatened with collections which will harm your credit even though it is unjustified and careless. The legal definition of this activity is 'Extortion'.
I hope my experience and dealing with it will be helpful to others found in a similar situation.
I see T-Mobile is being 'acquired' by AT&T ... didn't the Federal Government break up an AT&T Monopoly just a few years back?
But, that's not what this is about. What it is about is a failure of corporate entities to respect their customers. Not unusual, but getting much worse.
Late last year I ordered a Data Stick for broadband access from T-Mobile. I liked the idea of unlimited broadband access for only about $40 a month. Of course, if I had received what they promised, I would not be writing this.
I got the Data Stick, activated it using the credit card I use for such things, and discovered it did not work. I called their customer service number to report my dissatisfaction and was told to return the device within 15 days and I would be opted out under their "Buyers Remorse Program". Sounded fair enough.
Using the enclosed return shipment sticker, I returned the device to T-Mobile in Dallas where it was signed for by an employee. Less than 15 days had elapsed so I figured the deal was done.
I waited several days to hear from T-Mobile that they had the device and that my account was closed with a $0 balance. But no notice came. I called T-Mobile again to check on things and was told by 'Willa' that I need not worry, the account would be closed at the end of the next billing cycle and I would owe nothing. Red Flag!
The next day I received a bill from T-Mobile for $57. I called again and was told by another drone that I could disregard the bill because my account was set to be closed and reset to zero balance. But I was suspicious and upon checking with my credit card company discovered that T-Moble had extracted the $57 from my account.
Now, I am becoming a bit angry and frustrated having been lied to and charged for something I did not possess and never used at all.
I contacted my credit card company, told them to reverse the billing by T-Mobile and block them from billing again ... ever.
The next month I received yet another bill from T-Mobile for $40 ... apparently for broadband usage ... so I called their customer service again and was told the usual, I can just ignore that and all is well, yadda yadda ...
This is when I decided to go elsewhere for help. First I contacted and filed a formal complaint with The Texas State Attorney General. I also filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission through econsumer.gov. How much good this will do, I do not know, but they have a good track record.
The next month I received a third bill for a device I do not possess and broadband usage I did not access, ever. This time the bill was for $50. The bill was very confusing, containing charges which had been added then subtracted and other charges which they claim I still owe.
Each bill has been a different amount and that in itself is very odd considering I have done nothing to even deserve being billed for in the first place. Also, according to the fine print in the bill, if I do not pay this immediately I will be turned over to collections.
This prompted a second and third on line complaint from me with the Attorney General, and just for backup I sent a formal letter to his office in Austin. I also sent formal letters to T-Mobile Financial in California as well as T-Mobile Billing in Dallas.
If T-Mobile's goal is to anger and frustrate their customers, they have succeeded. If their goal is to provide customers with a pleasant experience, they have failed. Simple as that.
It occurs to me that it is their main goal to extract money from everyone they can. First by billing your credit card or bank account for services not rendered, and secondly by sending bill after bill hoping you will weaken and pay after being threatened with collections which will harm your credit even though it is unjustified and careless. The legal definition of this activity is 'Extortion'.
I hope my experience and dealing with it will be helpful to others found in a similar situation.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
World's Christians In Grave Danger
Franklin Graham: World’s Christians in Grave Danger
Friday, 18 Mar 2011 05:33 PM
By Chris Gonsalves and Kathleen Walter
The Muslim Brotherhood, with the complicity of the Obama administration, has infiltrated the U.S. government at the highest levels and is influencing American policy that leaves the world’s Christians in grave danger, warns internationally known evangelist Franklin Graham
“The Muslim Brotherhood is very strong and active here in our country,” Graham tells Newsmax. “We have these people advising our military and State Department. We’ve brought in Muslims to tell us how to make policy toward Muslim countries.
“It’s like a farmer asking a fox, ‘How do I protect my hen house?’"
That same Muslim Brotherhood is fomenting much of the rebellion and the deteriorating social order roiling the Middle East, forcing millions of Christians to flee for their lives, says Graham, son of beloved evangelist Dr. Billy Graham, and founder of The Samaritan’s Purse international charity.
“Under [Egypt’s Hosni] Mubarek and [Jordan’s] King Hussein and other moderate leaders, Christians had been protected,” Graham says. 11 million Christians live in Egypt and I ear for them, because if the Muslim Brotherhood comes to power, you’re going to see a great exodus of Christians. Same thing in Tunisia and Lebanon. I fear for the church because the Muslim Brotherhood is going to be a very terrible thing.”
A new report from the Roman Catholic aid agency Aid to the Church in Need supports Graham’s contention that the persecution of Christians world wide has worsened exponentially in the past few years.
According to the report, Christians face increased suffering in 22 countries around the world, with Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Pakistan, and Nigeria being among the worst countries to be a Christian in today.
The persecution has gotten markedly worse over the past two years according to the organization.
“The proportion of countries with a worsening track-record of anti-Christian violence and intimidation would be higher were it not for the fact that in many cases the situation could scarce ly have been worse in the first place” the report’s authors wrote.
More than 75 percent of religious persecution in the world is currently being carried out against Christians, the report concludes.
The Vatican formed a special committee late last year to address the flight of Christians and the rise of militant Islam in the Middle East. In his New Year’s message, Pope Benedict XVI said Christians suffer more than any other religious group because of their faith
Asked if President Barack Obama was doing enough to protect Christians at home and abroad, Graham says, “No. If anything it’s the opposite.”
“Muslims are protected more in this country than Christians,” he says. “The president has made many statements but he doesn’t back them up. We have to do more to protect the Christians in the Muslim world. Their lives are in danger.”
In recent weeks, Obama administration officials have stepped up the defense of their inclusive stance toward Muslims in their ranks. Deputy national security advisor, Denis McDonough, said last week that President Obama is actually trying to prevent terrorism by "dispelling the myths that have developed over the years, including misperceptions about our fellow Americans who are Muslim."
"When it comes to preventing violent extremism and terrorism in the United States, Muslim Americans are not part of the problem, you're part of the solution," McDonough said at an interfaith forum in Sterling, Va.
Graham, however says what Obama is really doing is "giving Islam a pass" rather than speaking openly about the "horrific" treatment women and minorities receive.
"We certainly love the Muslim people," Graham said in an earlier interview with Newsmax. "But that is not the faith of this country. And that is not the religion that built this nation. The people of the Christian faith and the Jewish faith are the ones who built America, and it is not Islam."
Friday, 18 Mar 2011 05:33 PM
By Chris Gonsalves and Kathleen Walter
The Muslim Brotherhood, with the complicity of the Obama administration, has infiltrated the U.S. government at the highest levels and is influencing American policy that leaves the world’s Christians in grave danger, warns internationally known evangelist Franklin Graham
“The Muslim Brotherhood is very strong and active here in our country,” Graham tells Newsmax. “We have these people advising our military and State Department. We’ve brought in Muslims to tell us how to make policy toward Muslim countries.
“It’s like a farmer asking a fox, ‘How do I protect my hen house?’"
That same Muslim Brotherhood is fomenting much of the rebellion and the deteriorating social order roiling the Middle East, forcing millions of Christians to flee for their lives, says Graham, son of beloved evangelist Dr. Billy Graham, and founder of The Samaritan’s Purse international charity.
“Under [Egypt’s Hosni] Mubarek and [Jordan’s] King Hussein and other moderate leaders, Christians had been protected,” Graham says. 11 million Christians live in Egypt and I ear for them, because if the Muslim Brotherhood comes to power, you’re going to see a great exodus of Christians. Same thing in Tunisia and Lebanon. I fear for the church because the Muslim Brotherhood is going to be a very terrible thing.”
A new report from the Roman Catholic aid agency Aid to the Church in Need supports Graham’s contention that the persecution of Christians world wide has worsened exponentially in the past few years.
According to the report, Christians face increased suffering in 22 countries around the world, with Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Pakistan, and Nigeria being among the worst countries to be a Christian in today.
The persecution has gotten markedly worse over the past two years according to the organization.
“The proportion of countries with a worsening track-record of anti-Christian violence and intimidation would be higher were it not for the fact that in many cases the situation could scarce ly have been worse in the first place” the report’s authors wrote.
More than 75 percent of religious persecution in the world is currently being carried out against Christians, the report concludes.
The Vatican formed a special committee late last year to address the flight of Christians and the rise of militant Islam in the Middle East. In his New Year’s message, Pope Benedict XVI said Christians suffer more than any other religious group because of their faith
Asked if President Barack Obama was doing enough to protect Christians at home and abroad, Graham says, “No. If anything it’s the opposite.”
“Muslims are protected more in this country than Christians,” he says. “The president has made many statements but he doesn’t back them up. We have to do more to protect the Christians in the Muslim world. Their lives are in danger.”
In recent weeks, Obama administration officials have stepped up the defense of their inclusive stance toward Muslims in their ranks. Deputy national security advisor, Denis McDonough, said last week that President Obama is actually trying to prevent terrorism by "dispelling the myths that have developed over the years, including misperceptions about our fellow Americans who are Muslim."
"When it comes to preventing violent extremism and terrorism in the United States, Muslim Americans are not part of the problem, you're part of the solution," McDonough said at an interfaith forum in Sterling, Va.
Graham, however says what Obama is really doing is "giving Islam a pass" rather than speaking openly about the "horrific" treatment women and minorities receive.
"We certainly love the Muslim people," Graham said in an earlier interview with Newsmax. "But that is not the faith of this country. And that is not the religion that built this nation. The people of the Christian faith and the Jewish faith are the ones who built America, and it is not Islam."
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Another Look At Obama's SS Number
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=275861
Another look at Obama's Social Security number
Posted: March 17, 2011
1:00 am Eastern
© 2011
While out promoting my new book, "Deconstructing Obama," I have been asked a few times about Obama's mysterious Social Security number.
Not knowing enough to speak authoritatively, I chose to swim upstream through the data flood and head for the source.
Here I found a no-nonsense licensed investigator from Ohio named Susan Daniels. Widowed at 30 with seven children, Daniels went back to school and eventually emerged as a certified paralegal.
After several years working for others, Daniels got her own license as an investigator in 1995. Since then, she has specialized in litigation support for law firms. Her particular strength has been in researching assets.
By her own admission, Daniels is "good with public records." She knows her way around databases and has access to many that the public does not.
Jack Cashill's literary investigation uncovers revelations galore about Obama's alleged life narrative. Order the new book "Deconstructing Obama: The Life, Love and Letters of America's First Post-Modern President"
"I did not like the way things were going," Daniels says of the country's drift circa 2009. And so in the best spirit of citizen journalism, she began to investigate Obama on her own.
What she and fellow investigator Neil Sankey unearthed was a nugget that could have ended the career of a George Bush or a Sarah Plain: Barack Obama had been using a Social Security number issued in Connecticut between 1977 and 1979, a state in which he never lived or even visited at that time in his life.
This will not come as news to the readers of WorldNetDaily, whose thorough investigation climaxed last June when WND's veteran White House correspondent Les Kinsolving confronted Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs on the subject.
Predictably, Gibbs laughed Kinsolving off and switched the subject to the birth certificate. Kinsolving had seen this kind of laugh and switch before. In 1982, for instance, he introduced the subject of AIDS to then-press secretary Larry Speakes.
"Over a third of [the victims] have died," said Kinsolving. "It's known as 'gay plague.'"
"I don't have it. Do you?" joked Speakes to a general round of laughter. But unlike Gibbs, Speakes simply did not know any better.
As much as Daniels appreciates the work of WND and other serious investigators who have helped clarify the picture, she is distressed by the few who have clouded it.
"There have been many playing junior investigator from the start," she jokes. "I don't know if they even have their decoder rings yet."
This being the case, I asked Daniels to guide me through the data mine field and help me ascertain what we know for sure about the world's best-known Social Security number – 042-68-4425.
"All I can say," says Daniels of 042-68-4425, "is that it's phony and [Obama] has been using it, with it first appearing on his Selective Service document in 1980."
Daniels sent me a copy of the hand-written application of the individual who held the number immediately before Obama's, 042-68-4424. The applicant, Thomas Wood, died at age 19, which is why his information is available.
Wood's Social Security number was issued sometime between March and May of 1977. Obama would turn 16 in August of that year. Wood lived on Glenview Drive in Newington, Conn., the state from which all "042s" applied. Obama lived in Hawaii.
True to form, the left-leaning media set out to undermine the Social Security controversy and ridicule the investigators. Revealing, however, is the weakness of the response.
"Numbers are assigned based on the return address on the request envelope, not residency," crowed Jason Linkins in the Huffington Post as though he had said something meaningful. Linkins suggested two possible explanations, both preposterous.
One is that Obama applied for his SSN as a little boy in Indonesia for no known reason, and the application just happened to be processed in Connecticut for no known reason either.
For the second, Linkins cited the argument of Carole Glibert, in the Yahoo-related "Associated Content." Said Gilbert, presumably with a straight face, "In fact, Barack Obama's dad attended college in Connecticut and in 1977, Obama was college aged; is it beyond reason to consider that he might have checked out his father's alma mater?"
Last time I checked, Harvard was in Massachusetts. The closest town to Harvard in Connecticut is about 90 minutes away, and there is no record that Obama Sr. lived there, let alone that Obama visited his imaginary alma mater and just happened to apply for a Social Security card while visiting.
Daniels also sent me a copy of Obama's Selective Service data. Obama appears to have registered on Sept. 4, 1980, a month after his 19th birthday. The form lists the telling last four digits of his "042" number, "4425."
This is the first use of the "042" number that Daniels could find. She is just not sure it is legitimate. Some have credibly argued that the Selective Service information was forged and backdated once Obama became a presidential candidate.
"They were stupid to use the CT number on the [Selective Service] card," Daniels adds, "because now there is no way for [Obama] to back out of that number."
Other than the 1980 Selective Service registration, the first time Daniels could find Obama using the "042" number was in 1986 in Chicago.
As to how Obama may have secured that number, it is possible that he turned to his radical friends for advice.
"We invented all kinds of ways to obtain false identity papers, and got busy building multiple sets of ID for each of us and for every contingency," writes Bill Ayers of his years in the Weather Underground. "We soon figured out that the deepest and most foolproof ID had a government-issued Social Security card at its heart."
For the record, Ayers appears to have commuted between his wife and children in Chicago and Columbia University in New York from 1984 to 1987. Obama left New York, where he, too, had attended Columbia University, and arrived in Chicago in 1985.
Daniels and Sankey have tracked Obama's many uses of the "042" number in Chicago, in Massachusetts and in Washington. Others numbers appear with the "Obama" name, but Daniels cautions against attributing these numbers – with the exception of those from Obama's college days at Occidental – to the president.
From Daniels' perspective, one felonious use of a fraudulent number is enough. She believes this to be a more tangible scandal than the birth certificate and wonders when someone beyond WND will start paying attention.
Another look at Obama's Social Security number
Posted: March 17, 2011
1:00 am Eastern
© 2011
While out promoting my new book, "Deconstructing Obama," I have been asked a few times about Obama's mysterious Social Security number.
Not knowing enough to speak authoritatively, I chose to swim upstream through the data flood and head for the source.
Here I found a no-nonsense licensed investigator from Ohio named Susan Daniels. Widowed at 30 with seven children, Daniels went back to school and eventually emerged as a certified paralegal.
After several years working for others, Daniels got her own license as an investigator in 1995. Since then, she has specialized in litigation support for law firms. Her particular strength has been in researching assets.
By her own admission, Daniels is "good with public records." She knows her way around databases and has access to many that the public does not.
Jack Cashill's literary investigation uncovers revelations galore about Obama's alleged life narrative. Order the new book "Deconstructing Obama: The Life, Love and Letters of America's First Post-Modern President"
"I did not like the way things were going," Daniels says of the country's drift circa 2009. And so in the best spirit of citizen journalism, she began to investigate Obama on her own.
What she and fellow investigator Neil Sankey unearthed was a nugget that could have ended the career of a George Bush or a Sarah Plain: Barack Obama had been using a Social Security number issued in Connecticut between 1977 and 1979, a state in which he never lived or even visited at that time in his life.
This will not come as news to the readers of WorldNetDaily, whose thorough investigation climaxed last June when WND's veteran White House correspondent Les Kinsolving confronted Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs on the subject.
Predictably, Gibbs laughed Kinsolving off and switched the subject to the birth certificate. Kinsolving had seen this kind of laugh and switch before. In 1982, for instance, he introduced the subject of AIDS to then-press secretary Larry Speakes.
"Over a third of [the victims] have died," said Kinsolving. "It's known as 'gay plague.'"
"I don't have it. Do you?" joked Speakes to a general round of laughter. But unlike Gibbs, Speakes simply did not know any better.
As much as Daniels appreciates the work of WND and other serious investigators who have helped clarify the picture, she is distressed by the few who have clouded it.
"There have been many playing junior investigator from the start," she jokes. "I don't know if they even have their decoder rings yet."
This being the case, I asked Daniels to guide me through the data mine field and help me ascertain what we know for sure about the world's best-known Social Security number – 042-68-4425.
"All I can say," says Daniels of 042-68-4425, "is that it's phony and [Obama] has been using it, with it first appearing on his Selective Service document in 1980."
Daniels sent me a copy of the hand-written application of the individual who held the number immediately before Obama's, 042-68-4424. The applicant, Thomas Wood, died at age 19, which is why his information is available.
Wood's Social Security number was issued sometime between March and May of 1977. Obama would turn 16 in August of that year. Wood lived on Glenview Drive in Newington, Conn., the state from which all "042s" applied. Obama lived in Hawaii.
True to form, the left-leaning media set out to undermine the Social Security controversy and ridicule the investigators. Revealing, however, is the weakness of the response.
"Numbers are assigned based on the return address on the request envelope, not residency," crowed Jason Linkins in the Huffington Post as though he had said something meaningful. Linkins suggested two possible explanations, both preposterous.
One is that Obama applied for his SSN as a little boy in Indonesia for no known reason, and the application just happened to be processed in Connecticut for no known reason either.
For the second, Linkins cited the argument of Carole Glibert, in the Yahoo-related "Associated Content." Said Gilbert, presumably with a straight face, "In fact, Barack Obama's dad attended college in Connecticut and in 1977, Obama was college aged; is it beyond reason to consider that he might have checked out his father's alma mater?"
Last time I checked, Harvard was in Massachusetts. The closest town to Harvard in Connecticut is about 90 minutes away, and there is no record that Obama Sr. lived there, let alone that Obama visited his imaginary alma mater and just happened to apply for a Social Security card while visiting.
Daniels also sent me a copy of Obama's Selective Service data. Obama appears to have registered on Sept. 4, 1980, a month after his 19th birthday. The form lists the telling last four digits of his "042" number, "4425."
This is the first use of the "042" number that Daniels could find. She is just not sure it is legitimate. Some have credibly argued that the Selective Service information was forged and backdated once Obama became a presidential candidate.
"They were stupid to use the CT number on the [Selective Service] card," Daniels adds, "because now there is no way for [Obama] to back out of that number."
Other than the 1980 Selective Service registration, the first time Daniels could find Obama using the "042" number was in 1986 in Chicago.
As to how Obama may have secured that number, it is possible that he turned to his radical friends for advice.
"We invented all kinds of ways to obtain false identity papers, and got busy building multiple sets of ID for each of us and for every contingency," writes Bill Ayers of his years in the Weather Underground. "We soon figured out that the deepest and most foolproof ID had a government-issued Social Security card at its heart."
For the record, Ayers appears to have commuted between his wife and children in Chicago and Columbia University in New York from 1984 to 1987. Obama left New York, where he, too, had attended Columbia University, and arrived in Chicago in 1985.
Daniels and Sankey have tracked Obama's many uses of the "042" number in Chicago, in Massachusetts and in Washington. Others numbers appear with the "Obama" name, but Daniels cautions against attributing these numbers – with the exception of those from Obama's college days at Occidental – to the president.
From Daniels' perspective, one felonious use of a fraudulent number is enough. She believes this to be a more tangible scandal than the birth certificate and wonders when someone beyond WND will start paying attention.
Obama-Holder's Latest Punish Whitey Move
Mychal Massie
Obama-Holder's latest punish-Whitey move
Posted: March 15, 2011
1:00 am Eastern
© 2011
Considering the disastrous effect we are witnessing because of the election of an unqualified person as president, who then appoints an even more unqualified individual as attorney general – do we now really want our communities patrolled and protected by unqualified, barely-able-to-tie-their-own-shoestrings police officers?
That's exactly what's happening in the Dayton, Ohio, Police Department – and it is happening under the directive of Attorney General Eric Holder's Department of Justice.
Obama was to be America's post-racial president, and yet, he has, from the beginning, shown his eagerness to be the polar opposite. Race has led the way in Obama's administration from the beginning – from Jeremiah Wright, who has proven himself to be as racially polarizing as Louis Farrakhan, and under whose pastoral tutelage he sat under for 20 years, to his maligning the Cambridge, Mass., Police Department for properly doing their jobs during their interaction with Henry Louis Gates. There are also Obama's recent comments in the new book, "Family of Freedom: Presidents and African-Americans in the White House," in which he calls members of the Tea Party racists. His wife has parroted the same claim, albeit only contrived evidence exists to support their claims.
Erik Rush's new book is bold, daring and needed: "Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal - America's Racial Obsession"
Eric Holder has ignored my repeated calls, in my official capacity as chairman of Project 21, to appoint a special prosecutor in the case of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case. This, even as career lawyers for DOJ have testified to their being instructed to prosecute cases based on race, as long as those being prosecuted aren't black. (See "Black Leader Again Requests Obama Call for Black Panther Special Prosecutor"; nationalcenter.org; July 13, 2010)
So the attorney general, who apparently bases properly representing his office on color of skin, purposes to compromise the safety of an entire city based on color.
Let me ask you – if it came down to a police officer saving your life and/or performing at the highest, most efficient level possible, would you care whether he were black, white or qualified? The city of Dayton is desperate for police officers, yet the Obama-Holder DOJ has forced the postponement of hiring because Holder views the required test scores as being too high for blacks to pass them. ("Civil Service Board Announces Police Recruit Scores"; abc.daytonsnewssource.com; March 11, 2011)
Isn't it insulting for blacks to be told that the only way they can pass an exam is if the scoring requirements are reduced to the equivalent of an "F" or a "D"? If Speaker Boehner or Gov. Sarah Palin said the same thing, the outcry would be isoseismic. The Fraternal Order of Police and the Dayton NAACP are in agreement that lowering the passing level is a safety issue for the people of Dayton.
Lowering test scores in an attempt to increase the number of blacks on a police force is wrong on many levels and for many reasons – not least of which is community safety.
Police officers are the bricks and mortar protecting our communities from criminal intrusion, thus their personal safety as well as ours demands that personnel be hired not based on the department's race sensitivity, but rather its qualification sensitivity. Further, using blacks as gimcracks to further the administration's agenda and divide our communities along racial lines is unforgivable.
This is yet another example of the contempt Obama and Holder share for states rights and of their eager willingness to use the race card to further their murky objectives. One question that has yet to be answered to my satisfaction is: to what extent are Obama and Holder using race to further said agendas, and to what extent are they using race as an invective to punish whites? The answer to that question should be pursued as aggressively as Dan Rather and the mainstream media pursued George W. Bush's military records.
That said, one thing is for sure – neither Obama nor Holder is calling for exam requirements be lowered to failing levels for those charged with their own protection.
Mychal Massie is chairman of the National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives-Project 21 – a conservative black think tank located in Washington, D.C. He was recognized as the 2008 Conservative Man of the Year by the Conservative Party of Suffolk County, N.Y. He is a nationally recognized political activist, pundit and columnist. He has appeared on Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, C-SPAN, NBC, Comcast Cable and talk radio programming nationwide. A former self-employed business owner of more than 30 years, Massie can be followed at mychal-massie.com.
Obama-Holder's latest punish-Whitey move
Posted: March 15, 2011
1:00 am Eastern
© 2011
Considering the disastrous effect we are witnessing because of the election of an unqualified person as president, who then appoints an even more unqualified individual as attorney general – do we now really want our communities patrolled and protected by unqualified, barely-able-to-tie-their-own-shoestrings police officers?
That's exactly what's happening in the Dayton, Ohio, Police Department – and it is happening under the directive of Attorney General Eric Holder's Department of Justice.
Obama was to be America's post-racial president, and yet, he has, from the beginning, shown his eagerness to be the polar opposite. Race has led the way in Obama's administration from the beginning – from Jeremiah Wright, who has proven himself to be as racially polarizing as Louis Farrakhan, and under whose pastoral tutelage he sat under for 20 years, to his maligning the Cambridge, Mass., Police Department for properly doing their jobs during their interaction with Henry Louis Gates. There are also Obama's recent comments in the new book, "Family of Freedom: Presidents and African-Americans in the White House," in which he calls members of the Tea Party racists. His wife has parroted the same claim, albeit only contrived evidence exists to support their claims.
Erik Rush's new book is bold, daring and needed: "Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal - America's Racial Obsession"
Eric Holder has ignored my repeated calls, in my official capacity as chairman of Project 21, to appoint a special prosecutor in the case of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case. This, even as career lawyers for DOJ have testified to their being instructed to prosecute cases based on race, as long as those being prosecuted aren't black. (See "Black Leader Again Requests Obama Call for Black Panther Special Prosecutor"; nationalcenter.org; July 13, 2010)
So the attorney general, who apparently bases properly representing his office on color of skin, purposes to compromise the safety of an entire city based on color.
Let me ask you – if it came down to a police officer saving your life and/or performing at the highest, most efficient level possible, would you care whether he were black, white or qualified? The city of Dayton is desperate for police officers, yet the Obama-Holder DOJ has forced the postponement of hiring because Holder views the required test scores as being too high for blacks to pass them. ("Civil Service Board Announces Police Recruit Scores"; abc.daytonsnewssource.com; March 11, 2011)
Isn't it insulting for blacks to be told that the only way they can pass an exam is if the scoring requirements are reduced to the equivalent of an "F" or a "D"? If Speaker Boehner or Gov. Sarah Palin said the same thing, the outcry would be isoseismic. The Fraternal Order of Police and the Dayton NAACP are in agreement that lowering the passing level is a safety issue for the people of Dayton.
Lowering test scores in an attempt to increase the number of blacks on a police force is wrong on many levels and for many reasons – not least of which is community safety.
Police officers are the bricks and mortar protecting our communities from criminal intrusion, thus their personal safety as well as ours demands that personnel be hired not based on the department's race sensitivity, but rather its qualification sensitivity. Further, using blacks as gimcracks to further the administration's agenda and divide our communities along racial lines is unforgivable.
This is yet another example of the contempt Obama and Holder share for states rights and of their eager willingness to use the race card to further their murky objectives. One question that has yet to be answered to my satisfaction is: to what extent are Obama and Holder using race to further said agendas, and to what extent are they using race as an invective to punish whites? The answer to that question should be pursued as aggressively as Dan Rather and the mainstream media pursued George W. Bush's military records.
That said, one thing is for sure – neither Obama nor Holder is calling for exam requirements be lowered to failing levels for those charged with their own protection.
Mychal Massie is chairman of the National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives-Project 21 – a conservative black think tank located in Washington, D.C. He was recognized as the 2008 Conservative Man of the Year by the Conservative Party of Suffolk County, N.Y. He is a nationally recognized political activist, pundit and columnist. He has appeared on Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, C-SPAN, NBC, Comcast Cable and talk radio programming nationwide. A former self-employed business owner of more than 30 years, Massie can be followed at mychal-massie.com.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Obama Administration Spin Cycle
Obama Administration Turns Spin Cycle up to High with Latest “Fact Sheet” on U.S. Energy Production
WASHINGTON, D.C., March 11, 2011 - The White House won’t let facts stand in the way when it comes to American energy production as they continue to piggyback on predecessors’ pro-energy policies. Yesterday, the White House turned their SPIN machine to HIGH in their second attempt in as many days (see White House blog) to deflect mounting public anger over high gasoline prices. Today, the Administration is spinning numbers on U.S. oil and natural gas production with a misleading “fact sheet” designed to make the public believe their lengthy history of anti-energy policies have actually spurred energy development.
SPIN: “U.S. oil and natural gas production has increased, while imports of foreign oil have decreased.”
RINSE:
SPIN: “Total U.S. natural gas production in 2010 was 26.9 trillion cubic feet, a 5% increase from 2008 and the highest level in more than 30 years.”
RINSE:
SPIN: “41 million acres of public lands are under lease for oil and gas development, of which 12 million acres are producing”
RINSE:
SPIN: “In 2010, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) held 29 oil and gas lease sales for public lands in the West, offering 1643 parcels covering 3.2 million acres.”
RINSE:
SPIN: “Since the Deepwater Horizon spill and the implementation of stronger safety standards, BOEMRE has approved 37 shallow water permits in the Gulf of Mexico.”
RINSE:
SPIN: “The Obama Administration is working to increase the responsible and safe production of oil and gas in the United States, and has offered a total of 38 million acres of OCS under active lease of which 6.5 million acres are producing.”
RINSE:
SPIN: “The Administration is working to increase certainty and reduce costly delays and litigation in the onshore oil and gas leasing process.”
RINSE:
Natural Resources Committee, Chairman Doc Hastings
WASHINGTON, D.C., March 11, 2011 - The White House won’t let facts stand in the way when it comes to American energy production as they continue to piggyback on predecessors’ pro-energy policies. Yesterday, the White House turned their SPIN machine to HIGH in their second attempt in as many days (see White House blog) to deflect mounting public anger over high gasoline prices. Today, the Administration is spinning numbers on U.S. oil and natural gas production with a misleading “fact sheet” designed to make the public believe their lengthy history of anti-energy policies have actually spurred energy development.
SPIN: “U.S. oil and natural gas production has increased, while imports of foreign oil have decreased.”
RINSE:
- Since 2008, U.S. foreign oil imports have decreased by 2 million barrels per day—at the same time, U.S. consumption has decreased by 2 million barrels per day.
- Imports have decreased, not because of Obama Administration policies, but because demand decreased due to a struggling economy and high unemployment.
- Once again, any increase in onshore or offshore oil and gas development can be attributed to previous Administrations’ pro-energy policies. Canceling leases and slow-walking offshore permits, as the Obama Administration has done, does not increase American energy production.
- This is why EIA’s Short Term Energy Outlook shows total U.S. oil production DECREASING by nearly 250,000 barrels per day in 2012.
SPIN: “Total U.S. natural gas production in 2010 was 26.9 trillion cubic feet, a 5% increase from 2008 and the highest level in more than 30 years.”
RINSE:
- The vast majority of the 5% increase represents natural gas extracted from private land, where the Obama Administration has had less of an ability to impede production.
- The Obama Administration is actively trying to impose regulations that would decrease natural gas production. The Environmental Protection Agency has been aggressively trying to stop natural gas production though regulation of hydraulic fracturing - the currently state-regulated drilling technology necessary for U.S. natural gas production to increase.
- The Department of the Interior has also announced potential plans to impede natural gas production on federal lands through duplicative hydraulic fracturing regulations.
SPIN: “41 million acres of public lands are under lease for oil and gas development, of which 12 million acres are producing”
RINSE:
- This argument represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the process of oil and gas development on public lands.
- The process of developing a lease – from the sale to actual production – takes time. Approximately one-third of leases are waiting to complete environmental review and obtain permits to drill. The Obama Administration has slowed this process by adding new layers of regulations and hurdles.
- Total acres leased are not an accurate representation of potential energy development as all leases DO NOT contain economically recoverable amounts of oil and gas.
- From 2002-2007, 52% of all exploration wells drilled were dry and 8% of the development wells drilled were dry.
SPIN: “In 2010, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) held 29 oil and gas lease sales for public lands in the West, offering 1643 parcels covering 3.2 million acres.”
RINSE:
- 29 lease sales may seem high, until it’s compared to 2008 when there were 38 lease sales. Lease sales have DECREASED under the Obama Administration.
- The total onshore acreage leased under the Obama Administration in 2009 and 2010 are the lowest in over two decades, stretching back to at least 1984.
SPIN: “Since the Deepwater Horizon spill and the implementation of stronger safety standards, BOEMRE has approved 37 shallow water permits in the Gulf of Mexico.”
RINSE:
- As of February 2011, shallow-water permit issuance continues to lag behind the historical average of 7.1 permits per month.
- 37 permits issued since April 2010 represents an average of only 3.7per month.
- Only one deepwater permit has been issued - over four months after the moratorium was officially listed. The Administration is being held in contempt for slow-walking permits and is currently trying to appeal a Federal Judge’s ruling that ordered them to act on stalled deepwater permits.
SPIN: “The Obama Administration is working to increase the responsible and safe production of oil and gas in the United States, and has offered a total of 38 million acres of OCS under active lease of which 6.5 million acres are producing.”
RINSE:
- The reason there is not production activity on 31.5 million acres is because the Obama Administration has stopped and is failing to issue permits to drill.
- This is blocking expanded American energy production in both the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska.
SPIN: “The Administration is working to increase certainty and reduce costly delays and litigation in the onshore oil and gas leasing process.”
RINSE:
- The Department of the Interior’s proposed “wild lands” policy to treat designated lands as de facto Wilderness Areas will lock-up land from energy development, decrease certainty and increase costly delays for energy developers.
- BLM has admitted to a 206 day average processing time for Applications for Permits to Drill (APD). However the actual time from when a company submits an APD to final approval is close to 2 years in some field offices.
Natural Resources Committee, Chairman Doc Hastings
Friday, March 11, 2011
Radicalization Of Muslims
A Report from the Hill: Inside the House Homeland Security Committee Hearing on the Radicalization of Muslims
by Lisa Piraneo, Director of Government Relations
I arrive at the Cannon House Office Building at 7:30 a.m.—two hours before the scheduled start of Congressman Peter King’s (R-NY) much-publicized hearing on Muslim Radicalization in our country. For the past few months Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups like the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and Hamas front group CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) have been whipping the Muslim community and the media into a frenzy about this hearing. There have been rallies in New York City and front page articles in the so-called “establishment media” about how “unfair” and even “dangerous” holding this hearing will be.
So I expect there will be a large crowd waiting to get into the Committee room and I am right. There is a line from its entrance all the way down the hall, wrapped around the corner, and half way down the next hall. I park myself in line and wait.
More people arrive. More press arrive. More police arrive. There have been threats against Chairman King leading up to the hearing and it is clear they are being taken seriously. A police officer confronts several bowtie-wearing gentlemen in front of me for cutting into line. They see the length of the line and realize that the odds of them getting into the hearing if they go to the end are slim to none. “You need to get to the end of the line, sir.” He says. “See all of these people behind you? They are waiting too.” There is some tense back and forth and finally they acquiesce.
The waiting crowd is clearly majority Muslim or Muslim-American. I hear multiple discussions about how unfair Representative King is—and lots of strategy about what to do once the hearing is over. Some waiting in line have signs with them. One reads “Stop Demonizing Muslims.” Standing directly behind me is Alejandro Beutel, of the Muslim Public Affairs Council. He gives multiple interviews to press while waiting in line, telling them that the organization is taking a “wait and see” approach.
At 9:15 a.m.—an hour and 45 minutes after I arrived and 15 minutes prior to the hearing’s commencement—an announcement is made that the Committee room will soon open. Warnings are given from both the Capitol Police as well as Committee staff that outbursts and signs in the hearing room are against House rules and will not be tolerated. The line starts to move, slowly. They are letting people in the room a little at a time. I learn that a large section of the small hearing room is already taken up by press. Not a good sign for me.
I am 10 people away from the doors to the hearing room when an announcement is made that the Committee room is now full. The choice to the hundreds still in line: stay there and take the chance that others will leave the hearing, opening up additional space; move to a small “overflow room” right next to the Committee room; or go home. I opt for the overflow room, as I don’t want to miss one second of the hearing. In a matter of seconds, the overflow room is filled to capacity as well, as it is already half full with press when I arrive. I grab one of the few remaining seats and get ready to Tweet.
Representative King, as the Committee Chair, speaks first, offering his Opening Remarks. He states that today’s hearing will be the first of a series dealing with the “critical issue” of the radicalization of Muslim-Americans. He states “Let me make it clear today I remain convinced that these hearings must go forward. And they will. To back down would be a craven surrender to political correctness and an abdication of what I believe to be the main responsibility of this committee—to protect America from a terrorist attack.”
The hearing is divided into two panels: The first panel consists of two sitting Members of Congress: Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Representative Frank Wolf (R-VA). During Representative Ellison’s remarks, he breaks down and openly weeps when talking about Mohammad Salman Hamdani, an American Muslim firefighter who died on 9/11 and notes how his name was smeared. Congressional drama. I’ve seen it often and it can distract from the issue at hand. A news report later in the evening notes that no such smears against the firefighter could be found in a Google search.
Representative Wolf speaks next and comes out swinging, especially at CAIR. He states “My concern about CAIR is not limited to its disturbing origins and connections to terrorist financing. I am equally concerned about CAIR’s role in attacking the reputations of any who dare to raise concerns about domestic radicalization.”
No questions are posed to either Member of Congress after they make their statements. Time for Panel Two, which consists of Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, a medical doctor and former U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander; Abdirizak Bihi, whose nephew left the states to join al-Shabaab in Somalia; Melvin Bledsoe, the father of Carlos Leon Bledsoe (aka) Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad, a Muslim convert who attacked an Army recruiting office in Little Rock, Arkansas killing one soldier; and Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca.
Though I have attended many congressional hearings, I am shocked by the behavior of some of these elected officials as they interact with the witnesses. It is rude and disrespectful—particularly toward Dr. Jasser, who stresses that terrorism will never be eliminated until the political side of Islam is removed. He also notes that there are Muslim groups in the U.S. who are pledging their allegiance to the Koran instead of to the U.S. Constitution. A vast majority of the audience in the room clearly disagrees with Dr. Jasser as there is a lot of eye rolling and snickering when he speaks.
Some examples that I include in my Tweets:
Also, I am surprised by the callous responses of the audience all around me—most of whom are clearly Muslim-American. Throughout the hearing they laugh at Dr. Jasser and Mr. Bihi—also Muslims. I feel that they are not affected by the pain of the family members at the loss of a child and nephew to radicalization and, in Mr. Bihi’s case, also to death. Mr. Bledsoe’s testimony ends with “God help us! God help us!”
The behavior of the Members of Congress who speak down to Dr. Jasser, Mr. Bihi and Mr. Bledsoe, and the repeated negative reactions these three get from the crowd of Muslims in the hearing room, is disturbing. Over and over we hear from government officials and the media that most Muslims are peaceful and law-abiding, and yet when three brave Muslims come forward to speak out against the ideology driving Muslim radicalization they are not praised by these four Members of Congress or most of the Muslims in the crowd—they are belittled. What message does that send to Muslim-Americans who are in agreement with Dr. Jasser? Stand up and be counted? Hardly.
Fortunately, there are Members of Congress who clearly “get it”—in addition to Chairman King—and it’s refreshing.
Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-MN) asks Sheriff Baca if he realizes that, when he works so closely with CAIR, he is working with a terrorist organization (Hamas) and he cites the Holy Land Foundation Trial.
Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) speaks of the political ideology of Islamism. He says that he is “outraged…outraged!” by this Administration’s failure to define the enemy. He shows a slide that demonstrates the number of times words like “enemy,” “jihad,” and “Muslim Brotherhood” are mentioned in the 9/11 Commission report, and then in comparison how many times they are mentioned in the government’s security lexicon—zero.
All this from two freshman Members of Congress. What a difference an election makes! In addition, other Members of Congress such as Reps. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), Mike McCaul (R-TX), Paul Broun (R-GA), Mike Rogers (R-AL), Tim Walberg (R-MI), Patrick Meehan (R-PA) and Candice Miller (R-MI)—all speak eloquently of the threat of radical Islam to the country and to the Constitution.
After over three and a half hours and lots of furious Tweeting by me, the hearing comes to an end. In the press conference that Chairman King holds immediately afterward he announces that the next hearing will be on Muslim radicalization in the U.S. prison system.
My final Tweet is geared toward preparation for further advancement of the cause: OK. Rep. King’s 1st hearing on Muslim radicalization is done. Next step: Write 2 YOUR MOCs 2 voice your concern about the issue. Speak up.
by Lisa Piraneo, Director of Government Relations
I arrive at the Cannon House Office Building at 7:30 a.m.—two hours before the scheduled start of Congressman Peter King’s (R-NY) much-publicized hearing on Muslim Radicalization in our country. For the past few months Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups like the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and Hamas front group CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) have been whipping the Muslim community and the media into a frenzy about this hearing. There have been rallies in New York City and front page articles in the so-called “establishment media” about how “unfair” and even “dangerous” holding this hearing will be.
So I expect there will be a large crowd waiting to get into the Committee room and I am right. There is a line from its entrance all the way down the hall, wrapped around the corner, and half way down the next hall. I park myself in line and wait.
More people arrive. More press arrive. More police arrive. There have been threats against Chairman King leading up to the hearing and it is clear they are being taken seriously. A police officer confronts several bowtie-wearing gentlemen in front of me for cutting into line. They see the length of the line and realize that the odds of them getting into the hearing if they go to the end are slim to none. “You need to get to the end of the line, sir.” He says. “See all of these people behind you? They are waiting too.” There is some tense back and forth and finally they acquiesce.
The waiting crowd is clearly majority Muslim or Muslim-American. I hear multiple discussions about how unfair Representative King is—and lots of strategy about what to do once the hearing is over. Some waiting in line have signs with them. One reads “Stop Demonizing Muslims.” Standing directly behind me is Alejandro Beutel, of the Muslim Public Affairs Council. He gives multiple interviews to press while waiting in line, telling them that the organization is taking a “wait and see” approach.
At 9:15 a.m.—an hour and 45 minutes after I arrived and 15 minutes prior to the hearing’s commencement—an announcement is made that the Committee room will soon open. Warnings are given from both the Capitol Police as well as Committee staff that outbursts and signs in the hearing room are against House rules and will not be tolerated. The line starts to move, slowly. They are letting people in the room a little at a time. I learn that a large section of the small hearing room is already taken up by press. Not a good sign for me.
I am 10 people away from the doors to the hearing room when an announcement is made that the Committee room is now full. The choice to the hundreds still in line: stay there and take the chance that others will leave the hearing, opening up additional space; move to a small “overflow room” right next to the Committee room; or go home. I opt for the overflow room, as I don’t want to miss one second of the hearing. In a matter of seconds, the overflow room is filled to capacity as well, as it is already half full with press when I arrive. I grab one of the few remaining seats and get ready to Tweet.
Representative King, as the Committee Chair, speaks first, offering his Opening Remarks. He states that today’s hearing will be the first of a series dealing with the “critical issue” of the radicalization of Muslim-Americans. He states “Let me make it clear today I remain convinced that these hearings must go forward. And they will. To back down would be a craven surrender to political correctness and an abdication of what I believe to be the main responsibility of this committee—to protect America from a terrorist attack.”
The hearing is divided into two panels: The first panel consists of two sitting Members of Congress: Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Representative Frank Wolf (R-VA). During Representative Ellison’s remarks, he breaks down and openly weeps when talking about Mohammad Salman Hamdani, an American Muslim firefighter who died on 9/11 and notes how his name was smeared. Congressional drama. I’ve seen it often and it can distract from the issue at hand. A news report later in the evening notes that no such smears against the firefighter could be found in a Google search.
Representative Wolf speaks next and comes out swinging, especially at CAIR. He states “My concern about CAIR is not limited to its disturbing origins and connections to terrorist financing. I am equally concerned about CAIR’s role in attacking the reputations of any who dare to raise concerns about domestic radicalization.”
No questions are posed to either Member of Congress after they make their statements. Time for Panel Two, which consists of Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, a medical doctor and former U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander; Abdirizak Bihi, whose nephew left the states to join al-Shabaab in Somalia; Melvin Bledsoe, the father of Carlos Leon Bledsoe (aka) Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad, a Muslim convert who attacked an Army recruiting office in Little Rock, Arkansas killing one soldier; and Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca.
Though I have attended many congressional hearings, I am shocked by the behavior of some of these elected officials as they interact with the witnesses. It is rude and disrespectful—particularly toward Dr. Jasser, who stresses that terrorism will never be eliminated until the political side of Islam is removed. He also notes that there are Muslim groups in the U.S. who are pledging their allegiance to the Koran instead of to the U.S. Constitution. A vast majority of the audience in the room clearly disagrees with Dr. Jasser as there is a lot of eye rolling and snickering when he speaks.
Some examples that I include in my Tweets:
- Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) condescendingly states that she doesn’t think that the families and Dr. Jasser are “experts” about this issue and that she didn’t find their information “enlightening,” adding that she is Catholic yet cannot speak on pedophilia in the priesthood.
- Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) states that there is no “redeeming factual information” at the hearing and that you can’t “clean a dirty kitchen with dirty water.” She warns that the Constitution is in “pain” and that the hearing should have focused on the civil rights movement. Later, she is gaveled down by Chairman King, as she disregards him multiple times when he tells her that her time to speak has expired. More political theater with no benefit to the issue at hand.
- Rep. Al Green (D-TX) chastises Rep. King for not holding a hearing on the KKK, saying that “we’ve had 100 years of terrorism perpetrated by the KKK on Jews and African Americans.”
- Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ), in a stunningly condescending tone to Dr. Jasser and Mr. Bledsoe, says that “extreme” is in the “eyes of the beholder.”
Also, I am surprised by the callous responses of the audience all around me—most of whom are clearly Muslim-American. Throughout the hearing they laugh at Dr. Jasser and Mr. Bihi—also Muslims. I feel that they are not affected by the pain of the family members at the loss of a child and nephew to radicalization and, in Mr. Bihi’s case, also to death. Mr. Bledsoe’s testimony ends with “God help us! God help us!”
The behavior of the Members of Congress who speak down to Dr. Jasser, Mr. Bihi and Mr. Bledsoe, and the repeated negative reactions these three get from the crowd of Muslims in the hearing room, is disturbing. Over and over we hear from government officials and the media that most Muslims are peaceful and law-abiding, and yet when three brave Muslims come forward to speak out against the ideology driving Muslim radicalization they are not praised by these four Members of Congress or most of the Muslims in the crowd—they are belittled. What message does that send to Muslim-Americans who are in agreement with Dr. Jasser? Stand up and be counted? Hardly.
Fortunately, there are Members of Congress who clearly “get it”—in addition to Chairman King—and it’s refreshing.
Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-MN) asks Sheriff Baca if he realizes that, when he works so closely with CAIR, he is working with a terrorist organization (Hamas) and he cites the Holy Land Foundation Trial.
Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) speaks of the political ideology of Islamism. He says that he is “outraged…outraged!” by this Administration’s failure to define the enemy. He shows a slide that demonstrates the number of times words like “enemy,” “jihad,” and “Muslim Brotherhood” are mentioned in the 9/11 Commission report, and then in comparison how many times they are mentioned in the government’s security lexicon—zero.
All this from two freshman Members of Congress. What a difference an election makes! In addition, other Members of Congress such as Reps. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), Mike McCaul (R-TX), Paul Broun (R-GA), Mike Rogers (R-AL), Tim Walberg (R-MI), Patrick Meehan (R-PA) and Candice Miller (R-MI)—all speak eloquently of the threat of radical Islam to the country and to the Constitution.
After over three and a half hours and lots of furious Tweeting by me, the hearing comes to an end. In the press conference that Chairman King holds immediately afterward he announces that the next hearing will be on Muslim radicalization in the U.S. prison system.
My final Tweet is geared toward preparation for further advancement of the cause: OK. Rep. King’s 1st hearing on Muslim radicalization is done. Next step: Write 2 YOUR MOCs 2 voice your concern about the issue. Speak up.
Friday, March 04, 2011
CAIR Fights Anti-Terrorism Bill
In Tennessee, the ‘Red-Green Alliance’ Defends Violent Jihad and Shariah
Posted by Dave Reaboi Mar 3rd 2011
http://bigpeace.com/dreaboi/2011/03/03/in-tennessee-the-red-green-alliance-defends-violent-jihad-and-shariah/
Imagine a bill criminalizing only those individuals who knowingly engage in what has already been defined federally as material support for terrorist activity. Indeed, what if the bill were even more refined and targeted only the material support of jihad terrorist activity. Meanwhile, the bill in no way regulates or affects the peaceful practice of any religion. Who would oppose such a common-sense measure? Recently, in Tennessee, we’ve seen a ‘Red-Green alliance’ between the radical left and Islamists wound into hysteria over this very suggestion—that has, very plainly, revealed them as defenders of the jihad provisions in Shariah.
This crucial piece of legislation to prevent jihadist acts of terror is being considered now in Tennessee. The “Material Support to Designated Entities Act of 2011,” also known as House Bill 1353 and Senate Bill 1028, is on the cutting-edge of anti-terrorism legislation, because it would be the first of its kind to empower local and state law enforcement to deal with the enemy’s stated threat doctrine—the law of jihad, as enunciated in Islamic jurisprudence, or Shariah.
The bill’s sponsor, Senate Republican Caucus Chairman Bill Ketron (R-Murfreesboro), said “this bill does not interfere with the constitutionally protected rights of those who practice Shariah religious law.” Ketron added: “This is not about religious rights or about those who practice Islamic beliefs. It’s about protecting our citizens from acts of terrorism that come from Shariah jihad which is a growing threat in all our states.”
Pressure by a Red-Green alliance (a coalition of ideology and convenience of far-left groups like the ACLU, Soros-funded extremist blogs like Mother Jones and ThinkProgress, and Islamist Muslim Brotherhood-linked pressure groups like the Muslim Public Affairs Council and CAIR) to defeat the bill has been fierce and growing. Willingly influenced by misleading propaganda, the Associated Press ran a headline on the bill, incorrectly reporting it “would make following Shariah a felony.” In the article, AP reporter Lucas L. Johnson II claims the bill’s focus on the Shariah law of jihad “represents the boldest legislative attempt yet to limit how Muslims worship.”
Amplified by the far-left, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC)—unindicted co-conspirators in the largest terrorist funding trial in US history—have launched a media campaign to distort the law and defame its author, Center for Security Policy General Counsel David Yerushalmi.
These groups have lied, squealing that the Tennessee bill “would jail Shariah followers” and make it a crime to practice Islam peacefully in the state. For example, from the AP report: “Muslim groups fear the measure would outlaw central tenets of Islam, such as praying five times a day toward Mecca, abstaining from alcohol or fasting for Ramadan.” The piece continued, quoting Remziya Suleyman, policy coordinator for the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition: “This is an anti-Muslim bill that makes it illegal to be a Muslim in the state of Tennessee.”
In an interview with Mother Jones, CAIR staff attorney Gadeir Abbas said, “essentially the bill is trying to separate the ‘good Muslims’ from the ‘bad Muslims.’” In a sense, Abbas is correct: The Tennessee bill is an attempt to cleave Shariah’s law of jihad (‘bad’) from peaceful practice (‘good’)—and it’s being fought relentlessly, and with much flailing.
That Muslim pressure groups like CAIR and MPAC are mischaracterizing this bill so aggressively tells us something profound about their intentions. Despite the bill’s very clear wording on protecting citizens’ First Amendment rights to peacefully practice their religion—including, of course, Islam—these Muslim groups are making two very clear statements: (1) they are drawing a line in support of the law of jihad in Shariah, and (2) are affirming that, as books like Shariah: The Threat to America have argued, Shariah is a unified theological, political, military and legal code.
The proposed law is pretty straightforward, and is based almost precisely on the federal material support of terrorism statute upheld recently by the US Supreme Court. The Court found that Americans found to be providing “training,” “expert advice or assistance,” “service,” and “personnel” to designated terrorist organizations constitute material support and, thus, would be in violation of the law.
If this seems a no-brainer—consider the effect of this ruling (and, by extension, the proposed Tennessee law) on some of the favorite causes of both the radical left and the Islamists in Muslim Brotherhood front groups, like CAIR and the Muslim Public Affairs Council. The federal law stands in the way of providing material support to the genocidal Hamas or Hezb’allah, leftist enviro-terrorists or FARC—all pet causes of the Red-Green alliance.
In its biased coverage of the Tennessee bill, and its commonsense and non-intrusive national security provisions, the media has completely ignored the bill itself. It’s useful to better understand the bill, and what has its critics so upset. From this standpoint, we can see the truly profound statement groups like CAIR are making by opposing it.
The bill’s first section includes legislative findings that conclude that authoritative Shariah is the basis for jihad both around the globe and domestically. The legislative findings make clear that the law refers to the objectively knowable Shariah that that calls for violent jihad against the West and is the law of the land in many foreign countries, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Gaza, Sudan, Somalia, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan and Pakistan, and parts of Muslim-controlled Nigeria, Indonesia and even the Philippines. In other words, the bill identifies Shariah’s brutal practices and dictates as they occur in the real world (rather than in an imaginary Shariah of one’s own interpretation).
The second section of the bill, the legislative intent, states clearly that the target is a violent jihad-driven Shariah, not any peaceful Islamic religious practice. This peaceful religious practice even includes the so-called non-violent definition of jihad—the personal struggle or striving to better ones’ self (which, as many know, is based on a ‘weak’ or unreliable hadith). So what’s the problem?
Since September 11, 2001, we have heard CAIR, MPAC, ISNA, and the other Muslim Brotherhood pressure groups condemn what they describe as “terrorism in the name of Islam”; why can’t they support criminalizing organizations that clearly promote what they’ve called, “perversions of Islam”? The media should ask them.
In the third section of the law, the Attorney General would have the authority to designate a Shariah organization but ONLY if that organization is advancing the violent Shariah AND either actually engaging in terrorism OR retains the capability to engage in terrorism AND intends to engage in terrorism. Once designated, the Shariah organization can have its financial assets frozen. These provisions track almost precisely the federal material support of terrorism statute upheld recently by the US Supreme Court. The final section is the criminal section, which makes it a crime to provide such a terrorist organization with material support, again tracking the federal material support statute.
Despite all the hyperventilating by the Red-Green alliance, the Tennessee bill does not impact the peaceful worship by law-abiding Muslims. If you are not advocating violent Shariah and if you are not engaged or planning to engage in terrorism, the law simply does not apply.
Is it fair to say that the law discriminates against Shariah advocates and devotees of terrorism by criminalizing any material support of their terrorist organizations? Yes, as well it should. The same way the federal discriminates against any foreign terrorist organization.
The howls of Islamophobia and bigotry from the now-familiar quarters of the far-left and Islamist pressure groups—the ‘Red-Green alliance—tell us more about their respective agendas than we’ve seen previously. For the far left, they oppose even any reasonable counter-terrorism measure that would make America more secure by addressing actual threats. Groups like CAIR, ISNA, and MPAC have shown their intention of protecting the principles of jihad and Shariah. It shouldn’t shock that, for both, these agendas come at the expense of the truth.
Posted by Dave Reaboi Mar 3rd 2011
http://bigpeace.com/dreaboi/2011/03/03/in-tennessee-the-red-green-alliance-defends-violent-jihad-and-shariah/
Imagine a bill criminalizing only those individuals who knowingly engage in what has already been defined federally as material support for terrorist activity. Indeed, what if the bill were even more refined and targeted only the material support of jihad terrorist activity. Meanwhile, the bill in no way regulates or affects the peaceful practice of any religion. Who would oppose such a common-sense measure? Recently, in Tennessee, we’ve seen a ‘Red-Green alliance’ between the radical left and Islamists wound into hysteria over this very suggestion—that has, very plainly, revealed them as defenders of the jihad provisions in Shariah.
This crucial piece of legislation to prevent jihadist acts of terror is being considered now in Tennessee. The “Material Support to Designated Entities Act of 2011,” also known as House Bill 1353 and Senate Bill 1028, is on the cutting-edge of anti-terrorism legislation, because it would be the first of its kind to empower local and state law enforcement to deal with the enemy’s stated threat doctrine—the law of jihad, as enunciated in Islamic jurisprudence, or Shariah.
The bill’s sponsor, Senate Republican Caucus Chairman Bill Ketron (R-Murfreesboro), said “this bill does not interfere with the constitutionally protected rights of those who practice Shariah religious law.” Ketron added: “This is not about religious rights or about those who practice Islamic beliefs. It’s about protecting our citizens from acts of terrorism that come from Shariah jihad which is a growing threat in all our states.”
Pressure by a Red-Green alliance (a coalition of ideology and convenience of far-left groups like the ACLU, Soros-funded extremist blogs like Mother Jones and ThinkProgress, and Islamist Muslim Brotherhood-linked pressure groups like the Muslim Public Affairs Council and CAIR) to defeat the bill has been fierce and growing. Willingly influenced by misleading propaganda, the Associated Press ran a headline on the bill, incorrectly reporting it “would make following Shariah a felony.” In the article, AP reporter Lucas L. Johnson II claims the bill’s focus on the Shariah law of jihad “represents the boldest legislative attempt yet to limit how Muslims worship.”
Amplified by the far-left, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC)—unindicted co-conspirators in the largest terrorist funding trial in US history—have launched a media campaign to distort the law and defame its author, Center for Security Policy General Counsel David Yerushalmi.
These groups have lied, squealing that the Tennessee bill “would jail Shariah followers” and make it a crime to practice Islam peacefully in the state. For example, from the AP report: “Muslim groups fear the measure would outlaw central tenets of Islam, such as praying five times a day toward Mecca, abstaining from alcohol or fasting for Ramadan.” The piece continued, quoting Remziya Suleyman, policy coordinator for the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition: “This is an anti-Muslim bill that makes it illegal to be a Muslim in the state of Tennessee.”
In an interview with Mother Jones, CAIR staff attorney Gadeir Abbas said, “essentially the bill is trying to separate the ‘good Muslims’ from the ‘bad Muslims.’” In a sense, Abbas is correct: The Tennessee bill is an attempt to cleave Shariah’s law of jihad (‘bad’) from peaceful practice (‘good’)—and it’s being fought relentlessly, and with much flailing.
That Muslim pressure groups like CAIR and MPAC are mischaracterizing this bill so aggressively tells us something profound about their intentions. Despite the bill’s very clear wording on protecting citizens’ First Amendment rights to peacefully practice their religion—including, of course, Islam—these Muslim groups are making two very clear statements: (1) they are drawing a line in support of the law of jihad in Shariah, and (2) are affirming that, as books like Shariah: The Threat to America have argued, Shariah is a unified theological, political, military and legal code.
The proposed law is pretty straightforward, and is based almost precisely on the federal material support of terrorism statute upheld recently by the US Supreme Court. The Court found that Americans found to be providing “training,” “expert advice or assistance,” “service,” and “personnel” to designated terrorist organizations constitute material support and, thus, would be in violation of the law.
If this seems a no-brainer—consider the effect of this ruling (and, by extension, the proposed Tennessee law) on some of the favorite causes of both the radical left and the Islamists in Muslim Brotherhood front groups, like CAIR and the Muslim Public Affairs Council. The federal law stands in the way of providing material support to the genocidal Hamas or Hezb’allah, leftist enviro-terrorists or FARC—all pet causes of the Red-Green alliance.
In its biased coverage of the Tennessee bill, and its commonsense and non-intrusive national security provisions, the media has completely ignored the bill itself. It’s useful to better understand the bill, and what has its critics so upset. From this standpoint, we can see the truly profound statement groups like CAIR are making by opposing it.
The bill’s first section includes legislative findings that conclude that authoritative Shariah is the basis for jihad both around the globe and domestically. The legislative findings make clear that the law refers to the objectively knowable Shariah that that calls for violent jihad against the West and is the law of the land in many foreign countries, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Gaza, Sudan, Somalia, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan and Pakistan, and parts of Muslim-controlled Nigeria, Indonesia and even the Philippines. In other words, the bill identifies Shariah’s brutal practices and dictates as they occur in the real world (rather than in an imaginary Shariah of one’s own interpretation).
The second section of the bill, the legislative intent, states clearly that the target is a violent jihad-driven Shariah, not any peaceful Islamic religious practice. This peaceful religious practice even includes the so-called non-violent definition of jihad—the personal struggle or striving to better ones’ self (which, as many know, is based on a ‘weak’ or unreliable hadith). So what’s the problem?
Since September 11, 2001, we have heard CAIR, MPAC, ISNA, and the other Muslim Brotherhood pressure groups condemn what they describe as “terrorism in the name of Islam”; why can’t they support criminalizing organizations that clearly promote what they’ve called, “perversions of Islam”? The media should ask them.
In the third section of the law, the Attorney General would have the authority to designate a Shariah organization but ONLY if that organization is advancing the violent Shariah AND either actually engaging in terrorism OR retains the capability to engage in terrorism AND intends to engage in terrorism. Once designated, the Shariah organization can have its financial assets frozen. These provisions track almost precisely the federal material support of terrorism statute upheld recently by the US Supreme Court. The final section is the criminal section, which makes it a crime to provide such a terrorist organization with material support, again tracking the federal material support statute.
Despite all the hyperventilating by the Red-Green alliance, the Tennessee bill does not impact the peaceful worship by law-abiding Muslims. If you are not advocating violent Shariah and if you are not engaged or planning to engage in terrorism, the law simply does not apply.
Is it fair to say that the law discriminates against Shariah advocates and devotees of terrorism by criminalizing any material support of their terrorist organizations? Yes, as well it should. The same way the federal discriminates against any foreign terrorist organization.
The howls of Islamophobia and bigotry from the now-familiar quarters of the far-left and Islamist pressure groups—the ‘Red-Green alliance—tell us more about their respective agendas than we’ve seen previously. For the far left, they oppose even any reasonable counter-terrorism measure that would make America more secure by addressing actual threats. Groups like CAIR, ISNA, and MPAC have shown their intention of protecting the principles of jihad and Shariah. It shouldn’t shock that, for both, these agendas come at the expense of the truth.
Thursday, March 03, 2011
University of Florida Stifles Discussion
http://bigpeace.com/jguandolo/2011/02/23/university-of-central-florida-stifles-discussion-of-terrorism-and-muslim-brotherhood/
University of Central Florida Stifles Discussion of Terrorism and Muslim Brotherhood
Posted by John Guandolo Feb 23rd 2011 at 2:10 pm
If the President of the University of Central Florida (UCF), Dr. John Hitt, were arrested tomorrow for material support of terrorism, he might finally begin to understand the irresponsible and dangerous actions he continues to allow his university to take in giving terrorist supporters a platform.
We can begin this discussion with the UCF Muslim Students Association (MSA). The MSA was created by the Muslim Brotherhood at the University of Illinois in 1963. The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is an international revolutionary organization whose objectives are (1) the re-establishment of the global Islamic state (Caliphate) and (2) the global implementation of Islamic Law. The MB creed includes the phrase “…Jihad is our way, and martyrdom in the way of Allah is our highest aspiration.” Every leader of the Muslim Brotherhood since its founding has reaffirmed the creed, and (until recently) their English website (www.ikhwanweb.com) contained the MB By-Laws which articulated their readiness to “fight the tyrants” in preparation for establishing the Islamic state.
The archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America were discovered in 2004 during an FBI raid at the Virginia home of a senior Hamas leader/member of the Board of Directors for the MB in the U.S. The documents reveal the Brotherhood is waging a “grand jihad” against the United States, and that the Muslim Students Association is one of their entities. Many of these documents were entered into evidence (and stipulated to by the defense) at the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial in U.S. history (US v Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development or “HLF”, Dallas 2008). The documents confirm MSA is an MB front group, as are many of the most prominent Muslim organizations in North America (ISNA, NAIT, IIIT, and others).
This brings us to November 4, 2010. The UCF MSA hosted a program on campus at which terrorists were present. Specifically, members of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) were in attendance to include one of the speakers, Jamal Badawi, who is a Board Member for CAIR. CAIR is a Hamas entity created by the International Muslim Brotherhood in 1994. Documents found at the aforementioned FBI raid listed CAIR founders Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmad as members of the Palestine Committee in the U.S. – ie members of Hamas. Testimony, intercepted phone calls, recorded meetings, and a massive amount of documents, as well as prosecutorial memos, and DOJ correspondance has confirmed CAIR is a Hamas entity. Hamas is a designated terrorist organization.
Jamal Badawi also happens to be one of the most senior/prominent Muslim Brothers living today. He sits on the Fiqh Council of North America, has held several leadership positions at the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and was one of the three founders of the Muslim American Society (MAS). All three of these are known Muslim Brotherhood front organizations as revealed from the MB archives, and in U.S. federal court cases.
Jamal Badawi is also an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case – the largest Hamas case in U.S. history.
The other speaker at this event was Edina Lekovic from the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), yet another Muslim Brotherhood front group.
The embedded video is a clip from the November event. It captures a member of the Florida community, Randy McDaniels (Chapter Leader, ACT! for America), asking a pointed question to Jamal Badawi about Islamic Law based on facts sited from the Islamic Law book McDaniels is holding during the exchange – Islamic Law which was approved by the Fiqh Council of North America of which Badawi is a member. McDaniels is forcefully removed by uniformed police at the event for asking this question. Where are we today in America when a university will warmly welcome terrorists, and forcefully remove Americans who challenge them?
AND….This Friday, the University of Central Florida’s Muslim Students Association will be hosting Sirhaj Wahajj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing who also testified on behalf of Omar Abdel Rahman, the Blind Sheikh.
Apparently, UCF has a “You must be a terrorist” requirement for speakers at MSA events.
Where is the outrage from the UCF alumni? Will the citizens of Central Florida put an end to this nonsense and call for the removal of UCF’s leadership to end the danger to their community?
University of Central Florida Stifles Discussion of Terrorism and Muslim Brotherhood
Posted by John Guandolo Feb 23rd 2011 at 2:10 pm
If the President of the University of Central Florida (UCF), Dr. John Hitt, were arrested tomorrow for material support of terrorism, he might finally begin to understand the irresponsible and dangerous actions he continues to allow his university to take in giving terrorist supporters a platform.
We can begin this discussion with the UCF Muslim Students Association (MSA). The MSA was created by the Muslim Brotherhood at the University of Illinois in 1963. The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is an international revolutionary organization whose objectives are (1) the re-establishment of the global Islamic state (Caliphate) and (2) the global implementation of Islamic Law. The MB creed includes the phrase “…Jihad is our way, and martyrdom in the way of Allah is our highest aspiration.” Every leader of the Muslim Brotherhood since its founding has reaffirmed the creed, and (until recently) their English website (www.ikhwanweb.com) contained the MB By-Laws which articulated their readiness to “fight the tyrants” in preparation for establishing the Islamic state.
The archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America were discovered in 2004 during an FBI raid at the Virginia home of a senior Hamas leader/member of the Board of Directors for the MB in the U.S. The documents reveal the Brotherhood is waging a “grand jihad” against the United States, and that the Muslim Students Association is one of their entities. Many of these documents were entered into evidence (and stipulated to by the defense) at the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial in U.S. history (US v Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development or “HLF”, Dallas 2008). The documents confirm MSA is an MB front group, as are many of the most prominent Muslim organizations in North America (ISNA, NAIT, IIIT, and others).
This brings us to November 4, 2010. The UCF MSA hosted a program on campus at which terrorists were present. Specifically, members of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) were in attendance to include one of the speakers, Jamal Badawi, who is a Board Member for CAIR. CAIR is a Hamas entity created by the International Muslim Brotherhood in 1994. Documents found at the aforementioned FBI raid listed CAIR founders Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmad as members of the Palestine Committee in the U.S. – ie members of Hamas. Testimony, intercepted phone calls, recorded meetings, and a massive amount of documents, as well as prosecutorial memos, and DOJ correspondance has confirmed CAIR is a Hamas entity. Hamas is a designated terrorist organization.
Jamal Badawi also happens to be one of the most senior/prominent Muslim Brothers living today. He sits on the Fiqh Council of North America, has held several leadership positions at the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and was one of the three founders of the Muslim American Society (MAS). All three of these are known Muslim Brotherhood front organizations as revealed from the MB archives, and in U.S. federal court cases.
Jamal Badawi is also an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case – the largest Hamas case in U.S. history.
The other speaker at this event was Edina Lekovic from the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), yet another Muslim Brotherhood front group.
The embedded video is a clip from the November event. It captures a member of the Florida community, Randy McDaniels (Chapter Leader, ACT! for America), asking a pointed question to Jamal Badawi about Islamic Law based on facts sited from the Islamic Law book McDaniels is holding during the exchange – Islamic Law which was approved by the Fiqh Council of North America of which Badawi is a member. McDaniels is forcefully removed by uniformed police at the event for asking this question. Where are we today in America when a university will warmly welcome terrorists, and forcefully remove Americans who challenge them?
AND….This Friday, the University of Central Florida’s Muslim Students Association will be hosting Sirhaj Wahajj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing who also testified on behalf of Omar Abdel Rahman, the Blind Sheikh.
Apparently, UCF has a “You must be a terrorist” requirement for speakers at MSA events.
Where is the outrage from the UCF alumni? Will the citizens of Central Florida put an end to this nonsense and call for the removal of UCF’s leadership to end the danger to their community?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)