WHAT DID GINGRICH BOMBSHELL IN LAST NIGHT'S DEBATE MEAN?
Gingrich's Leadership in 1996 Helped Ensure that Illegal Aliens Could Sink Deeper Roots in the U.S.
The mainstream news media is filled with awe that Newt Gingrich showed some "compassion" for illegal aliens in last night's GOP presidential debate. A look at his record while in Congress shows this is nothing new.
In fact, Gingrich's leadership in Congress is one of the reasons we have so many illegal aliens today who have been able to stay in this country for 25 years.
That's the supreme irony of Gingrich's pro-amnesty remarks in last night's debate. The man who helped ensure that illegal aliens from the 1980s and 1990s are still here in 2011 asked voters last night to consider the inhumanity of making illegal aliens leave this country after they have sunk such long roots here.
If, while Speaker of the House in the 1990s, Gingrich had shown any leadership in stopping illegal immigration, there would be very few illegal aliens still here from the 1980s and 1990s because they wouldn't have been able to hold payroll jobs.
Nobody pushed him last night to take a pro-amnesty stand. He volunteered it! By focusing on long-term illegal aliens, he took a big risk that the media spotlight (or at least the internet and talk radio spotlight) would shine on his long-term record with those illegal aliens.
What the spotlight will find is that Gingrich worked with Big Business lobbyists to make sure that employers could continue to hire illegal workers, and thus sink roots that would be used by pro-amnesty politicians to justify legalizing them today.
We hear the same arguments from the National Council of La Raza, from the ACLU, from the National Immigration Forum -- all of them cite the lack of past enforcement (which they impeded at every turn) as having allowed illegal aliens to sink such long roots that it would be unjust to make them go home now.
Gingrich reaffirmed his support for some legalizations several times last night. Here is his first comment:
"If you've been here 25 years and you got three kids and two grandkids, you've been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don't think we're going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out."
-- Newt Gingrich
He went on to indicate that he would give them permanent legal residency and permanent work permits, but not U.S. citizenship. He and his supporters in the media say it isn't amnesty if the illegal aliens don't get citizenship. I suppose that is supposed to make the unemployed American who is left without a job feel better.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION WOULD NOT BE A TOPIC IN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES IF SPEAKER GINGRICH IN 1996 HAD TAKEN DIFFERENT IMMIGRATION POSITIONS
The political stars were in alignment in 1995-96 when the bi-partisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform (appointed by the Senate and the House, and chaired by Barbara Jordan) issued its recommendations to protect vulnerable American workers. The immigration subcommittees of both House and Senate quickly presented legislation to carry out the recommendations to cut legal immigration in half and to stop illegal immigration, primarily by removing the jobs magnet.
As Speaker of the House, Gingrich was in the pivotal position to help Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Lamar Smith push through the 1996 comprehensive bill that set up the verification program that eventually was named "E-Verify."
The Commission had found that illegal immigration was booming in the 10 years since the 1986 blanket amnesty because illegal aliens had found it was still easy to obtain and keep U.S. jobs.
What did Speaker Gingrich do?
Those of us involved in that fight know that we were constantly and desperately seeking support from Gingrich which didn't come.
Instead, Gingrich tried to kill the new job verification system entirely. Fortunately, the killer amendment he supported failed. No thanks to Gingrich, we have an E-Verify system today.
But the E-Verify system is entirely VOLUNTARY today because of another House vote which Gingrich won. That vote was to make sure that the verification system would NOT be MANDATORY for employers.
The nation's Big Business lobbies deemed it essential that employers maintain the ability to cheat the paper verification system and hire illegal workers. Speaker Gingrich saw to it that the ability continued.
I am heartsick every time I think of that lost opportunity in 1996. If Speaker Gingrich had thrown his considerable talents and power behind the bi-partisan recommendations and supported Lamar Smith, most of the illegal aliens who arrived since then would not have bothered. And most of the illegal aliens who arrived before 1996 -- with less than 10 years of roots in this country -- would have gone back home.
Illegal immigration would not be topic of the 2012 Presidential debates.
And we would not be in a nationwide fight right now to support Rep. Lamar Smith once again (this time as chair of the Judiciary Committee) in yet another attempt to pass a mandatory verification bill (H.R. 2885). Nor would we see states across the country passing their own immigration enforcement laws -- because the number of illegal aliens would be so small.
PREFERENCE FOR FOREIGN WORKERS OVER AMERICAN WORKERS NOTHING NEW -- GINGRICH EARNED IMMIGRATION GRADE OF 'D' WHILE IN CONGRESS
NumbersUSA is the nation's top source on records of Members of Congress on immigration since 1989.
Here's the link to our report card on Gingrich's activities on 10 areas of immigration issues:
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/my/congress/217/reportcard
You will see that he got excellent grades on Border issues and on denying taxpayer benefits to illegal aliens.
But he was terrible on everything else.
On the issue of amnesty, Gingrich acknowledged last night that he voted for the 1986 blanket amnesty which he says was a failure.
But during the 1990s, he showed no signs of learning from the 1986 amnesty failure. Congress passed several more smaller amnesties during the 1990s, primarily hiding them in other bills. Although we find only one instance of Gingrich casting a vote on those amnesties (in favor), we find no sign of Gingrich ever working against them or using his Speakership to stop them.
Despite that record, NumbersUSA earlier upgraded Gingrich's Presidential Grade Card rating on amnesty from "Bad" to "Unhelpful" based on public statements this year. We have been prepared to improve his ratings further if he makes more specific promises.
Our Presidential ratings are not tied totally to past records. What we are most interested in are public promises made during the campaign. Hardly any candidates have totally clean hands on the immigration issue in the past. Nearly all of them have favored corporate lobbyists and foreign workers over American workers and taxpayers at some time. But some have made dramatic improvements in their stances.
GINGRICH LEGALIZATION EXAMPLE WAS VERY NARROW --
WHY DID HE BRING IT UP?
Gingrich appeared to taunt Primary voters with the idea that they would lack compassion if they didn't agree with giving some kind of legalization to long-term illegal aliens. It was a bold move on his part, given than he is well aware that Texas Gov. Rick Perry plummeted in the polls after a debate comment that people have no compassion if they don't agree with in-state tuition for young illegal aliens.
Perhaps Gingrich will retreat under attack and note that he was talking about a tiny sliver of the population. After all, how many illegal aliens with families have been here 25 years or more? Not many. Does this mean he wouldn't give his legalization to illegal aliens who have been here 15 years? Or 24 years? Where's the cut-off?
I hope Gingrich does retreat. But his reference to a Krieble Foundation proposal suggests that he is thinking about far more than just 25-year illegal aliens.
"The Krieble Foundation has a very good red card program that says you get to be legal, but you don't get a pass to citizenship. And so there's a way to ultimately end up with a country where there's no more illegality, but you haven't automatically given amnesty to anyone."
-- Newt Gingrich
Krieble has been peddling this idea for years. You may remember conservative darling Rep. Mike Pence from Indiana who a few years ago proposed a type of amnesty that knocked him off his pedestal. That proposal came from Krieble.
Basically, Krieble believes the country has huge labor shortage issues and that the reason we have so many illegal aliens is that we don't provide enough legal ways for foreign workers to get here.
Krieble would allow most illegal aliens to get work visas with various rules, but not citizenship that would allow them to vote for Democrats.
Here's the promotional page for the red cards:
http://www.krieble.org/frequently-asked-questions
Michelle Bachmann in the debate kept calling Gingrich's proposal an amnesty for most of the 11 million illegal aliens. Gingrich kept protesting that he wasn't talking about everybody. But his reference to Krieble raises big doubts.
The CNN moderator pressed Mitt Romney more than once to acknowledge that Gingrich was right to show compassion to his narrowly defined group of church-going illegal aliens.
Romney maintained a consistency he has shown through all the debates of rejecting any talk of amnesty now.
"Look, amnesty is a magnet. What when we have had in the past, programs that have said that if people who come here illegally are going to get to stay illegally for the rest of their life, that's going to only encourage more people to come here illegally."
-- Mitt Romney
Pressed further if he was saying that Gingrich's compassion is really about amnesty, Romney responded:
"There's no question. But to say that we're going to say to the people who have come here illegally that now you're all going to get to stay or some large number are going to get to stay and become permanent residents of the United States, that will only encourage more people to do the same thing. People respond to incentives. And if you can become a permanent resident of the United States by coming here illegally, you'll do so."
-- Romney
But wouldn't you let the family-loving, church-going illegal aliens who have been here 25 years stay, Romney was asked again.
"I'm not going to start drawing lines here about who gets to stay and who gets to go. The principle is that we are not going to have an amnesty system that says that people who come here illegally get to stay for the rest of their life in this country legally."
-- Romney
Romney went on to say that it was inappropriate in a debate to be sending signals to illegal aliens that certain of them should be rewarded for breaking the law.
Nonetheless, Romney and all the rest of the candidates failed to make the point that the reason illegal immigration must be reversed is to protect American workers and taxpayers.
That void led to a bunch of careless comments by Romney, Santorum and Gingrich about the country's need for highly-skilled immigrants -- indicating that they haven't looked at the unemployment rates for under-30 college grads, or that they don't care.
And that leads to the worst part of Gingrich's attempt to distinguish himself from the other candidates last night. He has rarely acknowledged that immigration policy has any effect on American workers.
To be fair, Gingrich has a mixed record on illegal immigration (despite the terrible blot on his E-Verify record described above). Dr. James Edwards, who wrote a book on the 1996 legislative battle, agrees with my assessment of Gingrich on matters of workplace verification. However, Edwards says that in the Conference Committee where Gingrich was wrestling with the White House, he stood his ground and kept the Clinton Administration from stripping out a number of non-workplace-related enforcement measures against illegal immigration.
In fact, Gingrich earlier this year came out in support of mandatory E-Verify. We have changed his Presidential E-Verify rating from "Abysmal" to "Excellent."
But if Gingrich is going to use some Krieble-type legalization to give most current illegal aliens work permits -- and if he is going to greatly expand guestworker programs for even more foreign workers -- mandatory E-Verify would not end up protecting many jobs for Americans.
During the 1990s on immigration issues, Gingrich represented the interests of the national Republican Establishment. That Establishment was fully behind the Bush amnesty attempts in 2006 and 2007. And that Republican Establishment is advising Republican congressional leaders and candidates today to stay away from anything that would like the bi-partisan immigration legislation of 1996 that would make immigration policy serve the needs and interests of Americans -- especially the most vulnerable of Americans.
Gingrich's salvo last night looks like an appeal for the Republican Establishment's support with hopes that the grassroots won't punish him.
----------------
ROY BECK is Founder & CEO of NumbersUSA, a non-partisan, non-ideological, immigration-reduction organization
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Surveillance Company Says It Sent Fake Updates
NOVEMBER 21, 2011, 6:35 PM ET
Surveillance Company Says It Sent Fake iTunes, Flash Updates
By Jennifer Valentino-DeVries
Gamma International UK Ltd. touts its ability to send a “fake iTunes update” that can infect computers with surveillance software, according to one of the company’s marketing videos.
The Wall Street Journal unveiled on Saturday the “Surveillance Catalog” – an online database containing highlights from surveillance industry marketing documents. The documents show dozens of companies making and selling everything from “massive intercept” gear that can gather all Internet communications in a country to “hacking” tools that allow governments to break into people’s computers.
Gamma was one of three companies marketing their skill at the kind of techniques usually used in “black hat hacking,” the type of intrusion used by criminals trying to steal people’s financial details.
All of the hacking companies say they sell their tools to law enforcement and governments to help them track down criminals. People in this new industry say their tools are necessary because terrorists and criminals are communicating online and hiding behind encryption and other techniques.
Perhaps the most extensive marketing materials came from Gamma’s FinFisher brand, which says it works by “sending fake software updates for popular software,” from Apple, Adobe and others. The FinFisher documentation included brochures in several languages, as well as videos touting the tools.
This is but one of thousands of entities spying on you with impunity. Be aware. Protect yourself!
Surveillance Company Says It Sent Fake iTunes, Flash Updates
By Jennifer Valentino-DeVries
Gamma International UK Ltd. touts its ability to send a “fake iTunes update” that can infect computers with surveillance software, according to one of the company’s marketing videos.
The Wall Street Journal unveiled on Saturday the “Surveillance Catalog” – an online database containing highlights from surveillance industry marketing documents. The documents show dozens of companies making and selling everything from “massive intercept” gear that can gather all Internet communications in a country to “hacking” tools that allow governments to break into people’s computers.
Gamma was one of three companies marketing their skill at the kind of techniques usually used in “black hat hacking,” the type of intrusion used by criminals trying to steal people’s financial details.
All of the hacking companies say they sell their tools to law enforcement and governments to help them track down criminals. People in this new industry say their tools are necessary because terrorists and criminals are communicating online and hiding behind encryption and other techniques.
Perhaps the most extensive marketing materials came from Gamma’s FinFisher brand, which says it works by “sending fake software updates for popular software,” from Apple, Adobe and others. The FinFisher documentation included brochures in several languages, as well as videos touting the tools.
This is but one of thousands of entities spying on you with impunity. Be aware. Protect yourself!
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Wisdom From Palin?
NYTimes
Could Sarah Palin Say Something Intelligent?
So here is something I never thought I would write: a column about Sarah Palin’s ideas.
There was plenty of the usual Palin schtick — words that make clear that she is not speaking to everyone but to a particular strain of American: “The working men and women of this country, you got up off your couch, you came down from the deer stand, you came out of the duck blind, you got off the John Deere, and we took to the streets, and we took to the town halls, and we ended up at the ballot box.”
But when her throat was cleared at last, Ms. Palin had something considerably more substantive to say.
She made three interlocking points. First, that the United States is now governed by a “permanent political class,” drawn from both parties, that is increasingly cut off from the concerns of regular people. Second, that these Republicans and Democrats have allied with big business to mutual advantage to create what she called “corporate crony capitalism.” Third, that the real political divide in the United States may no longer be between friends and foes of Big Government, but between friends and foes of vast, remote, unaccountable institutions (both public and private).
In supporting her first point, about the permanent political class, she attacked both parties’ tendency to talk of spending cuts while spending more and more; to stoke public anxiety about a credit downgrade, but take a vacation anyway; to arrive in Washington of modest means and then somehow ride the gravy train to fabulous wealth. She observed that 7 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the United States happen to be suburbs of the nation’s capital.
Her second point, about money in politics, helped to explain the first. The permanent class stays in power because it positions itself between two deep troughs: the money spent by the government and the money spent by big companies to secure decisions from government that help them make more money.
“Do you want to know why nothing ever really gets done?” she said, referring to politicians. “It’s because there’s nothing in it for them. They’ve got a lot of mouths to feed — a lot of corporate lobbyists and a lot of special interests that are counting on them to keep the good times and the money rolling along.”
Because her party has agitated for the wholesale deregulation of money in politics and the unshackling of lobbyists, these will be heard in some quarters as sacrilegious words.
Ms. Palin’s third point was more striking still: in contrast to the sweeping paeans to capitalism and the free market delivered by the Republican presidential candidates whose ranks she has yet to join, she sought to make a distinction between good capitalists and bad ones. The good ones, in her telling, are those small businesses that take risks and sink and swim in the churning market; the bad ones are well-connected megacorporations that live off bailouts, dodge taxes and profit terrifically while creating no jobs.
Strangely, she was saying things that liberals might like, if not for Ms. Palin’s having said them.
“This is not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk,” she said of the crony variety. She added: “It’s the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest — to the little guys. It’s a slap in the face to our small business owners — the true entrepreneurs, the job creators accounting for 70 percent of the jobs in America.”
Is there a hint of a political breakthrough hiding in there?
The political conversation in the United States is paralyzed by a simplistic division of labor. Democrats protect that portion of human flourishing that is threatened by big money and enhanced by government action. Republicans protect that portion of human flourishing that is threatened by big government and enhanced by the free market.
What is seldom said is that human flourishing is a complex and delicate thing, and that we needn’t choose whether government or the market jeopardizes it more, because both can threaten it at the same time.
Ms. Palin may be hinting at a new political alignment that would pit a vigorous localism against a kind of national-global institutionalism.
On one side would be those Americans who believe in the power of vast, well-developed institutions like Goldman Sachs, the Teamsters Union, General Electric, Google and the U.S. Department of Education to make the world better. On the other side would be people who believe that power, whether public or private, becomes corrupt and unresponsive the more remote and more anonymous it becomes; they would press to live in self-contained, self-governing enclaves that bear the burden of their own prosperity.
Read More: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/10/us/10iht-currents10.html?_r=1&emc=eta1#h[]
Could Sarah Palin Say Something Intelligent?
So here is something I never thought I would write: a column about Sarah Palin’s ideas.
There was plenty of the usual Palin schtick — words that make clear that she is not speaking to everyone but to a particular strain of American: “The working men and women of this country, you got up off your couch, you came down from the deer stand, you came out of the duck blind, you got off the John Deere, and we took to the streets, and we took to the town halls, and we ended up at the ballot box.”
But when her throat was cleared at last, Ms. Palin had something considerably more substantive to say.
She made three interlocking points. First, that the United States is now governed by a “permanent political class,” drawn from both parties, that is increasingly cut off from the concerns of regular people. Second, that these Republicans and Democrats have allied with big business to mutual advantage to create what she called “corporate crony capitalism.” Third, that the real political divide in the United States may no longer be between friends and foes of Big Government, but between friends and foes of vast, remote, unaccountable institutions (both public and private).
In supporting her first point, about the permanent political class, she attacked both parties’ tendency to talk of spending cuts while spending more and more; to stoke public anxiety about a credit downgrade, but take a vacation anyway; to arrive in Washington of modest means and then somehow ride the gravy train to fabulous wealth. She observed that 7 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the United States happen to be suburbs of the nation’s capital.
Her second point, about money in politics, helped to explain the first. The permanent class stays in power because it positions itself between two deep troughs: the money spent by the government and the money spent by big companies to secure decisions from government that help them make more money.
“Do you want to know why nothing ever really gets done?” she said, referring to politicians. “It’s because there’s nothing in it for them. They’ve got a lot of mouths to feed — a lot of corporate lobbyists and a lot of special interests that are counting on them to keep the good times and the money rolling along.”
Because her party has agitated for the wholesale deregulation of money in politics and the unshackling of lobbyists, these will be heard in some quarters as sacrilegious words.
Ms. Palin’s third point was more striking still: in contrast to the sweeping paeans to capitalism and the free market delivered by the Republican presidential candidates whose ranks she has yet to join, she sought to make a distinction between good capitalists and bad ones. The good ones, in her telling, are those small businesses that take risks and sink and swim in the churning market; the bad ones are well-connected megacorporations that live off bailouts, dodge taxes and profit terrifically while creating no jobs.
Strangely, she was saying things that liberals might like, if not for Ms. Palin’s having said them.
“This is not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk,” she said of the crony variety. She added: “It’s the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest — to the little guys. It’s a slap in the face to our small business owners — the true entrepreneurs, the job creators accounting for 70 percent of the jobs in America.”
Is there a hint of a political breakthrough hiding in there?
The political conversation in the United States is paralyzed by a simplistic division of labor. Democrats protect that portion of human flourishing that is threatened by big money and enhanced by government action. Republicans protect that portion of human flourishing that is threatened by big government and enhanced by the free market.
What is seldom said is that human flourishing is a complex and delicate thing, and that we needn’t choose whether government or the market jeopardizes it more, because both can threaten it at the same time.
Ms. Palin may be hinting at a new political alignment that would pit a vigorous localism against a kind of national-global institutionalism.
On one side would be those Americans who believe in the power of vast, well-developed institutions like Goldman Sachs, the Teamsters Union, General Electric, Google and the U.S. Department of Education to make the world better. On the other side would be people who believe that power, whether public or private, becomes corrupt and unresponsive the more remote and more anonymous it becomes; they would press to live in self-contained, self-governing enclaves that bear the burden of their own prosperity.
Read More: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/10/us/10iht-currents10.html?_r=1&emc=eta1#h[]
Monday, November 21, 2011
Terror And Civil Society
Terror - and Civil Society - on trial in Boston
By Charles Jacobs
Tarek Mehanna, a young Muslim student, son of an Egyptian immigrant, was arrested two years ago at his home in Sudbury; accused by the FBI of plotting a Mumbai like machine gun massacre of New England shoppers in Attleboro's Emerald Square Mall - and for giving material support to Al Qaeda in Iraq. His trial began on Oct. 24.
Prosecution documents tell of Mehanna's attempt to seek terrorist training in Yemen and Pakistan. They describe the pleasure he and his friends took in watching videos of Americans being beheaded and of American soldiers killed and mutilated in Iraq. Watching a scene of an American soldier whose chest was ripped open and whose innards then set ablaze with gasoline, Mehanna called it "a Texas barbeque." When asked by a fellow extremist if the soldiers should not have received some sort of trial, Mehanna said no, "BBQ sauce is the way to go." Mehanna and his friends talked online about how his own translations of Al-Qaeda recruitment literature into English made him part of "the media wing of Al Qaeda." In these same conversations, monitored by the FBI, he has said that he "looks to Osama Bin Laden as his real father" and "loves him," and that he wasn't sorry for the victims of 9/11; he was just sorry "for the buildings."
An upper middle class fellow with an advantaged background hates his neighbors and his country? Aren't we told that poverty produces radicals?
Despite all this, the very people who have been telling us for years that they are true moderates have developed a Free Tarek Mehanna (FTM) Committee, which describes Mehanna in a petition as "a person with strong ethical values" who is "intelligent, charismatic, influential and trusted by many in the local Islamic community." A role model.
The group has been aggressively politicizing the judicial proceedings against Mehanna. Its spokesmen accuse the FBI of a national effort to harm the entire American Muslim community. FTM has targeted individual prosecutors and harassed the US Attorney's office with repeated phone calls and sit-ins. It labels anyone who dares to raise concerns about radical Islam as bigots and Islamophobes.
On Sept. 24, the leadership of the Islamic Society of Boston mosque in Roxbury organized an event there that featured pleas for support by Mehanna's brother and by the families of three convicted terrorists from Georgia, North Carolina and New York (Ehsanul Sadequee, Ziyad Yaghi and Syed Fahad Hashmi, respectively). Speakers claimed their communities were "suffering under the war on terror," which they called a US government plot against Muslims.
Whether Tarek Mehanna violated the law is an issue that should be left up to the courts - without mob pressures.
But what everyone in Boston should be concerned with is that Boston's Muslim leadership, under the guise of protecting free speech, is celebrating a man who sees himself as a hateful enemy of our society and was prepared - says the FBI - to kill his fellow New Englanders.
One of the leaders of FTM is Imam Abdullah Faaruuq, president of the umbrella organization of all the mosques in New England (Islamic Council of N.E.) and the Muslim chaplain at Northeastern University. Imam Faaruuq caused a stir when, in response to Mehanna's arrest, he encouraged Boston Muslims to "pick up the gun and the sword, don't be afraid to go out there and do your job." Faaruuq, by the way, is a man who has been embraced by Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick. While my organization has made both Patrick and the Northeastern administration aware of Faaruuq's activities, both have refused to repudiate him. There's a money angle as well: Northeastern student activity fees paid for a Support Mehanna event on campus in April. Last year, Faaruuq gave the Patrick administration $50,000 for "Muslim sensitivity training" for police.
In supporting an anti-American Islamist radical, Boston's Muslim leadership is promoting a sort of tribalism, which sees all Muslims as "our brothers and sisters" who must be defended regardless of their actions. Rather than shunning indecent behavior found among fringe people in their own groups, as all decent Americans have learned to do, they are teaching their children to embrace people who want to kill their neighbors. This can only encourage future acts of hatred and terror.
Truly moderate Muslim leaders would want a fair trial for Tarek Mehanna, but would strongly condemn his hateful beliefs and might even undertake to investigate how these awful thoughts and radical ideology penetrated their community. We can only hope such voices emerge.
It's disheartening to watch privileged children of Muslim immigrants who have benefited so generously from America turn toward hatred while their communal leaders exploit America's tolerance to promote and lionize an indecent young man who is also an accused terrorist. In my view, the most disturbing facet of this story is the utter failure of Massachusetts media and political leadership to honestly deal with the growing radicalization of young Muslims.
I hope that Massachusetts' civic and political leadership will summon the courage to ensure that justice is served and Mehanna's trial proceeds without political interference or mob pressure.
By Charles Jacobs
Tarek Mehanna, a young Muslim student, son of an Egyptian immigrant, was arrested two years ago at his home in Sudbury; accused by the FBI of plotting a Mumbai like machine gun massacre of New England shoppers in Attleboro's Emerald Square Mall - and for giving material support to Al Qaeda in Iraq. His trial began on Oct. 24.
Prosecution documents tell of Mehanna's attempt to seek terrorist training in Yemen and Pakistan. They describe the pleasure he and his friends took in watching videos of Americans being beheaded and of American soldiers killed and mutilated in Iraq. Watching a scene of an American soldier whose chest was ripped open and whose innards then set ablaze with gasoline, Mehanna called it "a Texas barbeque." When asked by a fellow extremist if the soldiers should not have received some sort of trial, Mehanna said no, "BBQ sauce is the way to go." Mehanna and his friends talked online about how his own translations of Al-Qaeda recruitment literature into English made him part of "the media wing of Al Qaeda." In these same conversations, monitored by the FBI, he has said that he "looks to Osama Bin Laden as his real father" and "loves him," and that he wasn't sorry for the victims of 9/11; he was just sorry "for the buildings."
An upper middle class fellow with an advantaged background hates his neighbors and his country? Aren't we told that poverty produces radicals?
Despite all this, the very people who have been telling us for years that they are true moderates have developed a Free Tarek Mehanna (FTM) Committee, which describes Mehanna in a petition as "a person with strong ethical values" who is "intelligent, charismatic, influential and trusted by many in the local Islamic community." A role model.
The group has been aggressively politicizing the judicial proceedings against Mehanna. Its spokesmen accuse the FBI of a national effort to harm the entire American Muslim community. FTM has targeted individual prosecutors and harassed the US Attorney's office with repeated phone calls and sit-ins. It labels anyone who dares to raise concerns about radical Islam as bigots and Islamophobes.
On Sept. 24, the leadership of the Islamic Society of Boston mosque in Roxbury organized an event there that featured pleas for support by Mehanna's brother and by the families of three convicted terrorists from Georgia, North Carolina and New York (Ehsanul Sadequee, Ziyad Yaghi and Syed Fahad Hashmi, respectively). Speakers claimed their communities were "suffering under the war on terror," which they called a US government plot against Muslims.
Whether Tarek Mehanna violated the law is an issue that should be left up to the courts - without mob pressures.
But what everyone in Boston should be concerned with is that Boston's Muslim leadership, under the guise of protecting free speech, is celebrating a man who sees himself as a hateful enemy of our society and was prepared - says the FBI - to kill his fellow New Englanders.
One of the leaders of FTM is Imam Abdullah Faaruuq, president of the umbrella organization of all the mosques in New England (Islamic Council of N.E.) and the Muslim chaplain at Northeastern University. Imam Faaruuq caused a stir when, in response to Mehanna's arrest, he encouraged Boston Muslims to "pick up the gun and the sword, don't be afraid to go out there and do your job." Faaruuq, by the way, is a man who has been embraced by Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick. While my organization has made both Patrick and the Northeastern administration aware of Faaruuq's activities, both have refused to repudiate him. There's a money angle as well: Northeastern student activity fees paid for a Support Mehanna event on campus in April. Last year, Faaruuq gave the Patrick administration $50,000 for "Muslim sensitivity training" for police.
In supporting an anti-American Islamist radical, Boston's Muslim leadership is promoting a sort of tribalism, which sees all Muslims as "our brothers and sisters" who must be defended regardless of their actions. Rather than shunning indecent behavior found among fringe people in their own groups, as all decent Americans have learned to do, they are teaching their children to embrace people who want to kill their neighbors. This can only encourage future acts of hatred and terror.
Truly moderate Muslim leaders would want a fair trial for Tarek Mehanna, but would strongly condemn his hateful beliefs and might even undertake to investigate how these awful thoughts and radical ideology penetrated their community. We can only hope such voices emerge.
It's disheartening to watch privileged children of Muslim immigrants who have benefited so generously from America turn toward hatred while their communal leaders exploit America's tolerance to promote and lionize an indecent young man who is also an accused terrorist. In my view, the most disturbing facet of this story is the utter failure of Massachusetts media and political leadership to honestly deal with the growing radicalization of young Muslims.
I hope that Massachusetts' civic and political leadership will summon the courage to ensure that justice is served and Mehanna's trial proceeds without political interference or mob pressure.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Newt Gingrich: In Case You Forgot
House Banking Scandal: Newt Bounced 22 Checks
Remember the House Banking scandal, where so many congressmen wrote rubber checks on government money? Newt hopes you don't, because he bounced 22 himself, which almost cost him reelection in 1992. His vote for the secret House pay raise, and the chauffeur who drove him around Washington in a Lincoln Town Car, didn't help.
Family Values? Pressing Wife for Divorce in the Hospital:
"He walked out in the spring of 1980.... By September, I went into the hospital for my third surgery. The two girls came to see me, and said, "Daddy is downstairs. Could he come up?" When he got there, he wanted to discuss the terms of the divorce while I was recovering from my surgery." - Jackie, his first wife.
Draft Dodger:
Though he relentlessly pushes military spending and talks like a bigtime hawk, Gingrich avoided the Vietnam War through a combination of student and family deferments. (He married one of his teachers at age 19.)
Read Much More Here:
GINGRICH EXPOSED, AGAIN
One Of His Latest Scandals ...
Did Newt Gingrich Play a Part in Freddie Mac's Fundraising Scandal?
NOV 17 2011, 11:03 AM ET 8
The beginning of his consulting relationship with the company coincided with its decision to illegally funnel money to Republicans
The Bloomberg Businessweek article about Newt Gingrich's $1.6 million Freddie Mac payday notes that he first interacted with the company in 1999, when his primary contact was Robert Mitchell Delk, Freddie Mac's chief lobbyist, and that "he was paid a self-renewing, monthly retainer of $25,000 to $30,000."
That gig lasted until 2002.
Interestingly, that was a time of scandal at Freddie Mac.
Let's go to the Associated Press archives:
Was it?
Whether or not Gingrich bore partial responsibility for the illegal strategy, is it credible that he was unaware that the organization paying him so handsomely was also holding dozens of fundraisers and funneling big money to his recent colleagues? As Gingrich said Wednesday, in the course of defending himself, "It reminds people that I know a great deal about Washington. We just tried four years of amateur ignorance and it didn't work very well. So, having someone who actually knows Washington might be a really good thing." Did Gingrich know Washington well enough to see that his main contact at Freddie Mac was pursuing an illegal strategy?
Remember the House Banking scandal, where so many congressmen wrote rubber checks on government money? Newt hopes you don't, because he bounced 22 himself, which almost cost him reelection in 1992. His vote for the secret House pay raise, and the chauffeur who drove him around Washington in a Lincoln Town Car, didn't help.
Family Values? Pressing Wife for Divorce in the Hospital:
"He walked out in the spring of 1980.... By September, I went into the hospital for my third surgery. The two girls came to see me, and said, "Daddy is downstairs. Could he come up?" When he got there, he wanted to discuss the terms of the divorce while I was recovering from my surgery." - Jackie, his first wife.
Draft Dodger:
Though he relentlessly pushes military spending and talks like a bigtime hawk, Gingrich avoided the Vietnam War through a combination of student and family deferments. (He married one of his teachers at age 19.)
Read Much More Here:
GINGRICH EXPOSED, AGAIN
One Of His Latest Scandals ...
Did Newt Gingrich Play a Part in Freddie Mac's Fundraising Scandal?
NOV 17 2011, 11:03 AM ET 8
The beginning of his consulting relationship with the company coincided with its decision to illegally funnel money to Republicans
The Bloomberg Businessweek article about Newt Gingrich's $1.6 million Freddie Mac payday notes that he first interacted with the company in 1999, when his primary contact was Robert Mitchell Delk, Freddie Mac's chief lobbyist, and that "he was paid a self-renewing, monthly retainer of $25,000 to $30,000."
That gig lasted until 2002.
Interestingly, that was a time of scandal at Freddie Mac.
Let's go to the Associated Press archives:
Freddie Mac was accused of illegally using corporate resources between 2000 and 2003 for 85 fundraisers that collected about $1.7 million for federal candidates. Much of the fundraising benefited members of the House Financial Services Committee, a panel whose decisions can affect Freddie Mac. The fundraisers were organized by then-Freddie Mac lobbyists Robert Mitchell Delk and Clark Camper, who described them to the corporation's board of directors as "political risk management," the FEC [Federal Election Commission] said.
... Freddie Mac had held more than 40 fundraisers for House Financial Services Chairman Michael Oxley, R-Ohio. The FEC also found Freddie Mac officials used staff and resources to raise money from company employees to give to candidates, and that in 2002 the corporation itself gave $150,000 to the Republican Governors Association. The RGA ultimately returned the money.
Due to that illegal contribution and those fundraisers, Freddie Mac ultimately paid a $3.8 million fine, the biggest to date in Federal Election Commission history. It could be coincidence that, just as a powerful former speaker of the House was hired by the organization's chief lobbyist as a highly paid consultant, it began to funnel large amounts of money to his erstwhile Republican colleagues.
Was it?
Whether or not Gingrich bore partial responsibility for the illegal strategy, is it credible that he was unaware that the organization paying him so handsomely was also holding dozens of fundraisers and funneling big money to his recent colleagues? As Gingrich said Wednesday, in the course of defending himself, "It reminds people that I know a great deal about Washington. We just tried four years of amateur ignorance and it didn't work very well. So, having someone who actually knows Washington might be a really good thing." Did Gingrich know Washington well enough to see that his main contact at Freddie Mac was pursuing an illegal strategy?
Friday, November 18, 2011
Immigration News:
REP. SMITH: DHS IS “WORKING FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS”
Yesterday, the Department of Homeland Security began its review of deportation cases which will undoubtedly allow untold thousands of illegal immigrants to remain in the country WITH WORK PERMITS due to Obama’s “prosecutorial discretion” policy. Under Obama’s new guidelines for deportation, illegal immigrants can no longer be deported if they are enrolled in any type of education program, if their family members have volunteered for U.S. military service, if they have filed a civil rights lawsuit or even if they are pregnant or nursing, among other exemptions. In a statement, Rep. Smith said: “The policies put forth today by political appointees at the Department of Homeland Security show that its 'working group' is only working for illegal immigrants.”
DHS LAUNCHES REVIEW OF DEPORTATION CASES AMID ‘AMNESTY’ CONCERNS
As mentioned about, the Department of Homeland security launched an initial investigation of deportations to fast-track serious offenders while letting thousands of other illegal immigrants off the hook. The Obama administration is trying to brush off the non-deportation policies which will result in “backdoor amnesty” for the majority of those arrested as an attempt to focus limited resources.
Yesterday, the Department of Homeland Security began its review of deportation cases which will undoubtedly allow untold thousands of illegal immigrants to remain in the country WITH WORK PERMITS due to Obama’s “prosecutorial discretion” policy. Under Obama’s new guidelines for deportation, illegal immigrants can no longer be deported if they are enrolled in any type of education program, if their family members have volunteered for U.S. military service, if they have filed a civil rights lawsuit or even if they are pregnant or nursing, among other exemptions. In a statement, Rep. Smith said: “The policies put forth today by political appointees at the Department of Homeland Security show that its 'working group' is only working for illegal immigrants.”
DHS LAUNCHES REVIEW OF DEPORTATION CASES AMID ‘AMNESTY’ CONCERNS
As mentioned about, the Department of Homeland security launched an initial investigation of deportations to fast-track serious offenders while letting thousands of other illegal immigrants off the hook. The Obama administration is trying to brush off the non-deportation policies which will result in “backdoor amnesty” for the majority of those arrested as an attempt to focus limited resources.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
This Is Our President?
Text From An Email
If Obama does not want his name associated with our military, too bad he wanted his name associated with "The President of the United States."
Dear Sean,
Today I was incensed at the conclusion of a traditional Serbian-Orthodox funeral for my beloved 85 year old uncle, Daniel Martich, who proudly served in the US Army during The Korean Conflict.
During the committal service at a Pittsburgh cemetery the local military detachment performed their ritual, then folded and presented the American Flag to my aunt. As I'm sure you have witnessed during military funerals, a soldier bends to one knee and recites a scripted message to a surviving relative that begins 'On behalf of the President of the United States and a grateful nation , I wish to present you with this flag in appreciation for your husband's service ..'. However,
today the dialogue was 'On behalf of the Secretary of Defense and a grateful nation ....' After the service I approached the soldier who presented the flag to my aunt to inquire about the change in language. His response was
"The White House notified all military funeral service detachments to immediately remove 'the President' and insert 'the Secretary of Defense'. I couldn't believe what I heard and the soldier smiled and said "You can draw your own conclusion sir but that was the order". He, too, was ashamed of what he was required to say.
This president has taken off the gloves. My only response to this endless cesspool of Anti-American rhetoric dripping from his mouth is to borrow a phrase (with one minor change) uttered by another temporary Washington resident living in government housing: "Today for the first time in my adult life I was ASHAMED of my country". I did not serve in the military but my love of country parallels that of people like my late uncle who bled Red, White and Blue. As a second generation Serbian-American who's heritage produced many patriotic military men and women who fought for freedom both in The United States as well as in the former Yugoslavia (most recently in Kosovo against the slaughter of Serbs by Muslim extremists) I implore you to make the American people aware of this little-known or, at least, publicly acknowledged fact.
Obituary Here: http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/postgazette/obituary.aspx?n=daniel-martich-dragan&pid=153391478
If Obama does not want his name associated with our military, too bad he wanted his name associated with "The President of the United States."
Dear Sean,
Today I was incensed at the conclusion of a traditional Serbian-Orthodox funeral for my beloved 85 year old uncle, Daniel Martich, who proudly served in the US Army during The Korean Conflict.
During the committal service at a Pittsburgh cemetery the local military detachment performed their ritual, then folded and presented the American Flag to my aunt. As I'm sure you have witnessed during military funerals, a soldier bends to one knee and recites a scripted message to a surviving relative that begins 'On behalf of the President of the United States and a grateful nation , I wish to present you with this flag in appreciation for your husband's service ..'. However,
today the dialogue was 'On behalf of the Secretary of Defense and a grateful nation ....' After the service I approached the soldier who presented the flag to my aunt to inquire about the change in language. His response was
"The White House notified all military funeral service detachments to immediately remove 'the President' and insert 'the Secretary of Defense'. I couldn't believe what I heard and the soldier smiled and said "You can draw your own conclusion sir but that was the order". He, too, was ashamed of what he was required to say.
This president has taken off the gloves. My only response to this endless cesspool of Anti-American rhetoric dripping from his mouth is to borrow a phrase (with one minor change) uttered by another temporary Washington resident living in government housing: "Today for the first time in my adult life I was ASHAMED of my country". I did not serve in the military but my love of country parallels that of people like my late uncle who bled Red, White and Blue. As a second generation Serbian-American who's heritage produced many patriotic military men and women who fought for freedom both in The United States as well as in the former Yugoslavia (most recently in Kosovo against the slaughter of Serbs by Muslim extremists) I implore you to make the American people aware of this little-known or, at least, publicly acknowledged fact.
Obituary Here: http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/postgazette/obituary.aspx?n=daniel-martich-dragan&pid=153391478
Smarter: You, Or Your Phone?
Personal Tech
Will GPS Tracking Concerns Lead to Smartphone, Website Changes?
By John R. Quain
Published November 15, 2011
Reuters
If you think the police shouldn't be allowed to track you without a warrant, why do you think it's okay for private companies to do it?
The Supreme Court heard arguments from the Justice Department last week defending the unchecked use of GPS devices planted on suspects' vehicles to track and record their movements. It stems from a 2005 case in which police in Washington, D.C., secretly attached a GPS device to a suspected drug dealer's vehicle.
The device helped police trace the man to various locations, where they in turn found drugs and money. The man's conviction was overturned on appeal based on the idea that officers must obtain a warrant before attaching such a device to someone's car.
The Supreme Court judges seemed flabbergasted when deputy solicitor general Michael Dreeben told them the police -- indeed a variety of government agencies -- could monitor the justices with a GPS anytime, anywhere without a warrant. Big brother, 1984, invasion of privacy -- the judges brought up all these issues; a verdict isn't expected until the spring.
Such monitoring is akin to eavesdropping using a wiretap, which requires a warrant. That's because unlike most GPS navigation devices, these police-controlled GPS units can be two-way communications devices that use the cellular data network to continually send back information on the vehicle's location to the police. Essentially, the police bugged the suspect's car.
And if you think it's wrong for the government to track you in this fashion, then why do you think it's fine for countless corporations and marketers to track you even more closely, following you on vacation, recording what you buy, when you go to your child's school, when you walk through the park, when you go to the doctor's office?
That's exactly what your smartphone does, after all.
Smartphone apps commonly track your location and how you use the software, and then transmit the information back to their headquarters. Google follows and records all your searches. Facebook follows all your moves not only on its site but on countless other connected Web sites. Verizon Wireless recently changed its privacy policy so that the company can track a customer's location, Web browsing history, and apps -- and then sell that information to other companies.
It all makes the (secret) police GPS devices seem harmless by comparison. So why do we accept it.
Advertisers and many technology companies point out that we as consumers accept it in order to get something else of value: a free app, information about what's nearby, directions to a gas station, the ability to share party photos and political opinions with friends gratis.
But the problems with this unregulated and unchecked practice are legion, privacy advocates say. Children are tracked. Medical records can be compromised. Potential employees can be turned down for work based on false information collected about them without their knowledge through these sites. The list is nearly endless.
And the companies collecting this information on you have little control over it.
Klout, a site that attempts to track social media use about individuals and then give the person a power ranking, recently was caught collecting data on children. It has since changed its software to eliminate the problem, but as we all know, kids are on plenty of social networking sites that track them, whether they are supposed to be there or not.
Even a GPS navigation company that was innocently collecting anonymous and useful traffic data ran into problems when a municipal police department used the information to set up hidden, stationary speed traps. In effect, the people offering the information on traffic conditions ended up being penalized for opting in.
In the case of the police monitoring a suspect's movements, authorities argue that monitoring served a utilitarian good: It put bad guys behind bars. But bad guys can jam a GPS tracker with a $50 gadget.
Other law enforcement advocates argue the GPS bugs save money and manpower in a tough economy. Then why not allow police to forego warrants entirely, critics argue? That would save time and money, too, they say.
There's something about the car and any perceived violation of it that really gets people upset. OnStar discovered this when it tried to change its terms of service to potentially let it sell personal tracking information to other companies unless a customer expressly forbade it. A hue and cry ensued, and OnStar changed its mind.
Perhaps we're all still enamored with the romantic American ideal of the freedom of the open road. Too bad we don't feel that way yet about all the technology we use.
Follow John R. Quain on Twitter @jqontech or find more tech coverage at J-Q.com.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/15/will-gps-tracking-concerns-lead-to-smartphone-website-changes/?test=faces#ixzz1dsitdkFE
Will GPS Tracking Concerns Lead to Smartphone, Website Changes?
By John R. Quain
Published November 15, 2011
Reuters
If you think the police shouldn't be allowed to track you without a warrant, why do you think it's okay for private companies to do it?
The Supreme Court heard arguments from the Justice Department last week defending the unchecked use of GPS devices planted on suspects' vehicles to track and record their movements. It stems from a 2005 case in which police in Washington, D.C., secretly attached a GPS device to a suspected drug dealer's vehicle.
The device helped police trace the man to various locations, where they in turn found drugs and money. The man's conviction was overturned on appeal based on the idea that officers must obtain a warrant before attaching such a device to someone's car.
The Supreme Court judges seemed flabbergasted when deputy solicitor general Michael Dreeben told them the police -- indeed a variety of government agencies -- could monitor the justices with a GPS anytime, anywhere without a warrant. Big brother, 1984, invasion of privacy -- the judges brought up all these issues; a verdict isn't expected until the spring.
Such monitoring is akin to eavesdropping using a wiretap, which requires a warrant. That's because unlike most GPS navigation devices, these police-controlled GPS units can be two-way communications devices that use the cellular data network to continually send back information on the vehicle's location to the police. Essentially, the police bugged the suspect's car.
And if you think it's wrong for the government to track you in this fashion, then why do you think it's fine for countless corporations and marketers to track you even more closely, following you on vacation, recording what you buy, when you go to your child's school, when you walk through the park, when you go to the doctor's office?
That's exactly what your smartphone does, after all.
Smartphone apps commonly track your location and how you use the software, and then transmit the information back to their headquarters. Google follows and records all your searches. Facebook follows all your moves not only on its site but on countless other connected Web sites. Verizon Wireless recently changed its privacy policy so that the company can track a customer's location, Web browsing history, and apps -- and then sell that information to other companies.
It all makes the (secret) police GPS devices seem harmless by comparison. So why do we accept it.
Advertisers and many technology companies point out that we as consumers accept it in order to get something else of value: a free app, information about what's nearby, directions to a gas station, the ability to share party photos and political opinions with friends gratis.
But the problems with this unregulated and unchecked practice are legion, privacy advocates say. Children are tracked. Medical records can be compromised. Potential employees can be turned down for work based on false information collected about them without their knowledge through these sites. The list is nearly endless.
And the companies collecting this information on you have little control over it.
Klout, a site that attempts to track social media use about individuals and then give the person a power ranking, recently was caught collecting data on children. It has since changed its software to eliminate the problem, but as we all know, kids are on plenty of social networking sites that track them, whether they are supposed to be there or not.
Even a GPS navigation company that was innocently collecting anonymous and useful traffic data ran into problems when a municipal police department used the information to set up hidden, stationary speed traps. In effect, the people offering the information on traffic conditions ended up being penalized for opting in.
In the case of the police monitoring a suspect's movements, authorities argue that monitoring served a utilitarian good: It put bad guys behind bars. But bad guys can jam a GPS tracker with a $50 gadget.
Other law enforcement advocates argue the GPS bugs save money and manpower in a tough economy. Then why not allow police to forego warrants entirely, critics argue? That would save time and money, too, they say.
There's something about the car and any perceived violation of it that really gets people upset. OnStar discovered this when it tried to change its terms of service to potentially let it sell personal tracking information to other companies unless a customer expressly forbade it. A hue and cry ensued, and OnStar changed its mind.
Perhaps we're all still enamored with the romantic American ideal of the freedom of the open road. Too bad we don't feel that way yet about all the technology we use.
Follow John R. Quain on Twitter @jqontech or find more tech coverage at J-Q.com.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/15/will-gps-tracking-concerns-lead-to-smartphone-website-changes/?test=faces#ixzz1dsitdkFE
Concealed Carry Across State Lines
Opinion
What's Wrong With Making It Easier to Carry a Gun Across State Lines?
By John Lott
Published November 15, 2011
Congress is expected to vote Tuesday on whether concealed carry gun licenses should be treated the same way we treat driver's licenses for cars. With 245 co-sponsors in the House, the only question is whether there are the 290 votes necessary to override President Obama's veto.
For decades, treating licenses for guns like those for cars was something that gun control advocates wanted.
In his 2000 presidential campaign, Al Gore promised: "We require a license to drive a car in this nation in order to keep unsafe drivers off the road. As president, I will fight for a national requirement that every state issue photo licenses [for handgun buyers]. We should require a license to own a handgun so people who shouldn't have them, can't get them."
Handgun Control Inc., as well as its later incarnation as the Brady Campaign, has pushed licensing plan since the 1970s. But what would this actually mean for gun control? After all, what does a driver's license let you do?
You don't need a driver's license to drive a car on private property, merely on public roads. And once you get a license, you are allowed to drive any car on any public road anywhere in the United States. You are responsible for obeying the different traffic regulations in different states, but as long as you do, you are fine.
Currently gun laws are much more restrictive than those that apply to cars and drivers. Not only do many states regulate guns when they are on your own property, a license to carry a concealed handgun is much more restrictive regarding when you travel outside of your state.
The proposed National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act contains two provisions: if your state issues a concealed handgun license, that permit will let you travel to other states. Of course, you also have to follow the rules in the state you visit, so for Illinois -- the single state that still bans concealed handguns -- an out-of-state license wouldn't let you carry a concealed handgun there.
Gun control advocates are now apoplectic about the possibility of the bill passing. Democratic Senator Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey and Representative Carolyn McCarthy of New York released a letter last Wednesday warning that letting people carry concealed handguns constitutes a "dangerous measure" and "harmful legislation."
Echoing the warnings made by gun control advocates when state concealed-handgun laws were originally passed, that permit holders would lose their tempers and there would be blood in the streets. Obviously that never happened.
We now have extensive experience with concealed-handgun permit holders. In 2011, about 7 million Americans hold permits that allow them to carry concealed handguns. Forty-one of these states have relatively liberal right-to-carry laws, letting people obtain permits once they pass a criminal background check, pay a fee, and in many states receive training.
Take Florida. Between Oct. 1, 1987, and July 31, 2011, Florida issued permits to over 2 million people, many of whom renewed their permits multiple times. Only 168 had their permits revoked for a firearms-related violation -- about 0.01 percent.
The same pattern has been observed in state after state. Permit holders lose their permits at hundredths or thousands of one percent for any type of gun related violations, and in the few cases where licenses are revoked, it is usually due to rather trivial offenses.
Actually, the legislation before the House today does not truly break new ground but simplifies a reciprocity system that is already in place. Most states already recognize permits from other states: 38 states recognize Missouri's permits, 36 for Florida, 35 for Utah, 34 Texas, 32 Ohio, and 29 Pennsylvania. And there is no evidence that these reciprocity agreements have caused any problems.
In testimony before the House in September, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey raised two concerns.
First, he gave an example where a Pennsylvania resident with a misdemeanor conviction had been obtained a concealed handgun permit in Florida. However, his example overlooks that because the conviction was quite old, the person could have obtained a Pennsylvania license if he had so chosen.
Commissioner Ramsey also raised a hypothetical case: "How is the Brookfield officer supposed to verify that the Utah permit is real and up-to-date?" The answer is: the same way as for a driver's license -- via computer.
Pennsylvania already honors gun permits from 25 states, and apparently the commissioner was not able to point to a problem with the existing system, so there is little reason to expect there to be a problem extending it to the rest of the states.
Actually, police in the field are usually quite happy to find that a person who has a concealed handgun, and for good reason: the permit is proof that these individuals have passed a criminal background check.
What is clear is that just like the original ruckus over passing concealed handgun laws, the fears about allowing people to travel with guns will soon be forgotten.
John R. Lott, Jr. is a Fox News.com contributor. He is an economist and author of the recently revised edition of "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Press, 2010).
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/11/15/whats-wrong-with-making-it-easier-to-carry-gun-in-usa/#ixzz1dsJtWrbN
What's Wrong With Making It Easier to Carry a Gun Across State Lines?
By John Lott
Published November 15, 2011
Congress is expected to vote Tuesday on whether concealed carry gun licenses should be treated the same way we treat driver's licenses for cars. With 245 co-sponsors in the House, the only question is whether there are the 290 votes necessary to override President Obama's veto.
For decades, treating licenses for guns like those for cars was something that gun control advocates wanted.
In his 2000 presidential campaign, Al Gore promised: "We require a license to drive a car in this nation in order to keep unsafe drivers off the road. As president, I will fight for a national requirement that every state issue photo licenses [for handgun buyers]. We should require a license to own a handgun so people who shouldn't have them, can't get them."
Handgun Control Inc., as well as its later incarnation as the Brady Campaign, has pushed licensing plan since the 1970s. But what would this actually mean for gun control? After all, what does a driver's license let you do?
You don't need a driver's license to drive a car on private property, merely on public roads. And once you get a license, you are allowed to drive any car on any public road anywhere in the United States. You are responsible for obeying the different traffic regulations in different states, but as long as you do, you are fine.
Currently gun laws are much more restrictive than those that apply to cars and drivers. Not only do many states regulate guns when they are on your own property, a license to carry a concealed handgun is much more restrictive regarding when you travel outside of your state.
The proposed National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act contains two provisions: if your state issues a concealed handgun license, that permit will let you travel to other states. Of course, you also have to follow the rules in the state you visit, so for Illinois -- the single state that still bans concealed handguns -- an out-of-state license wouldn't let you carry a concealed handgun there.
Gun control advocates are now apoplectic about the possibility of the bill passing. Democratic Senator Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey and Representative Carolyn McCarthy of New York released a letter last Wednesday warning that letting people carry concealed handguns constitutes a "dangerous measure" and "harmful legislation."
Echoing the warnings made by gun control advocates when state concealed-handgun laws were originally passed, that permit holders would lose their tempers and there would be blood in the streets. Obviously that never happened.
We now have extensive experience with concealed-handgun permit holders. In 2011, about 7 million Americans hold permits that allow them to carry concealed handguns. Forty-one of these states have relatively liberal right-to-carry laws, letting people obtain permits once they pass a criminal background check, pay a fee, and in many states receive training.
Take Florida. Between Oct. 1, 1987, and July 31, 2011, Florida issued permits to over 2 million people, many of whom renewed their permits multiple times. Only 168 had their permits revoked for a firearms-related violation -- about 0.01 percent.
The same pattern has been observed in state after state. Permit holders lose their permits at hundredths or thousands of one percent for any type of gun related violations, and in the few cases where licenses are revoked, it is usually due to rather trivial offenses.
Actually, the legislation before the House today does not truly break new ground but simplifies a reciprocity system that is already in place. Most states already recognize permits from other states: 38 states recognize Missouri's permits, 36 for Florida, 35 for Utah, 34 Texas, 32 Ohio, and 29 Pennsylvania. And there is no evidence that these reciprocity agreements have caused any problems.
In testimony before the House in September, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey raised two concerns.
First, he gave an example where a Pennsylvania resident with a misdemeanor conviction had been obtained a concealed handgun permit in Florida. However, his example overlooks that because the conviction was quite old, the person could have obtained a Pennsylvania license if he had so chosen.
Commissioner Ramsey also raised a hypothetical case: "How is the Brookfield officer supposed to verify that the Utah permit is real and up-to-date?" The answer is: the same way as for a driver's license -- via computer.
Pennsylvania already honors gun permits from 25 states, and apparently the commissioner was not able to point to a problem with the existing system, so there is little reason to expect there to be a problem extending it to the rest of the states.
Actually, police in the field are usually quite happy to find that a person who has a concealed handgun, and for good reason: the permit is proof that these individuals have passed a criminal background check.
What is clear is that just like the original ruckus over passing concealed handgun laws, the fears about allowing people to travel with guns will soon be forgotten.
John R. Lott, Jr. is a Fox News.com contributor. He is an economist and author of the recently revised edition of "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Press, 2010).
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/11/15/whats-wrong-with-making-it-easier-to-carry-gun-in-usa/#ixzz1dsJtWrbN
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Affirmative Action President
The Washington Post
August 18, 2011
Obama: The Affirmative Action President
by Matt Patterson (columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present") ; and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator.
And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal:
To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.
Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass -- held to a lower standard -- because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues:
And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon -- affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist.
Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin -- that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is. And that is what America did to Obama.
True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks?
In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people -- conservatives included -- ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth -- it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.
And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.
August 18, 2011
Obama: The Affirmative Action President
by Matt Patterson (columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present") ; and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator.
And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal:
To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.
Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass -- held to a lower standard -- because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues:
And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon -- affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist.
Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin -- that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is. And that is what America did to Obama.
True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks?
In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people -- conservatives included -- ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth -- it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.
And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Rep. Allen West Defines The Enemy
West: U.S. Must Understand 21st-Century Combat
By Rep. Allen West
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_52/allen_west_united_states_must_understand_21st_century_combat-209937-1.html
Today’s paradigm of battle and combat operations is completely different from what I experienced in 1982 when I was commissioned as a young lieutenant in the U.S. Army. At that time, the battlefield was much simpler.
In broad strokes, there was the Soviet Union on one side and the United States on the other. We were familiar with their tactics and equipment, and they with ours. Both sides wore uniforms, and every now and then we would stage war games on border control missions.
That paradigm has completely disappeared, leaving in its place an asymmetrical battlefield with non-uniformed, non-state belligerents using unconventional weapons and tactics. If the United States is going to be successful in protecting its citizens and interests, it must quickly understand and adapt to this new battlefield and be prepared for success and victory.
While America may lack an appropriate strategic level perspective, we will never lose at the tactical level on the ground because the United States has the best soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen the world has ever known. But without the correct strategic and operational goals and objectives, we will find ourselves on the proverbial hamster wheel. No matter how much effort we exert on the wheel, we will not make forward progress.
To begin with, we must correctly identify our enemy. It is frankly naive to say we are at war with “terror” because a nation cannot be at war with a tactic. Imagine, if during World War II, the United States went to war against the “blitzkrieg” or the “kamikaze.”
Further, we cannot narrowly define the enemy as simply al-Qaida or the Taliban. It is just as ridiculous to say we declared war against the 12th German Panzer Division or the 55th Japanese Infantry Regiment in World War II or the 7th Guards Tank Division during the Cold War.
Before the rise of al-Qaida, the terrorist group which had inflicted the most damage on the United States was Hezbollah. Now Hezbollah has become a very capable military force, albeit one without state or uniform — so capable in fact, it has armed missiles within striking distance of every city in Israel.
The Obama administration has failed to identify Hezbollah as an enemy. On this 21st century battlefield we are not fighting against a single organization, leader or nation. We are fighting against the ideology of Islamic totalitarianism, manifested at a tactical level as terrorism, which knows no country and recognizes no borders.
Until we, as a nation, are able to correctly and openly identify our enemy, we will continue to put our men and women on the ground in harm’s way without a clear mission for success. Once we have identified the enemy, we must ensure we have clearly identified the specific strategic level objectives to effectively fight. I believe there are four:
1. Deny the enemy sanctuary. The number one asset our military has is strategic mobility. When that is curtailed by a focus on nation-building or occupation-style warfare, we eliminate our primary advantage, and worse, our military forces become targets. Because this enemy has no respect for borders or boundaries, we must be willing to take the fight directly to him.
2. Cut off the enemy’s flow of men, material and resources. We have to interdict the enemy’s flow of resources in order to prevent the ability to fund, supply and replenish his ranks.
3. Win the information war. Unfortunately, the enemy is far more adept at exploiting the power of the Internet, broadcast media and dissemination of powerful imagery. In addition, I fear our media now sees itself as an ideological political wing. If we cannot fully use our own national informational power as an asset, we will lose the strategic battle, if not our country.
4. Cordon off the enemy and reduce his sphere of influence. We must shrink the enemy’s territory, but we are not being effective. We are allowing, if not welcoming, the enemy into the United States. What happened with Maj. Nidal Hasan, the alleged Fort Hood shooter, should not have happened in this country. We must not turn a blind eye to a very bold enemy who is telling us exactly what he wants to do and is willing to bring the battle to our doorstep.
We must recognize that Afghanistan and Iraq are not distinct wars, but combat theaters of operation. It is up to our elected leaders and our senior military officials to identify and agree on the correct strategic goals and objectives in order to be successful on these battlefields and others. When we have a proper national security strategy, we will have a focused national military strategy, preparing the defense-industrial base to develop the right weapons systems for victory.
We must be mindful of the wise words compiled by Sun Tzu in “The Art of War” more than 25 centuries ago, “to know your enemy and to know yourself and to know the environment and countless amounts of battles, you will always be victorious.” If we do not understand this simple maxim, we face dark days ahead.
For the sake of our nation, and of all nations who seek freedom for their citizens, we must clearly identify the 21st century battlefield and ensure we are victorious on it.
Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), a retired Army lieutenant colonel, serves on the Armed Services Committee.
By Rep. Allen West
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_52/allen_west_united_states_must_understand_21st_century_combat-209937-1.html
Today’s paradigm of battle and combat operations is completely different from what I experienced in 1982 when I was commissioned as a young lieutenant in the U.S. Army. At that time, the battlefield was much simpler.
In broad strokes, there was the Soviet Union on one side and the United States on the other. We were familiar with their tactics and equipment, and they with ours. Both sides wore uniforms, and every now and then we would stage war games on border control missions.
That paradigm has completely disappeared, leaving in its place an asymmetrical battlefield with non-uniformed, non-state belligerents using unconventional weapons and tactics. If the United States is going to be successful in protecting its citizens and interests, it must quickly understand and adapt to this new battlefield and be prepared for success and victory.
While America may lack an appropriate strategic level perspective, we will never lose at the tactical level on the ground because the United States has the best soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen the world has ever known. But without the correct strategic and operational goals and objectives, we will find ourselves on the proverbial hamster wheel. No matter how much effort we exert on the wheel, we will not make forward progress.
To begin with, we must correctly identify our enemy. It is frankly naive to say we are at war with “terror” because a nation cannot be at war with a tactic. Imagine, if during World War II, the United States went to war against the “blitzkrieg” or the “kamikaze.”
Further, we cannot narrowly define the enemy as simply al-Qaida or the Taliban. It is just as ridiculous to say we declared war against the 12th German Panzer Division or the 55th Japanese Infantry Regiment in World War II or the 7th Guards Tank Division during the Cold War.
Before the rise of al-Qaida, the terrorist group which had inflicted the most damage on the United States was Hezbollah. Now Hezbollah has become a very capable military force, albeit one without state or uniform — so capable in fact, it has armed missiles within striking distance of every city in Israel.
The Obama administration has failed to identify Hezbollah as an enemy. On this 21st century battlefield we are not fighting against a single organization, leader or nation. We are fighting against the ideology of Islamic totalitarianism, manifested at a tactical level as terrorism, which knows no country and recognizes no borders.
Until we, as a nation, are able to correctly and openly identify our enemy, we will continue to put our men and women on the ground in harm’s way without a clear mission for success. Once we have identified the enemy, we must ensure we have clearly identified the specific strategic level objectives to effectively fight. I believe there are four:
1. Deny the enemy sanctuary. The number one asset our military has is strategic mobility. When that is curtailed by a focus on nation-building or occupation-style warfare, we eliminate our primary advantage, and worse, our military forces become targets. Because this enemy has no respect for borders or boundaries, we must be willing to take the fight directly to him.
2. Cut off the enemy’s flow of men, material and resources. We have to interdict the enemy’s flow of resources in order to prevent the ability to fund, supply and replenish his ranks.
3. Win the information war. Unfortunately, the enemy is far more adept at exploiting the power of the Internet, broadcast media and dissemination of powerful imagery. In addition, I fear our media now sees itself as an ideological political wing. If we cannot fully use our own national informational power as an asset, we will lose the strategic battle, if not our country.
4. Cordon off the enemy and reduce his sphere of influence. We must shrink the enemy’s territory, but we are not being effective. We are allowing, if not welcoming, the enemy into the United States. What happened with Maj. Nidal Hasan, the alleged Fort Hood shooter, should not have happened in this country. We must not turn a blind eye to a very bold enemy who is telling us exactly what he wants to do and is willing to bring the battle to our doorstep.
We must recognize that Afghanistan and Iraq are not distinct wars, but combat theaters of operation. It is up to our elected leaders and our senior military officials to identify and agree on the correct strategic goals and objectives in order to be successful on these battlefields and others. When we have a proper national security strategy, we will have a focused national military strategy, preparing the defense-industrial base to develop the right weapons systems for victory.
We must be mindful of the wise words compiled by Sun Tzu in “The Art of War” more than 25 centuries ago, “to know your enemy and to know yourself and to know the environment and countless amounts of battles, you will always be victorious.” If we do not understand this simple maxim, we face dark days ahead.
For the sake of our nation, and of all nations who seek freedom for their citizens, we must clearly identify the 21st century battlefield and ensure we are victorious on it.
Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), a retired Army lieutenant colonel, serves on the Armed Services Committee.
Wednesday, November 09, 2011
Letters From Israel
GUSH KATIF VIEWPOINT 178
November 9, 2011
MOBILE SHELTERS by Rachel Saperstein, Nitzan/Neve Dekalim
"Do you know the fellow who works in the pizza shop?" a friend asked.
"Of course" I answered.
"Well" my friend continued, "he's ordering a mobile security room. It's costing them quite a bit of money but they have no choice. It's impossible to run with five small children, especially in the middle of the night, into the sewer pipe shelter. He says his kids are terrified. They're wetting their beds, clinging to him and his wife, and afraid to go to sleep at night. 'What will happen if you can't get all of us into the pipe on time?' his oldest kid asked."
We only have ten seconds from the sound of the siren to get into the concrete sewer pipe in our cul de sac. Hence the mobile shelters. Last week, with the sirens wailing, I watched grandparents running into the sewer pipe clutching their grandchildren wrapped in blankets. An infant was held by her pregnant mom.
"Where are they going to put the security room?" I asked my friend.
"They'll cut out parts of the plasterboard wall in the children's room and attach the shelter to it. If there's a night of heavy bombardment they'll put mattresses on the floor and the kids will go to sleep directly from the bath."
Bath time is always frightening. One always wonders if the siren will wail while one is all soaped up. "At least I'll die clean" my husband says.
Last Sunday morning we had the first real experience of the Iron Dome anti-missile defense system. The sound was horrific. Pieces of shrapnel from the exploded missile fell close to a nearby housing area. Is Iron Dome a blessing or a curse? Over fifty missiles have been fired at our western Negev area. Only two or three were intercepted by Iron Dome.
A mother came in to the Community Center as I was talking to the director. "My daughter is afraid to go outside after school. Could you recommend an after-school activity for her? She really trembles from fright."
"How about tae kwan do? The children learn self defense and it's twice a week" the director said. "The children feel empowered. It just might work."
The mother said she would think it over. She was embarrassed to admit the activity was too expensive for her.
It is at moments like this that Operation Dignity steps in to help. But because of our severe shortage of funds I had to remain silent. Perhaps with your help I'll be able to get back to this mother.
Please help Operation Dignity to help people, our people, Gush Katif people, to weather the storm.
########################################
Shekel or US$ under $250 should be sent directly to Operation Dignity, POB 445, Nitzan 79287, Israel
For a US tax deduction checks of $250 or more, earmarked for Operation Dignity, should be sent to
Central Fund for Israel, 13 Hagoel Street, Efrat 90435, Israel
or
Central Fund for Israel, 980 Sixth Avenue, New York, NY 10018, USA
See our website – www.operationdignity.com – for further details.
November 9, 2011
MOBILE SHELTERS by Rachel Saperstein, Nitzan/Neve Dekalim
"Do you know the fellow who works in the pizza shop?" a friend asked.
"Of course" I answered.
"Well" my friend continued, "he's ordering a mobile security room. It's costing them quite a bit of money but they have no choice. It's impossible to run with five small children, especially in the middle of the night, into the sewer pipe shelter. He says his kids are terrified. They're wetting their beds, clinging to him and his wife, and afraid to go to sleep at night. 'What will happen if you can't get all of us into the pipe on time?' his oldest kid asked."
We only have ten seconds from the sound of the siren to get into the concrete sewer pipe in our cul de sac. Hence the mobile shelters. Last week, with the sirens wailing, I watched grandparents running into the sewer pipe clutching their grandchildren wrapped in blankets. An infant was held by her pregnant mom.
"Where are they going to put the security room?" I asked my friend.
"They'll cut out parts of the plasterboard wall in the children's room and attach the shelter to it. If there's a night of heavy bombardment they'll put mattresses on the floor and the kids will go to sleep directly from the bath."
Bath time is always frightening. One always wonders if the siren will wail while one is all soaped up. "At least I'll die clean" my husband says.
Last Sunday morning we had the first real experience of the Iron Dome anti-missile defense system. The sound was horrific. Pieces of shrapnel from the exploded missile fell close to a nearby housing area. Is Iron Dome a blessing or a curse? Over fifty missiles have been fired at our western Negev area. Only two or three were intercepted by Iron Dome.
A mother came in to the Community Center as I was talking to the director. "My daughter is afraid to go outside after school. Could you recommend an after-school activity for her? She really trembles from fright."
"How about tae kwan do? The children learn self defense and it's twice a week" the director said. "The children feel empowered. It just might work."
The mother said she would think it over. She was embarrassed to admit the activity was too expensive for her.
It is at moments like this that Operation Dignity steps in to help. But because of our severe shortage of funds I had to remain silent. Perhaps with your help I'll be able to get back to this mother.
Please help Operation Dignity to help people, our people, Gush Katif people, to weather the storm.
########################################
Shekel or US$ under $250 should be sent directly to Operation Dignity, POB 445, Nitzan 79287, Israel
For a US tax deduction checks of $250 or more, earmarked for Operation Dignity, should be sent to
Central Fund for Israel, 13 Hagoel Street, Efrat 90435, Israel
or
Central Fund for Israel, 980 Sixth Avenue, New York, NY 10018, USA
See our website – www.operationdignity.com – for further details.
Tuesday, November 08, 2011
Is This The Hope And Change You Voted For?
Barack Obama's 32 Month Report Card
by Rich Carroll
Copy this article. You will need researched material to mail your liberal friends and/or relatives.
Mr. Hope and Change wants to create a nation humbled; humiliated, casting-aside capitalism and individual freedoms for one where we the people are government controlled. This would be a system that genuflects mediocrity, steals personal aspiration and opportunity, and punishes those who strive to succeed.
A gallon of regular gasoline the day Obama was inaugurated was $1.79 on average in the U.S. Today that price is $3.59, a 100.6% increase. The number of food stamp recipients has risen since Obama took office from 31,983,716 to 43,200,878, a 35.1% jump. Long term unemployment soared 146.2% during the same 32 month period from 2,600,000 to 6,400,000. Staggering hope and change isn't it?
American citizens living in poverty have risen 9.5% from 39,800,000 to 43,600,000, and the number of unemployed has jumped almost 25% from 11,616,000 to 14,485,000 as of August 31, 2011. The number of unemployed blacks has risen from 12.6% at the end of George Bush's term to 15.8% today, a 25.4% increase, and finally, our national debt is up 34.4% from 10.627 trillion to 14,278 trillion *
Keep these figures in mind as we recount the number of firsts for this presidency:
First President to refuse to show a valid birth certificate.
First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.
First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.
First President to preside over a cut to the credit rating of the United States
First President to violate the War Powers Act.
First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico ..
First President to defy a Federal Judges court order to cease implementing the Health Care Reform Law.
First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.
First President to spend a trillion dollars on shovel-ready jobs and later admit there was no such thing as shovel-ready jobs.
First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.
First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.
First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S. , including those with criminal convictions.
First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.
First President to terminate Americas ability to put a man in space.
First President to encourage racial discrimination and intimidation at polling places.
First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.
First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.
First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly speak-out on the reasons for their rate increases.
First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state they are allowed to locate a factory.
First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN)
First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.
First President to fire an inspector general of Ameri-corps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.
First President to appoint 45 Czars to replace elected officials in his office.
First President to golf 73 separate times in his first two and a half years in office.
First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records.
First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.
First President to coddle American enemies while alienating Americas allies.
First President to publicly bow to Americas enemies while refusing to salute the U.S. Flag.
First President to go on multiple global apology tours.
First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends, paid for by the taxpayer.
First President to refuse to wear the U.S. Flag lapel pin.
First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.
First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000.00 a year at taxpayer expense.
First President to repeat the Holy Qur'an tells us, and openly admit the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.
Remember that 32 months of Obama White House we the people have accumulated national debt at a rate more than 27 times as fast as during the rest of our nation's entire history, as the Obama's plan their next extravagant vacation to the Indonesian Island nation of Bali .
Hope and change anyone ?????????
* sources: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Wall Street Journal, Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Dept of Labor, Standard & Poors/Case-Shiller, Federal Reserve, US Treasury, Heritage Foundation.
by Rich Carroll
Copy this article. You will need researched material to mail your liberal friends and/or relatives.
Mr. Hope and Change wants to create a nation humbled; humiliated, casting-aside capitalism and individual freedoms for one where we the people are government controlled. This would be a system that genuflects mediocrity, steals personal aspiration and opportunity, and punishes those who strive to succeed.
A gallon of regular gasoline the day Obama was inaugurated was $1.79 on average in the U.S. Today that price is $3.59, a 100.6% increase. The number of food stamp recipients has risen since Obama took office from 31,983,716 to 43,200,878, a 35.1% jump. Long term unemployment soared 146.2% during the same 32 month period from 2,600,000 to 6,400,000. Staggering hope and change isn't it?
American citizens living in poverty have risen 9.5% from 39,800,000 to 43,600,000, and the number of unemployed has jumped almost 25% from 11,616,000 to 14,485,000 as of August 31, 2011. The number of unemployed blacks has risen from 12.6% at the end of George Bush's term to 15.8% today, a 25.4% increase, and finally, our national debt is up 34.4% from 10.627 trillion to 14,278 trillion *
Keep these figures in mind as we recount the number of firsts for this presidency:
First President to refuse to show a valid birth certificate.
First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.
First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.
First President to preside over a cut to the credit rating of the United States
First President to violate the War Powers Act.
First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico ..
First President to defy a Federal Judges court order to cease implementing the Health Care Reform Law.
First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.
First President to spend a trillion dollars on shovel-ready jobs and later admit there was no such thing as shovel-ready jobs.
First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.
First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.
First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S. , including those with criminal convictions.
First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.
First President to terminate Americas ability to put a man in space.
First President to encourage racial discrimination and intimidation at polling places.
First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.
First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.
First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly speak-out on the reasons for their rate increases.
First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state they are allowed to locate a factory.
First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN)
First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.
First President to fire an inspector general of Ameri-corps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.
First President to appoint 45 Czars to replace elected officials in his office.
First President to golf 73 separate times in his first two and a half years in office.
First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records.
First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.
First President to coddle American enemies while alienating Americas allies.
First President to publicly bow to Americas enemies while refusing to salute the U.S. Flag.
First President to go on multiple global apology tours.
First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends, paid for by the taxpayer.
First President to refuse to wear the U.S. Flag lapel pin.
First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.
First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000.00 a year at taxpayer expense.
First President to repeat the Holy Qur'an tells us, and openly admit the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.
Remember that 32 months of Obama White House we the people have accumulated national debt at a rate more than 27 times as fast as during the rest of our nation's entire history, as the Obama's plan their next extravagant vacation to the Indonesian Island nation of Bali .
Hope and change anyone ?????????
* sources: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Wall Street Journal, Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Dept of Labor, Standard & Poors/Case-Shiller, Federal Reserve, US Treasury, Heritage Foundation.
Sharia's Encroachment
November 7, 2011
Sharia's Encroachment into American Courts
Janet Levy
Currently an estimated 2.6 million observant Muslims reside in the United States. Many live their lives according to sharia law, the moral and religious code of the Islamic faith. When Muslims bring legal disputes into U.S. courts, a legal dilemma often arises, pitting individual rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and laws against Islamic sharia law.
Increasingly, U.S. courts have yielded to sharia. In effect, our judicial system is failing to adhere to the very beliefs on which this country was founded. Sharia advocates are overturning our long-held legal traditions to follow precepts laid down by a faith that represents less than one percent of our population and whose beliefs are at odds with U.S. legal and spiritual history.
American law reflects Judeo-Christian values and traditions. These have always operated under the precept, "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto G-d the things that are G-d's." This separation, which created the historic distinction between religious leadership and secular authority in the United States, is now being threatened, as sharia has encroached into the American legal system, and Muslim advocacy groups have increased pressure to institute sharia. Two notable cases illustrate this trend.
Hosain v. Malik
Under U.S. law, child custody cases follow the legal standard of "the best interests of the child." This can mean joint custody of children by both parents, full custody solely by the mother or father, or, if both parents are unfit, custody by relatives or guardians. Under sharia or Islamic doctrine, however, fathers receive sole custody when children reach seven years of age, regardless of family circumstances.
That's exactly how Hosain v. Malik was decided in 1996 when an American court in Maryland awarded full custody of a daughter to her father, enforcing a court order from Pakistan, an Islamic country that follows sharia law. Although the mother in the custody battle was never deemed unfit and the daughter was actually afraid of her father, an alleged substance abuser and batterer, the U.S. court enforced sharia requirements. Further, the child's attorney was not present at the custody decision to advocate for the child, and no input was sought from the daughter, as is standard in U.S. custody cases.
In the Hosain v. Malik case, the husband's attorney cleverly twisted the "best interest of the child" requirement and argued that in Pakistani culture, the well-being of the child is facilitated by adherence to Islamic teaching, which mandates custody to the father. In this case, the child was sent back to Pakistan with the father, violating the child's human rights to enjoy a relationship with her mother and violating the mother's rights as a woman. Further, the father accused his ex-wife of adultery, which meant that if she returned to Pakistan she could face imprisonment, lashing, or even death by stoning under sharia.
New Jersey Divorce Case
In June 2009, a divorced Muslim woman (unnamed by the court), who was raped and assaulted by her husband, requested a restraining order from a New Jersey family court. The presiding judge denied the woman's request and stated that "the court believes that the husband was operating under his belief (Islamic sharia) that his demand to have sex whenever he so desired was not prohibited." Remarkably, the husband's imam testified at the trial to affirm that under the sharia, a wife is required to comply with her husband's sexual demands.
However, according to New Jersey law, coerced sex between married persons is considered rape regardless of whatever imams, rabbis, and priests declare it religiously sanctioned. Thirteen months later, the decision was overturned. But in the interim, the woman endured the stress of living without protection from a violent man whose right to rape, sanctioned by sharia, had been supported by the American judicial system.
These cases, which received limited media coverage, illustrate failure by the courts to maintain the integrity of state and federal laws. (For more examples, see the recent report from the Center for Security Policy, "Sharia Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases"). Our legal system must insure that constitutional guarantees are not influenced by any outside legal systems, including religious or foreign laws, such as sharia, which are hostile to our legal traditions.
Sharia Law
Sharia is Allah's law, and it stands above all man-made laws. This immutable Islamic legal doctrine derives from the Koran and other sacred Islamic texts, interpretations, and rulings. It mandates gender apartheid, religious discrimination, Muslim supremacy, cruel punishments, and the denial of free speech and religion, among other things. Requirements are detailed for every aspect of life, from the correct use of the toilet to the treatment of non-Muslims to proper wife-beating techniques.
Islamic doctrine recognizes men as superior to women in matters of civil arbitration and thus promotes the unequal treatment of women. Under sharia, the list of inequalities include: a woman's testimony is valued at half that of a man's, she may be convicted of sexual misconduct if she is raped unless she produces four male witnesses, she receives half the inheritance of male offspring, her husband may freely divorce her without providing for her welfare, she may be raped with impunity, and she may be beaten as her husband sees fit. All these abuses, which violate U.S. laws for equal treatment of the sexes, are perfectly acceptable under sharia law.
Sharia law requires the segregation of Muslims from non-Muslims, assigns a subservient status to non-Muslims, forbids certain religious activities and observances and mandates death for Muslims who leave the faith -- all of which violate religious freedom, equal treatment under the law, and other guarantees in the U.S. constitution.
Jewish Law and Catholic Canon Law
Many who defend rulings that follow Islamic doctrine or sharia make spurious comparisons to Jewish law and Catholic Canon law. These comparisons are disingenuous because the distinctions couldn't be more striking between sharia and the laws of Jews and Catholics.
Islamic law or sharia is supremacist and triumphalist. The Koran commands Muslims to change secular laws to conform to sharia or to impose sharia worldwide. In Muslim countries, the mosque is both the state and the court. Disobeying sharia can be punished by flogging or death.
By contrast, Jewish (Halacha) and Catholic Canon laws are never imposed even for Jews and Catholics, respectively. Under Jewish law and Canon law, any two parties in a dispute can choose to seek and follow a decision rendered by a religious court, but they are always free to pursue secular redress. In fact, Jews and Catholics are required to follow secular law and are under no obligation whatsoever to abide by Jewish or Catholic Church doctrine. The dictum in Jewish law of "Dina d'malchuta dina" translates to "the law of the land is law" and recognizes non-Jewish laws and non-Jewish legal jurisdiction as binding on Jewish citizens. Jewish law does not operate under a supremacist power structure like Islamic doctrine. It is unenforceable, and it is not a replacement for constitutional law.
In contradiction to Church doctrine, Catholic men and women can freely initiate divorces without fear of punishment. A Catholic woman can even have an abortion, although abortion is condemned by the Catholic Church. Catholics can be excommunicated from the church, but this doesn't affect their individual liberties or impose criminal punishments or penalties.
Unlike Islamic sharia, Jewish law and Canon law have no provisions for taking lives, criminal penalties, or monetary compensation for non-money damages. No doctrinal basis exists to create a worldwide Jewish or Catholic government like an Islamic caliphate, nor is there a religious mandate for martyrdom similar to a jihad to fulfill Judaic or Catholic devotion. If a Catholic woman engaged in an extramarital affair, she would not be sentenced to death by stoning as she would be under Islamic doctrine. If her father or brother murdered her for her impropriety, they would be incarcerated for life or receive the death penalty by the appropriate authorities...and certainly not be praised for maintaining family honor, as is the case with sh aria. Catholics and Jews are free to change their religions without the threat of punishment by death faced by Muslims.
While sharia is immutable, Jewish and Canon law has evolved over time to embrace new interpretations. Jewish law allows the latitude for judicial discretion, and innovations are frequently proposed and instituted. Catholic Canon has also changed with varying circumstances and has a rich historic basis of evolution, beginning with the First Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.
Clearly, sharia is at odds with everything enshrined in our Constitutio n to honor and preserve individual liberties and freedom. Sharia stands in opposition to equal protection under the law for both sexes, all religions, all races, and all ethnicities. Ultimately, it replaces the constitution with the objective of submitting to Allah's law, which denies freedom, equality, tolerance, and justice. Unfortunately, the United States is now on a slippery slope to allow sharia quarter in our American courtrooms. To permit this insidious divergence from U.S. and state law threatens the basic principles and liberties that Americans hold dear. In essence, sharia law is antithetical to the American concepts of freedom and equality.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributor Janet Levy, MBA, MSW, is an activist, world traveler, and freelance journalist who has contributed to American Thinker, Pajamas Media, Full Disclosure Network, FrontPage Magazine, Family Security Matters and other publications. She blogs at www.womenagainstshariah.com.
Sharia's Encroachment into American Courts
Janet Levy
Currently an estimated 2.6 million observant Muslims reside in the United States. Many live their lives according to sharia law, the moral and religious code of the Islamic faith. When Muslims bring legal disputes into U.S. courts, a legal dilemma often arises, pitting individual rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and laws against Islamic sharia law.
Increasingly, U.S. courts have yielded to sharia. In effect, our judicial system is failing to adhere to the very beliefs on which this country was founded. Sharia advocates are overturning our long-held legal traditions to follow precepts laid down by a faith that represents less than one percent of our population and whose beliefs are at odds with U.S. legal and spiritual history.
American law reflects Judeo-Christian values and traditions. These have always operated under the precept, "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto G-d the things that are G-d's." This separation, which created the historic distinction between religious leadership and secular authority in the United States, is now being threatened, as sharia has encroached into the American legal system, and Muslim advocacy groups have increased pressure to institute sharia. Two notable cases illustrate this trend.
Hosain v. Malik
Under U.S. law, child custody cases follow the legal standard of "the best interests of the child." This can mean joint custody of children by both parents, full custody solely by the mother or father, or, if both parents are unfit, custody by relatives or guardians. Under sharia or Islamic doctrine, however, fathers receive sole custody when children reach seven years of age, regardless of family circumstances.
That's exactly how Hosain v. Malik was decided in 1996 when an American court in Maryland awarded full custody of a daughter to her father, enforcing a court order from Pakistan, an Islamic country that follows sharia law. Although the mother in the custody battle was never deemed unfit and the daughter was actually afraid of her father, an alleged substance abuser and batterer, the U.S. court enforced sharia requirements. Further, the child's attorney was not present at the custody decision to advocate for the child, and no input was sought from the daughter, as is standard in U.S. custody cases.
In the Hosain v. Malik case, the husband's attorney cleverly twisted the "best interest of the child" requirement and argued that in Pakistani culture, the well-being of the child is facilitated by adherence to Islamic teaching, which mandates custody to the father. In this case, the child was sent back to Pakistan with the father, violating the child's human rights to enjoy a relationship with her mother and violating the mother's rights as a woman. Further, the father accused his ex-wife of adultery, which meant that if she returned to Pakistan she could face imprisonment, lashing, or even death by stoning under sharia.
New Jersey Divorce Case
In June 2009, a divorced Muslim woman (unnamed by the court), who was raped and assaulted by her husband, requested a restraining order from a New Jersey family court. The presiding judge denied the woman's request and stated that "the court believes that the husband was operating under his belief (Islamic sharia) that his demand to have sex whenever he so desired was not prohibited." Remarkably, the husband's imam testified at the trial to affirm that under the sharia, a wife is required to comply with her husband's sexual demands.
However, according to New Jersey law, coerced sex between married persons is considered rape regardless of whatever imams, rabbis, and priests declare it religiously sanctioned. Thirteen months later, the decision was overturned. But in the interim, the woman endured the stress of living without protection from a violent man whose right to rape, sanctioned by sharia, had been supported by the American judicial system.
These cases, which received limited media coverage, illustrate failure by the courts to maintain the integrity of state and federal laws. (For more examples, see the recent report from the Center for Security Policy, "Sharia Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases"). Our legal system must insure that constitutional guarantees are not influenced by any outside legal systems, including religious or foreign laws, such as sharia, which are hostile to our legal traditions.
Sharia Law
Sharia is Allah's law, and it stands above all man-made laws. This immutable Islamic legal doctrine derives from the Koran and other sacred Islamic texts, interpretations, and rulings. It mandates gender apartheid, religious discrimination, Muslim supremacy, cruel punishments, and the denial of free speech and religion, among other things. Requirements are detailed for every aspect of life, from the correct use of the toilet to the treatment of non-Muslims to proper wife-beating techniques.
Islamic doctrine recognizes men as superior to women in matters of civil arbitration and thus promotes the unequal treatment of women. Under sharia, the list of inequalities include: a woman's testimony is valued at half that of a man's, she may be convicted of sexual misconduct if she is raped unless she produces four male witnesses, she receives half the inheritance of male offspring, her husband may freely divorce her without providing for her welfare, she may be raped with impunity, and she may be beaten as her husband sees fit. All these abuses, which violate U.S. laws for equal treatment of the sexes, are perfectly acceptable under sharia law.
Sharia law requires the segregation of Muslims from non-Muslims, assigns a subservient status to non-Muslims, forbids certain religious activities and observances and mandates death for Muslims who leave the faith -- all of which violate religious freedom, equal treatment under the law, and other guarantees in the U.S. constitution.
Jewish Law and Catholic Canon Law
Many who defend rulings that follow Islamic doctrine or sharia make spurious comparisons to Jewish law and Catholic Canon law. These comparisons are disingenuous because the distinctions couldn't be more striking between sharia and the laws of Jews and Catholics.
Islamic law or sharia is supremacist and triumphalist. The Koran commands Muslims to change secular laws to conform to sharia or to impose sharia worldwide. In Muslim countries, the mosque is both the state and the court. Disobeying sharia can be punished by flogging or death.
By contrast, Jewish (Halacha) and Catholic Canon laws are never imposed even for Jews and Catholics, respectively. Under Jewish law and Canon law, any two parties in a dispute can choose to seek and follow a decision rendered by a religious court, but they are always free to pursue secular redress. In fact, Jews and Catholics are required to follow secular law and are under no obligation whatsoever to abide by Jewish or Catholic Church doctrine. The dictum in Jewish law of "Dina d'malchuta dina" translates to "the law of the land is law" and recognizes non-Jewish laws and non-Jewish legal jurisdiction as binding on Jewish citizens. Jewish law does not operate under a supremacist power structure like Islamic doctrine. It is unenforceable, and it is not a replacement for constitutional law.
In contradiction to Church doctrine, Catholic men and women can freely initiate divorces without fear of punishment. A Catholic woman can even have an abortion, although abortion is condemned by the Catholic Church. Catholics can be excommunicated from the church, but this doesn't affect their individual liberties or impose criminal punishments or penalties.
Unlike Islamic sharia, Jewish law and Canon law have no provisions for taking lives, criminal penalties, or monetary compensation for non-money damages. No doctrinal basis exists to create a worldwide Jewish or Catholic government like an Islamic caliphate, nor is there a religious mandate for martyrdom similar to a jihad to fulfill Judaic or Catholic devotion. If a Catholic woman engaged in an extramarital affair, she would not be sentenced to death by stoning as she would be under Islamic doctrine. If her father or brother murdered her for her impropriety, they would be incarcerated for life or receive the death penalty by the appropriate authorities...and certainly not be praised for maintaining family honor, as is the case with sh aria. Catholics and Jews are free to change their religions without the threat of punishment by death faced by Muslims.
While sharia is immutable, Jewish and Canon law has evolved over time to embrace new interpretations. Jewish law allows the latitude for judicial discretion, and innovations are frequently proposed and instituted. Catholic Canon has also changed with varying circumstances and has a rich historic basis of evolution, beginning with the First Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.
Clearly, sharia is at odds with everything enshrined in our Constitutio n to honor and preserve individual liberties and freedom. Sharia stands in opposition to equal protection under the law for both sexes, all religions, all races, and all ethnicities. Ultimately, it replaces the constitution with the objective of submitting to Allah's law, which denies freedom, equality, tolerance, and justice. Unfortunately, the United States is now on a slippery slope to allow sharia quarter in our American courtrooms. To permit this insidious divergence from U.S. and state law threatens the basic principles and liberties that Americans hold dear. In essence, sharia law is antithetical to the American concepts of freedom and equality.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributor Janet Levy, MBA, MSW, is an activist, world traveler, and freelance journalist who has contributed to American Thinker, Pajamas Media, Full Disclosure Network, FrontPage Magazine, Family Security Matters and other publications. She blogs at www.womenagainstshariah.com.
Saturday, November 05, 2011
The Most Important Videos You Will Ever See
How Much Longer Can We Possible Continue?
Part 1 of 8 ... please watch as many as you can.
Thursday, November 03, 2011
Only In America
ONLY IN U.S. DO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS FEEL SO ENTITLED
Only in the U.S. can an illegal immigrant sneak across the border into OUR country, cry foul, and then sue OUR government claiming that their “rights” had been violated. Just last month, three illegal immigrants filed a lawsuit against Cobb County Georgia to have the federal 287(g) program – the program that allows police to hold illegal immigrants who have been arrested on other crimes and notify U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement – declared unconstitutional.
The three men, all of whom had been arrested on various forgery, driving and shoplifting violations sued Cobb County, Georgia Sheriff Neil Warren and others claiming their Miranda “rights” had been violated; claiming that police had illegally seized immigration documents; and had denied them access to lawyers though they in fact had a lawyer. After a judge tossed the case, Sheriff Warren lamented that it was a shame that taxpayers have to fund the legal costs associated with such lawsuits. We couldn’t agree more.
NATIONAL REMEMBRANCE DAY FOR THOSE KILLED BY ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
This Sunday, November 6th is National Remembrance Day for those killed by illegal immigrants, and as such, patriots across the country will be marking the day in many different ways. To honor the innocent victims of illegal immigrants, here are some ideas: fly your American flag at half-staff in front of your home or business; hold a candlelight vigil; take a few moments to contact your Congressman and Senators and remind them that the crimes committed by illegal immigrants could be easily prevented if Washington did their job to secure the border and enforce immigration laws.
Only in the U.S. can an illegal immigrant sneak across the border into OUR country, cry foul, and then sue OUR government claiming that their “rights” had been violated. Just last month, three illegal immigrants filed a lawsuit against Cobb County Georgia to have the federal 287(g) program – the program that allows police to hold illegal immigrants who have been arrested on other crimes and notify U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement – declared unconstitutional.
The three men, all of whom had been arrested on various forgery, driving and shoplifting violations sued Cobb County, Georgia Sheriff Neil Warren and others claiming their Miranda “rights” had been violated; claiming that police had illegally seized immigration documents; and had denied them access to lawyers though they in fact had a lawyer. After a judge tossed the case, Sheriff Warren lamented that it was a shame that taxpayers have to fund the legal costs associated with such lawsuits. We couldn’t agree more.
NATIONAL REMEMBRANCE DAY FOR THOSE KILLED BY ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
This Sunday, November 6th is National Remembrance Day for those killed by illegal immigrants, and as such, patriots across the country will be marking the day in many different ways. To honor the innocent victims of illegal immigrants, here are some ideas: fly your American flag at half-staff in front of your home or business; hold a candlelight vigil; take a few moments to contact your Congressman and Senators and remind them that the crimes committed by illegal immigrants could be easily prevented if Washington did their job to secure the border and enforce immigration laws.
Wednesday, November 02, 2011
Letters From Israel
GUSH KATIF VIEWPOINT 177
November 2, 2011
ANOTHER ROUND OF WAR by Rachel Saperstein, Neve Dekalim/Nitzan
Over forty rockets have fallen in the south this past weekend. The shooting began Wednesday and intensified on Friday night, a favorite time for Arabs as they know it will destroy our Shabbat rest. The sirens wailed and the loudest, closest explosions were heard at 11:20pm. Our sleep was over.
Late Shabbat afternoon the children of Nitzan began their annual month-long organization festival for the Bnei Akiva youth movement. They marched through the neighborhood banging plastic bottles while singing Israeli folk songs. The sirens sounded. Joyous voices turned into shrieks as the youngsters ran into the sewervilla safety zone near our home. There was no room left for me or the neighbors. The children, at least, were protected.
After Shabbat the television was filled with the scenes of devastation across the entire southern region of Israel. Houses and cars were burning in Ashdod, homes were shattered in Ashkelon. The new Grad missiles are packed with explosives. Their range and destructive power is frightening. Israel is warned not to retaliate, lest the fighting escalate.
Sunday morning, 6am, no siren accompanies the deafening explosion nearby. I jump out of bed and run to the front door. Do I head for the sewer pipe? Are there more missiles falling close by? I'm shaking. I turn on the radio. No mention of our explosion. An hour later we learn the 'iron dome' defense system had hit an incoming missile directly over us.
Two of our grandchildren had planned on spending next Shabbat with us. We were looking forward to the visit. When we spoke to their parents, our children, we agreed to delay the visit until the fighting "calmed down".
Unlike the children in large towns and cities who stay at home as schools are closed, the children of Nitzan have returned to school. No mayor will take the responsibility of opening schools as long as missiles are flying. One hit on a classroom…
I take a walk with Moshe this morning. I need some sunlight. We have been cooped up long enough. The sight of refuse, weeds, discarded furniture and deserted caravillas turns my stomach. Families have moved up the hill to Nitzan B into their new homes. We who are left behind feel frustration, desolation. Some, like us, are in waiting mode. Some will never build.
Moshe returned from morning prayers, greatly agitated. "I watched a missile flying over Nitzan minutes ago. It seemed to burn out just overhead." There had been no siren. After all, there is a cease fire brokered by Egypt between Israel and Hamas. It was later announced the missile was fired by us. Moshe's reaction: "Their [expletive deleted] missile. Our [expletive deleted] missile. Who cares…"
OPERATION DIGNITY is in dire need of financial aid. Our people are once again living under missile fire. We are asking – no, begging – our friends to help us get our people through these terrible times. I can't just walk away when requests for help pour in. Help us help the people you love.
#####################################################
To help the people of Gush Katif still in the refugee camps, Shekel or US$ checks under $250 should be sent directly to Operation Dignity, POB 445, Nitzan 79287, Israel.
Dollar checks of $250 or more, earmarked for Operation Dignity, should be sent to
Central Fund for Israel, 13 Hagoel Street, Efrat 90435, Israel
or
Central Fund for Israel, 980 Sixth Avenue, New York, NY 10018, USA
See our website – www.operation dignity.com – for further details.
November 2, 2011
Over forty rockets have fallen in the south this past weekend. The shooting began Wednesday and intensified on Friday night, a favorite time for Arabs as they know it will destroy our Shabbat rest. The sirens wailed and the loudest, closest explosions were heard at 11:20pm. Our sleep was over.
Late Shabbat afternoon the children of Nitzan began their annual month-long organization festival for the Bnei Akiva youth movement. They marched through the neighborhood banging plastic bottles while singing Israeli folk songs. The sirens sounded. Joyous voices turned into shrieks as the youngsters ran into the sewervilla safety zone near our home. There was no room left for me or the neighbors. The children, at least, were protected.
After Shabbat the television was filled with the scenes of devastation across the entire southern region of Israel. Houses and cars were burning in Ashdod, homes were shattered in Ashkelon. The new Grad missiles are packed with explosives. Their range and destructive power is frightening. Israel is warned not to retaliate, lest the fighting escalate.
Sunday morning, 6am, no siren accompanies the deafening explosion nearby. I jump out of bed and run to the front door. Do I head for the sewer pipe? Are there more missiles falling close by? I'm shaking. I turn on the radio. No mention of our explosion. An hour later we learn the 'iron dome' defense system had hit an incoming missile directly over us.
Two of our grandchildren had planned on spending next Shabbat with us. We were looking forward to the visit. When we spoke to their parents, our children, we agreed to delay the visit until the fighting "calmed down".
Unlike the children in large towns and cities who stay at home as schools are closed, the children of Nitzan have returned to school. No mayor will take the responsibility of opening schools as long as missiles are flying. One hit on a classroom…
I take a walk with Moshe this morning. I need some sunlight. We have been cooped up long enough. The sight of refuse, weeds, discarded furniture and deserted caravillas turns my stomach. Families have moved up the hill to Nitzan B into their new homes. We who are left behind feel frustration, desolation. Some, like us, are in waiting mode. Some will never build.
Moshe returned from morning prayers, greatly agitated. "I watched a missile flying over Nitzan minutes ago. It seemed to burn out just overhead." There had been no siren. After all, there is a cease fire brokered by Egypt between Israel and Hamas. It was later announced the missile was fired by us. Moshe's reaction: "Their [expletive deleted] missile. Our [expletive deleted] missile. Who cares…"
OPERATION DIGNITY is in dire need of financial aid. Our people are once again living under missile fire. We are asking – no, begging – our friends to help us get our people through these terrible times. I can't just walk away when requests for help pour in. Help us help the people you love.
#####################################################
To help the people of Gush Katif still in the refugee camps, Shekel or US$ checks under $250 should be sent directly to Operation Dignity, POB 445, Nitzan 79287, Israel.
Dollar checks of $250 or more, earmarked for Operation Dignity, should be sent to
Central Fund for Israel, 13 Hagoel Street, Efrat 90435, Israel
or
Central Fund for Israel, 980 Sixth Avenue, New York, NY 10018, USA
See our website – www.operation dignity.com – for further details.
Truth Is The New Hate Speech
Pam Geller:
Pamela Geller speaks to the Sugar Land Tea Party in Sugar Land, Texas. This event was originally to be held at the HyattPlace in Sugar Land but was canceled with less than 30 hours notice after the hotel received one email threatening to protest her appearance. The event was relocated to the Sugar Land Community Center.
Pamela Geller speaks to the Sugar Land Tea Party in Sugar Land, Texas. This event was originally to be held at the HyattPlace in Sugar Land but was canceled with less than 30 hours notice after the hotel received one email threatening to protest her appearance. The event was relocated to the Sugar Land Community Center.
Tuesday, November 01, 2011
Fast And Curious
TOP DOJ OFFICIAL TRIES TO IMPLICATE BUSH IN 'FAST AND FURIOUS' CONFESSION
The Obama administration has a new fall guy when it comes to Operation ‘Fast and Furious’: Lanny Breuer, the head of the Justice Department’s criminal divisions. Following Monday’s release of hundreds of documents by the Justice Department, Breuer was the first of high-level Obama officials led to slaughter in order to save the neck of U.S. Attorney General and Obama’s right-hand man Eric Holder.
During his testimony, Breuer expressed “regret” that he didn’t tell others about the unacceptable tactics used during the operation that the high-ranking Obama administration official not only knew about the ATF’s botched gun-running operation that put more than a 1000 weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, he allowed it to continue.
As you probably know Operation ‘Fast and Furious’ – the operation that apparently nobody authorized, oversaw, or knew about – was paid for with Obama stimulus money as part of the campaigner-in-chief’s scheme to destroy our right to bear arms.
Never one to disappoint – Obama found a way to work in a fresh, new ‘blame Bush’ strategy along with Breuer’s demise.
Breuer’s expression of regret came hand-in-hand with the clarification that his regret stemmed from not telling others – including his boss, Attorney General Eric Holder – about the disturbing similarities between the Obama administration’s “Operation Fast and Furious” and an earlier gun-walking operation called “Wide Receiver,” which was launched during the Bush administration.
Operation ‘Fast and Furious’ – nobody started it, nobody oversaw it, and nobody knew about it – except the U.S. Border Patrol officer and hundreds of Mexican citizens killed in its wake.
Rest assured, you don't have to worry about Breuer's future. For taking the flak for Holder and Obama, Breuer is well on his way to a cushy post-government job likely within the boardroom of one of Obama’s buddies called in for a favor.
Now that Obama has found a fall guy to take the blame and hopefully stonewall the investigation from going further up the chain of command, his safety lies in the gullibility of America.
In order for Obama’s ‘blame Bush’ strategy to work, Obama needs Americans to believe that a top Justice Department lawyer does not tell his boss that the U.S. Justice Department has broken multiple state and federal laws. Obama hasn't realized his Chicago thug-tactics are fooling no one and definitely not fooling us.
So, who now in the U.S. Justice Department will be charged with the criminal conspiracy to remove the Second Amendment, multiple cases of murder, the illegal sale and distribution of firearms, interstate gun-smuggling and trafficking across federal borders, AND LYING TO CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?
We can only wait and see what Sen. Charles Grassley’s investigation finds in the latest documents released by the DOJ and the fallout that ensues. In the meantime however, we need your help stoking the fire and making sure it’s right under Holder and Obama.
The Obama administration has a new fall guy when it comes to Operation ‘Fast and Furious’: Lanny Breuer, the head of the Justice Department’s criminal divisions. Following Monday’s release of hundreds of documents by the Justice Department, Breuer was the first of high-level Obama officials led to slaughter in order to save the neck of U.S. Attorney General and Obama’s right-hand man Eric Holder.
During his testimony, Breuer expressed “regret” that he didn’t tell others about the unacceptable tactics used during the operation that the high-ranking Obama administration official not only knew about the ATF’s botched gun-running operation that put more than a 1000 weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, he allowed it to continue.
As you probably know Operation ‘Fast and Furious’ – the operation that apparently nobody authorized, oversaw, or knew about – was paid for with Obama stimulus money as part of the campaigner-in-chief’s scheme to destroy our right to bear arms.
Never one to disappoint – Obama found a way to work in a fresh, new ‘blame Bush’ strategy along with Breuer’s demise.
Breuer’s expression of regret came hand-in-hand with the clarification that his regret stemmed from not telling others – including his boss, Attorney General Eric Holder – about the disturbing similarities between the Obama administration’s “Operation Fast and Furious” and an earlier gun-walking operation called “Wide Receiver,” which was launched during the Bush administration.
Operation ‘Fast and Furious’ – nobody started it, nobody oversaw it, and nobody knew about it – except the U.S. Border Patrol officer and hundreds of Mexican citizens killed in its wake.
Rest assured, you don't have to worry about Breuer's future. For taking the flak for Holder and Obama, Breuer is well on his way to a cushy post-government job likely within the boardroom of one of Obama’s buddies called in for a favor.
Now that Obama has found a fall guy to take the blame and hopefully stonewall the investigation from going further up the chain of command, his safety lies in the gullibility of America.
In order for Obama’s ‘blame Bush’ strategy to work, Obama needs Americans to believe that a top Justice Department lawyer does not tell his boss that the U.S. Justice Department has broken multiple state and federal laws. Obama hasn't realized his Chicago thug-tactics are fooling no one and definitely not fooling us.
So, who now in the U.S. Justice Department will be charged with the criminal conspiracy to remove the Second Amendment, multiple cases of murder, the illegal sale and distribution of firearms, interstate gun-smuggling and trafficking across federal borders, AND LYING TO CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?
We can only wait and see what Sen. Charles Grassley’s investigation finds in the latest documents released by the DOJ and the fallout that ensues. In the meantime however, we need your help stoking the fire and making sure it’s right under Holder and Obama.
In God We Trust
Lawmaker: ‘In God We Trust’ Under Attack
Nov 1, 2011
A Virginia lawmaker has introduced a bi-partisan resolution to reaffirm the national motto – in part over President Obama’s refusal to correct remarks he made that misstated the motto as “E pluribus unum” instead of “In God We Trust.”
“It does concern us,” Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) told Fox News. “It always bothers you when public officials say things that aren’t accurate.”
The bi-partisan resolution will not only reaffirm “In God We Trust” as the national motto, but it will also “encourage its display in public buildings and government institutions.”
“There’s been no motto in U.S. history that’s been more inspirational than ‘In God We Trust,’” he said, noting that he felt it was appropriate for members of Congress to “firmly declare our trust in God.”
Forbes said the motto has been under attack over the past three years, noting a “disturbing trend of inaccuracies and omissions, misunderstandings of church and state, rogue court challenges and efforts to remove God from the public domain by unelected bureaucrats.”
“There are a very small number of people, but unfortunately very vocal people who really want to attack faith in every element of the nation,” Forbes said. “But we’re not going to go quietly into the night.”
Forbes said he was especially disturbed by an incident involving President Obama.
Last November, during a speech he delivered in Jakarta, the president stated that the national motto was “E pluribus unum.
Forbes said 42 members of Congress sent President Obama a letter asking him to correct the error.
“Not only did the president refuse to respond to our letter, but still on the White House website they have up the incorrect national motto,” Forbes told Fox News. “It does concern us.”
Forbes also pointed out what he called inaccuracies and omissions in the new Capitol Visitor Center. He accused historians of sanitizing “the public building of an references to our national motto – including replacing the inscription of ‘In God We Trust,’ inscribed above the Speaker’s Rostrum with stars in a replica of the House Chamber – and cropping an actual picture of the chamber so you could not see the words ‘In God We Trust.’’
The omissions were later corrected after Congress intervened, Forbes said.
The Senate already passed a resolution reaffirming the national motto in 2006.
Nov 1, 2011
A Virginia lawmaker has introduced a bi-partisan resolution to reaffirm the national motto – in part over President Obama’s refusal to correct remarks he made that misstated the motto as “E pluribus unum” instead of “In God We Trust.”
“It does concern us,” Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) told Fox News. “It always bothers you when public officials say things that aren’t accurate.”
The bi-partisan resolution will not only reaffirm “In God We Trust” as the national motto, but it will also “encourage its display in public buildings and government institutions.”
“There’s been no motto in U.S. history that’s been more inspirational than ‘In God We Trust,’” he said, noting that he felt it was appropriate for members of Congress to “firmly declare our trust in God.”
Forbes said the motto has been under attack over the past three years, noting a “disturbing trend of inaccuracies and omissions, misunderstandings of church and state, rogue court challenges and efforts to remove God from the public domain by unelected bureaucrats.”
“There are a very small number of people, but unfortunately very vocal people who really want to attack faith in every element of the nation,” Forbes said. “But we’re not going to go quietly into the night.”
Forbes said he was especially disturbed by an incident involving President Obama.
Last November, during a speech he delivered in Jakarta, the president stated that the national motto was “E pluribus unum.
Forbes said 42 members of Congress sent President Obama a letter asking him to correct the error.
“Not only did the president refuse to respond to our letter, but still on the White House website they have up the incorrect national motto,” Forbes told Fox News. “It does concern us.”
Forbes also pointed out what he called inaccuracies and omissions in the new Capitol Visitor Center. He accused historians of sanitizing “the public building of an references to our national motto – including replacing the inscription of ‘In God We Trust,’ inscribed above the Speaker’s Rostrum with stars in a replica of the House Chamber – and cropping an actual picture of the chamber so you could not see the words ‘In God We Trust.’’
The omissions were later corrected after Congress intervened, Forbes said.
The Senate already passed a resolution reaffirming the national motto in 2006.
Immigration News
DOJ SUES SOUTH CAROLINA OVER IMMIGRATION LAW
Justice Department officials are suing South Carolina over the state’s new legislation aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration saying that the measure pre-empts federal authority and could lead to the harassment and detention of authorized visitors, immigrants and citizens. DOJ officials also claim that it would interfere with and undermine the federal government’s control over relations with foreign governments because of the component requiring the carrying of documents to prove residency. South Carolina argues that they are trying to uphold the rule of law because the feds have failed to do so.
TOP JUSTICE OFFICIAL ADMITS ‘MISTAKE’ IN IGNORING ATF’S ‘UNACCEPTABLE TACTICS’
Hundreds of documents released yesterday by the Justice Department prove that a high-ranking Obama administration official not only knew about the ATF’s botched gun-running operation that put more than a 1000 weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, he allowed it to continue “without asking key questions.” Lanny Breur, the head of the Justice Department’s criminal divisions, is quoted as expressing “regret” that he didn’t tell others about the unacceptable tactics used during “Operation Fast & Furious.”
Justice Department officials are suing South Carolina over the state’s new legislation aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration saying that the measure pre-empts federal authority and could lead to the harassment and detention of authorized visitors, immigrants and citizens. DOJ officials also claim that it would interfere with and undermine the federal government’s control over relations with foreign governments because of the component requiring the carrying of documents to prove residency. South Carolina argues that they are trying to uphold the rule of law because the feds have failed to do so.
TOP JUSTICE OFFICIAL ADMITS ‘MISTAKE’ IN IGNORING ATF’S ‘UNACCEPTABLE TACTICS’
Hundreds of documents released yesterday by the Justice Department prove that a high-ranking Obama administration official not only knew about the ATF’s botched gun-running operation that put more than a 1000 weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, he allowed it to continue “without asking key questions.” Lanny Breur, the head of the Justice Department’s criminal divisions, is quoted as expressing “regret” that he didn’t tell others about the unacceptable tactics used during “Operation Fast & Furious.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)