I have stood down trying to let the President elect work this nations problems out.But he seems to not worry about it.He has sunk his press in to the Amerikan people to device them. We have a Socialist front on its way to national health care,and a speaker of the house that is going to push it.there is a treaty being ready to be signed buy the U.S. to follow world wide gun laws.The Amerikan Constitution is now nothing more then a page that is going to be torn away from American history.We are a nation that was forged in freedom now we are nation that is scared to defend are freedoms.
I have served my country boldly and with pride.But now for the first time in my life iam ashamed to say iam an American .We where a nation of freedom a country that held its grounds when we had our backs to the corner, a NATION that fought.Now with the press telling us every move we should make we are sheep.Do not be scared. are for fathers where not.The Red White and Blue has taken a big noise dive in to fear ... fear of being a nation ,fear of being what was a Nation that believed in freedom
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Question Amerika
1776 we started out as a free nation,2009 we have become are worst enemy .The press led a war against a President that defended are nation against islamic attacks and spoke out against rouge nations. Now we have a coward leading are nation that is scared of the people that put him in to office.This man would rather apologize for are sovereignty then defend it.He apologizes for are freedoms that where defended in blood buy are military and granted to ALL buy are constitution .Amerika has laid down as another nation of sheep,Stalin did it, Hitler did it and now Mr.Obama,is leading us in to that direction.I know most of Amerika is to young to remember the Rev.Jim Jones and "Jones Town" or what was done buy Mr.Castro in Cuba. Our freedom of speech is in great jeopardy along with are right to bear arms,.Both of these given rights that are necessary for a free nation to remain free.We have people now making statements that if you appose the president you are a racist,Well america, if you steep in to the political ring you are a target for scrutiny ,and race is not the issue its your job performance.This currant political environment is buy far the worst of times that this country has seen since the American "Civil War".The age and race group that put Mr.Obama in to office was white Americans form 18 to 35 years of age,but now its a race issue against him, if you speak out against him.Well its not its speaking out against the people that want to wadl "The Constitution" up in to a ball and throw it away or the people that think it is a living breathing document.We are all Americans,we are NOT European Americans ,African Americans or Spanish Americans we are AMERICANS red white and blue, mutts of the world that did not have a chance divided. But together we are a Nation and not a "CHANGE"
Monday, September 21, 2009
Obama Putting BOOT down on internet
Obama Plans Internet Grab: FCC to Embrace 'Net Neutrality'
Sunday, September 20, 2009 7:16 PM
By: John O. Edwards Article Font Size
Since the Internet took root as a mass communications phenomenon in the mid 1990s, a quiet war has raged in Washington over the extent to which the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would regulate the new medium.
Until, now the Internet has been largely self-regulated, and the FCC has taken a hands-off approach.
But that could change dramatically soon if the Obama administration has its way.
During the weekend, press reports revealed a stunning development: The Obama administration will announce Monday that the FCC would propose new rules to embrace what it calls "Net Neutrality."
Obama's new Federal Communications Commission chairman, Julius Genachowski, will use a speech to the Brookings Institution, a liberal think tank, to announce the FCC proposals, according to those reports.
On the face of it, Net Neutrality appears to be a popular and fair proposal.
Genachowski will "propose new rules that would prohibit Internet service providers from interfering with the free flow of information and certain applications over their networks," according to the Associated Press.
The FCC rules "would bar Internet service providers such as Verizon Communications Inc., Comcast Corp. or AT&T Inc., from slowing or blocking certain services or content flowing through their vast networks," according to the AP.
But critics contend that the proposals are nothing more than a backdoor way for the FCC to tighten federal control over the Internet by beginning with the regulation of Internet service providers.
The battle lines over Net Neutrality have formed along partisan and ideological lines, with some exceptions.
During the presidential campaign, Obama said he would embrace Net Neutrality — a cause championed by Google and other Silicon Valley companies that don't want large Internet service providers denying or controlling their access to Internet users.
But Republicans have largely opposed Net Neutrality, suggesting self regulation has worked well.
The previous FCC chairman, Bush appointee Kevin Martin opposed Net Neutrality. He suggested it was not needed.
Conservatives see Net Neutrality as a power grab that will benefit big Internet players such as Amazon and Google while stifling smaller competitors.
The libertarian CATO Institute, in a 2004 policy analysis concluded: "The regulatory regime envisioned by Net Neutrality mandates would also open the door to a great deal of potential 'gaming' of the regulatory system and allow firms to use the regulatory system to hobble competitors. Worse yet, it would encourage more FCC regulation of the Internet and broadband markets in general."
Democrats in Congress have pushed for such controls in the past without success. In 2006 House Democrats offered an amendment to make Net Neutrality law, but the motion failed.
At the time Republicans warned of efforts to control the Internet.
"I want a vibrant Internet just like they do," Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican, said during the 2006 House debate over the issue. "Our disagreement is about how to achieve that. They say let the government dictate it . . . I urge my colleagues to reject government regulation of the Internet."
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Sunday, September 20, 2009 7:16 PM
By: John O. Edwards Article Font Size
Since the Internet took root as a mass communications phenomenon in the mid 1990s, a quiet war has raged in Washington over the extent to which the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would regulate the new medium.
Until, now the Internet has been largely self-regulated, and the FCC has taken a hands-off approach.
But that could change dramatically soon if the Obama administration has its way.
During the weekend, press reports revealed a stunning development: The Obama administration will announce Monday that the FCC would propose new rules to embrace what it calls "Net Neutrality."
Obama's new Federal Communications Commission chairman, Julius Genachowski, will use a speech to the Brookings Institution, a liberal think tank, to announce the FCC proposals, according to those reports.
On the face of it, Net Neutrality appears to be a popular and fair proposal.
Genachowski will "propose new rules that would prohibit Internet service providers from interfering with the free flow of information and certain applications over their networks," according to the Associated Press.
The FCC rules "would bar Internet service providers such as Verizon Communications Inc., Comcast Corp. or AT&T Inc., from slowing or blocking certain services or content flowing through their vast networks," according to the AP.
But critics contend that the proposals are nothing more than a backdoor way for the FCC to tighten federal control over the Internet by beginning with the regulation of Internet service providers.
The battle lines over Net Neutrality have formed along partisan and ideological lines, with some exceptions.
During the presidential campaign, Obama said he would embrace Net Neutrality — a cause championed by Google and other Silicon Valley companies that don't want large Internet service providers denying or controlling their access to Internet users.
But Republicans have largely opposed Net Neutrality, suggesting self regulation has worked well.
The previous FCC chairman, Bush appointee Kevin Martin opposed Net Neutrality. He suggested it was not needed.
Conservatives see Net Neutrality as a power grab that will benefit big Internet players such as Amazon and Google while stifling smaller competitors.
The libertarian CATO Institute, in a 2004 policy analysis concluded: "The regulatory regime envisioned by Net Neutrality mandates would also open the door to a great deal of potential 'gaming' of the regulatory system and allow firms to use the regulatory system to hobble competitors. Worse yet, it would encourage more FCC regulation of the Internet and broadband markets in general."
Democrats in Congress have pushed for such controls in the past without success. In 2006 House Democrats offered an amendment to make Net Neutrality law, but the motion failed.
At the time Republicans warned of efforts to control the Internet.
"I want a vibrant Internet just like they do," Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican, said during the 2006 House debate over the issue. "Our disagreement is about how to achieve that. They say let the government dictate it . . . I urge my colleagues to reject government regulation of the Internet."
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
FOOD FOR THOUGHT
Eventually this "society" of ours will simply collapse. When a civilization starts to protect their stupid and insane, and allow them to breed, or rise to power, then natural selection ceases. No more survival of the fittest. It becomes survival of the whatever. Everyone is special just because you are here. We have begun this, with the corruption of our child rearing methods and the outlawing of corporal punishment. Supposedly aimed at stopping abuse, this philosophy has actually spurned an entire generation of lazy, unaware weirdos, with absolutely no discipline. If we, as a specie and a country, do not wake up and pull our collective heads out of our asses, these trends will continue, and as our future generations become more and more dependant on video games and other such trifles of technology, and grow farther and farther from the real truths of existence, eventually they will all forget about true freedom, and the pain and blood spilled to gain that freedom, as long as they are kept comfortable and entertained.
--Andrew J. Hradsky
--Andrew J. Hradsky
Dont Feed The Bears!!!
September 17, 2009
Obama believes the bears won't kill him
Neil Braithwaite
Remember Timothy Treadwell, the bear enthusiast and environmentalist who lived for many seasons with the coastal grizzly bears in Alaska? And, remember what happened to Timothy and his girlfriend that fateful season in 2003 while they were living among the grizzlies? Sadly, those same grizzlies Timothy had grown to love and understand killed and partially ate both him and his girlfriend.
You see, while Timothy understood the danger involved with getting so close to a wild predator, he never really imagined those bears would kill him. Any rational thought of imminent danger Timothy may have had previously, was overruled by his obsession to live with the wild grizzlies year after year. Unfortunately for Timothy and his girlfriend, the grizzlies finally did what all predators do -- kill and eat.
With the Obama administration's latest cowering move to the Kremlin to abandon a missile defense plan for Europe, our new president continues his Treadwell-like behavior, on a foreign policy path with many predatory leaders who both articulate and pose an imminent threat to America. President Obama does perceive the danger to America in getting close to these murderous dictators, but like Timothy Treadwell, he refuses to allow sound reasoning to interfere with his overwhelming obsession to befriend them all.
But while Treadwell chose to endanger only himself and his girlfriend, President Obama is making a clear choice to endanger all of America with his reckless foreign policy.
Foreign leaders like Chavez, Ahmedinejad, Kim, Castro, and yes, even Putin, to name a few, are all predators just like the Alaskan grizzly. And all predators have habits and instincts that make them unpredictable, dangerous and eventually deadly.
Predators are also very patient and cunning when it comes to selecting their prey. They usually seek out the weak or injured so they can increase their chances of a successful kill. The predators President Obama is trying to befriend and get close to are being patient and cunning with him as well.
In less than ten months, President Obama's new policies have taken our country from being the world's strongest superpower to a weak and vulnerable nation being singled out as a prime target by these predators. Like the plight of Timothy Treadwell, it's only a matter of time for America before these predators do what they do -- kill and eat.
Neil Braithwaite is a Real Estate Broker and writer in Charlotte, NC. He writes political commentary and satire and is a regular contributor to PoliticalDerby.com.
Obama believes the bears won't kill him
Neil Braithwaite
Remember Timothy Treadwell, the bear enthusiast and environmentalist who lived for many seasons with the coastal grizzly bears in Alaska? And, remember what happened to Timothy and his girlfriend that fateful season in 2003 while they were living among the grizzlies? Sadly, those same grizzlies Timothy had grown to love and understand killed and partially ate both him and his girlfriend.
You see, while Timothy understood the danger involved with getting so close to a wild predator, he never really imagined those bears would kill him. Any rational thought of imminent danger Timothy may have had previously, was overruled by his obsession to live with the wild grizzlies year after year. Unfortunately for Timothy and his girlfriend, the grizzlies finally did what all predators do -- kill and eat.
With the Obama administration's latest cowering move to the Kremlin to abandon a missile defense plan for Europe, our new president continues his Treadwell-like behavior, on a foreign policy path with many predatory leaders who both articulate and pose an imminent threat to America. President Obama does perceive the danger to America in getting close to these murderous dictators, but like Timothy Treadwell, he refuses to allow sound reasoning to interfere with his overwhelming obsession to befriend them all.
But while Treadwell chose to endanger only himself and his girlfriend, President Obama is making a clear choice to endanger all of America with his reckless foreign policy.
Foreign leaders like Chavez, Ahmedinejad, Kim, Castro, and yes, even Putin, to name a few, are all predators just like the Alaskan grizzly. And all predators have habits and instincts that make them unpredictable, dangerous and eventually deadly.
Predators are also very patient and cunning when it comes to selecting their prey. They usually seek out the weak or injured so they can increase their chances of a successful kill. The predators President Obama is trying to befriend and get close to are being patient and cunning with him as well.
In less than ten months, President Obama's new policies have taken our country from being the world's strongest superpower to a weak and vulnerable nation being singled out as a prime target by these predators. Like the plight of Timothy Treadwell, it's only a matter of time for America before these predators do what they do -- kill and eat.
Neil Braithwaite is a Real Estate Broker and writer in Charlotte, NC. He writes political commentary and satire and is a regular contributor to PoliticalDerby.com.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Freedom Gone?? Thought Police??
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Freedom Of Speach ,,,Gone??
The White House is collecting and storing comments and videos placed on its social-networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube without notifying or asking the consent of the site users, a failure that appears to run counter to President Obama's promise of a transparent government and his pledge to protect privacy on the Internet.
Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said the White House signaled that it would insist on open dealings with Internet users and, in fact, should feel obliged to disclose that it is collecting such information.
"The White House has not been adequately transparent, particularly on how it makes use of new social media techniques, such as this example," he said.
Defenders of the White House actions said the Presidential Records Act requires that the administration gather the information and that it was justified in taking the additional step of asking a private contractor to "crawl and archive" all such material. Nicholas Shapiro, a White House spokesman, declined to say when the practice began or how much the new contract would cost.
Susan Cooper, a spokeswoman for National Archives and Records Administration, said the presidential records law applies to "social media" and to public comments "received by the president or immediate staff."
RELATED STORIES:
• Obama seeks Patriot Act extensions
• EXCLUSIVE: Wilson: Carter's racism claims a distraction
• U.S. envoys hesitate to report bad news
Mr. Obama signed a memo in January stating that his efforts to maintain an open government would be "unprecedented" and "ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation and collaboration."
An Obama campaign document on technology pledged that, as president, Mr. Obama "will strengthen privacy protections for the digital age and will harness the power of technology to hold government and business accountable for violations of personal privacy."
In a June 5, 2008, article in PC Magazine, Mr. Obama said, "The open information platforms of the 21st century can also tempt institutions to violate the privacy of citizens. We need sensible safeguards that protect privacy in this dynamic new world."
The National Legal and Policy Center, a government ethics watchdog, said archiving the sites would have a "chilling effect" on Web site users who might wish to leave comments critical of the administration.
Ken Boehm, a lawyer and chairman of the center, also disputed that the presidential records law applies, because the comments are pasted onto a third-party Web page and not official correspondence with the president.
"If the White House has nothing to hide, why is this cloaked in secrecy? Why won't they make the dollar amount this is going to cost public?" Mr. Boehm asked. "I don't think there is an expectation that this is being captured by the government and saved."
But Patrice McDermott, director of OpenTheGovernment.org, called the proposal "a positive development because it demonstrates a commitment from the Obama administration to meet its obligations under the Presidential Records Act."
"Additionally, I am encouraged to see the administration recognizing that it must find a way to handle the ever-expanding amount of data generated electronically. I hope the rest of the executive branch will learn from the president's leadership on this issue," Ms. McDermott said.
Shahid Buttar, executive director of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, called for congressional oversight of the practice of collecting data.
"Given the administration's disappointing secrecy in other contexts, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee encourages Congress to conduct oversight to ensure compliance with the law, maximize transparency and protect individual privacy," Mr. Buttar said.
According to the law, the term "presidential records" means documentary materials "created or received by the president, his immediate staff or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise and assist the president, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President."
"It includes any documentary materials relating to the political activities of the president or members of his staff, but only if such activities relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President," the law says.
David Almacy, who served as President George W. Bush's Internet director, said the Bush administration did not use the then-fledgling social-networking sites in the same manner as the Obama White House, except to upload presidential speeches onto iTunes. The White House, however, did archive comments posted to its official Web site.
The proposal issued Aug. 21 calls for a contractor to "crawl and archive" social-networking Web sites where the White House maintains an official presence on seven networks: Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, Flickr, YouTube, Vimeo and Slideshare.
The collection will include the comments, tags, graphics, audio and video posted by users who don't work for the White House.
The White House has more than 333,000 fans on Facebook, and posts updates several times a day that draw hundreds of thousands of comments, both positive and negative. The White House has more than 1 million followers on Twitter and more than 87,000 subscribers on YouTube, where more than 400 videos of the president and White House briefings are posted.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Non Citizen Leader
BOMBSHELL?Supreme Court now has Obama Citizenship
AP- WASHINGTON D.C. - In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the group Americans for Freedom of Information has Released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College Released today, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name "Barry Soetoro", received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking.
Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama's legitimacy and qualification to serve as President. When reached for comment in London , where he has been in meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled but refused comment on the issue.
Britain 's Daily Mail also carried the story in a front-page article titled, Obama Eligibility Questioned leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama's first official visit to the U.K.
In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonio Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey . This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio's case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama's citizenship or qualification to serve as president.
Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter.
LET OTHER FOLKS KNOW THIS NEWS
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Sep 11, 2001
On 9/11/2001 America was changed for ever. We will always remember the images that are burnt in to our heads.The faces of the people on street looking on in shock,The burning building and images of people jumping to avoid a fiery death. Yes it was A religion of peace that fueled the actions of the terrorist.And now we embrace there culture and allow them to influence the way we live in our nation.If I remember correctly 3000 dead in one day,and Iam not talking about soldiers or cops but citizens going about there daily life's.Now its 2009 and we have a leader that bowed before the king of Saudi Arabia and that is going to host a Ramadan feast at the White House.This is the same man that went M.I.A. on national prayer day,and also set out directives that 9/11 will be refer ed to as a man made disaster from now on instead of a terrorist attack.Its very scary that ONLY 8 years after 9/11 that we now allow a leader like this to take control.I guess America has forgot 9/11.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Holder and the PANTHERS???
By JOHN FUND
President Obama's Justice Department continues to stonewall inquiries about why it dropped a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party.
The episode—which Bartle Bull, a former civil rights lawyer and publisher of the left-wing Village Voice, calls "the most blatant form of voter intimidation I've ever seen"—began on Election Day 2008. Mr. Bull and others witnessed two Black Panthers in paramilitary garb at a polling place near downtown Philadelphia. (Some of this behavior is on YouTube.)
One of them, they say, brandished a nightstick at the entrance and pointed it at voters and both made racial threats. Mr. Bull says he heard one yell "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker!"
In the first week of January, the Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party and three of its members, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring voters with the weapon, uniforms and racial slurs. In March, Mr. Bull submitted an affidavit at Justice's request to support its lawsuit.
View Full Image
Associated Press
Attorney General Eric Holder
When none of the defendants filed any response to the complaint or appeared in federal district court in Philadelphia to answer the suit, it appeared almost certain Justice would have prevailed by default. Instead, the department in May suddenly allowed the party and two of the three defendants to walk away. Against the third defendant, Minister King Samir Shabazz, it sought only an injunction barring him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling place for the next three years—action that's already illegal under existing law.
There was outrage over the decision among Congressional Republicans, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division—especially after it was learned one of the defendants who walked was Jerry Jackson, a member of Philadelphia's 14th Ward Democratic Committee and a credentialed poll watcher for the Democratic Party last Election Day.
Then the Washington Times reported on July 30 that six career lawyers at Justice who had recommended continuing to pursue the case were overruled by Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli—a top administration political appointee. One of the career attorneys, Appellate Chief Diana Flynn, had urged in an internal memo that a judgment be pressed against the defendants to "prevent the paramilitary style intimidation of voters" in the future.
Justice spokesman Alejandro Miyar says the dismissal was "based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law." But Rep. Frank Wolf (R., Va.), has been asking for more information. Assistant Attorney General Ronald Welch, for example, claims in a July 13 letter to Mr. Wolf that charges against the New Black Panther Party itself were dropped because there wasn't "evidentiary support" to prove they "directed" the intimidation. But Mr. Wolf notes in a letter sent to Justice that one defendant, Black Panther Party Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, said on Fox News just after the election that his activities at the polling station were part of a nationwide effort. Mr. Shabazz added that the Black Panther activities in Philadelphia were justified due to "an emergency situation."
Mr. Wolf's demands that Justice make the career attorneys on the case available for questions have been rebuffed. He also wants the House Judiciary Committee to hold hearings. A spokesman for House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers was noncommittal as to whether any hearing would be held.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights voted on Aug. 7 to send a letter to Justice expanding its own investigation and demanding more complete answers. "We believe the Department's defense of its actions thus far undermines respect for rule of law," its letter stated. It noted "the peculiar logic" of one Justice argument, that defendants' failure to show up in court was a reason for dismissing the case: "Such an argument sends a perverse message to wrongdoers—that attempts at voter suppression will be tolerated so long as the persons who engage in them are careful not to appear in court to answer the government's complaint."
The commission noted that it could subpoena witnesses and documents if Justice doesn't better explain its actions.
President Obama needs to clear the air. As a former law professor who specialized in voting rights, he is aware of how important even-handed application of the law is to election integrity. In 2007, then-Sen. Obama introduced a bill to protect Americans from tactics that intimidate voters. It also increased the criminal penalty for voter intimidation to five years in prison from one year.
"There is no place for politics in this debate," he testified before Mr. Conyers's committee in March, 2007. "Both parties at different periods in our history have been guilty in different regions of preventing people from voting for a tactical advantage. We should be beyond that."
One way to get there is for Mr. Obama to insist his Justice Department reinstate the Black Panther case or provide a full explanation for why it was dropped.
Mr. Fund is a columnist for WSJ.com.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Obamas private army!!!
Obama's Civilian National Security Force
By Lee Cary
Barack Obama's recent words to promote his image as Community Organizer in Chief were not about forming a paramilitary force of volunteer brown shirts. They were about turning America into one, giant, community organizer's sandbox at enormous cost to taxpayers.
Senator Obama was nearly 17 minutes into his July 2 speech (yet another one where naming Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was required) in Colorado Springs, Colorado when he deviated from his pre-released script and performed without the teleprompter net saying,
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." (emphasis added)
The immediate context for that amazing statement was a preview of parts of his plan to vastly expand community service opportunities for Americans of nearly all ages. He said,
"People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve."
The range of his community service initiatives was outlined in an earlier American Thinker article. In his campaign document entitled "The Blueprint for Change: Barack Obama's Plan For America," Obama's "Service" section runs a close second to "Education" in complexity. But, with his Colorado Springs' statement, it grabbed first place in its projected costs to taxpayers. Obama did the cost projection himself.
He plans to double the Peace Corps' budget by 2011, and expand AmeriCorps, USA Freedom Corps, VISTA, YouthBuild Program, and the Senior Corps. Plus, he proposes to form a Classroom Corps, Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, Veterans Corps, Homeland Security Corps, Global Energy Corps, and a Green Jobs Corps. Here a corps - there a corps - everywhere a corps corps.
So it made sense in Colorado Springs when he said his call to community service "will be a central cause of my presidency." He couldn't be clearer in signaling his intentions, including a Social Investment Fund Network to link local non-profits with the federal government.
The entire plan is breathtaking in its scope. But it does not, as at least one internet writer has suggested, portend a "giant police force." It would be easier to rebut if it did. As it is, it's silly stuff born of naively fanciful dreams.
Senator Obama aims to tap into the already active volunteerism of millions of Americans and recruit them to become cogs in a gigantic government machine grinding out his social re-engineering agenda. It's Orwellian-like, with a novice social activist's mentality at the helm. In his speech he said,
"Now I know what the cynics will say. I've heard from them all my life."
Has he? Well, given his absence of noteworthy community organizational achievements, perhaps he might have done more listening to the "cynics" for constructive criticism.
It seems clear that he meant to say, in effect, that the security of the nation is as dependent on its unarmed community service providers as it is on its armed military personnel. Even the nomenclature "corps," as in Peace Corps, carries a martial connotation as does the name, Salvation Army. His point: national security begins with civilians. It's a message like the one America's home front heard throughout World War II. Except in his case, he means to marshal volunteers for social service and economic equality while saving the environment.
"Because the future of our nation depends on the soldier at Fort Carson, but is also depends on the teacher in East LA, the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans..."
That is, of course, true. But ultimate national security requires someone to carry, and, if necessary, discharge a deadly weapon with intent to kill. This is something teachers, nurses and after-school workers are typically unaccustomed to doing as part of their service obligations.
Voters haven't paid much attention to his "Service" plan because the old news media has ignored it. That will likely continue, even though Obama attached an approximate price tag to it in Colorado Springs. When Obama said that the "civilian national security force" would be just as "well-funded" as the Armed Forces, he stepped squarely into the giant sandbox and played with the big numbers. As the late Carl Sagan said, "billions and billions" of dollars. Here's how.
The FY 2008 Department of Defense (DoD) budget is about $482 billion. Obama has announced his intentions to cut "tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending," including $9 billion per month spent in Iraq and expenditures for the missile defense system, while increasing the force size of the Army and Marine Corps.
Let's imagine "tens of billions" in cuts eventually adds up to a whopping $150 billion. That would be a near one-third cut in defense spending, taking the DoD budget down to $332 billion. Even in such an extreme case of DoD budget reduction, for his "civilian national security force" to be "just as well-funded" would mean funding his community service initiatives at an equivalent $332 billion.
Consequently, another $332 billion in addition to the Pentagon's reduced budget of $332 billion equals a net increase of $182 billion in the annual federal budget, assuming we sponge-up the already existing expenditures for the relatively meager, by comparison, existing service programs he plans to expand. That's $182,000,000,000 in new federal monies, and that means higher taxes.
In his entire life, Senator Obama has never managed an organization larger than a Senate staff, or that of a law school publication. And, he's never operated a for-profit business or been responsible for any profit center within one. So, while words matter to Senator Obama, it's not clear if math means anything to him at all.
Note: the author has experience in community organizing. For example, he organized one of the earliest Meals-on-Wheels programs in Illinois, in continuous service for over 30 years. He trained over a hundred Illinois non-profit organizations to resettle Vietnamese Refugees. He assembled three dozen congregations and a synagogue in a mid-sized Texas town to provide emergency assistance to low-income citizens, in continuous operation for 25 years. He was an expert witness at a Texas Senate hearing when legislation forming the state's Commission on Human Rights was being drafted.
By Lee Cary
Barack Obama's recent words to promote his image as Community Organizer in Chief were not about forming a paramilitary force of volunteer brown shirts. They were about turning America into one, giant, community organizer's sandbox at enormous cost to taxpayers.
Senator Obama was nearly 17 minutes into his July 2 speech (yet another one where naming Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was required) in Colorado Springs, Colorado when he deviated from his pre-released script and performed without the teleprompter net saying,
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." (emphasis added)
The immediate context for that amazing statement was a preview of parts of his plan to vastly expand community service opportunities for Americans of nearly all ages. He said,
"People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve."
The range of his community service initiatives was outlined in an earlier American Thinker article. In his campaign document entitled "The Blueprint for Change: Barack Obama's Plan For America," Obama's "Service" section runs a close second to "Education" in complexity. But, with his Colorado Springs' statement, it grabbed first place in its projected costs to taxpayers. Obama did the cost projection himself.
He plans to double the Peace Corps' budget by 2011, and expand AmeriCorps, USA Freedom Corps, VISTA, YouthBuild Program, and the Senior Corps. Plus, he proposes to form a Classroom Corps, Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, Veterans Corps, Homeland Security Corps, Global Energy Corps, and a Green Jobs Corps. Here a corps - there a corps - everywhere a corps corps.
So it made sense in Colorado Springs when he said his call to community service "will be a central cause of my presidency." He couldn't be clearer in signaling his intentions, including a Social Investment Fund Network to link local non-profits with the federal government.
The entire plan is breathtaking in its scope. But it does not, as at least one internet writer has suggested, portend a "giant police force." It would be easier to rebut if it did. As it is, it's silly stuff born of naively fanciful dreams.
Senator Obama aims to tap into the already active volunteerism of millions of Americans and recruit them to become cogs in a gigantic government machine grinding out his social re-engineering agenda. It's Orwellian-like, with a novice social activist's mentality at the helm. In his speech he said,
"Now I know what the cynics will say. I've heard from them all my life."
Has he? Well, given his absence of noteworthy community organizational achievements, perhaps he might have done more listening to the "cynics" for constructive criticism.
It seems clear that he meant to say, in effect, that the security of the nation is as dependent on its unarmed community service providers as it is on its armed military personnel. Even the nomenclature "corps," as in Peace Corps, carries a martial connotation as does the name, Salvation Army. His point: national security begins with civilians. It's a message like the one America's home front heard throughout World War II. Except in his case, he means to marshal volunteers for social service and economic equality while saving the environment.
"Because the future of our nation depends on the soldier at Fort Carson, but is also depends on the teacher in East LA, the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans..."
That is, of course, true. But ultimate national security requires someone to carry, and, if necessary, discharge a deadly weapon with intent to kill. This is something teachers, nurses and after-school workers are typically unaccustomed to doing as part of their service obligations.
Voters haven't paid much attention to his "Service" plan because the old news media has ignored it. That will likely continue, even though Obama attached an approximate price tag to it in Colorado Springs. When Obama said that the "civilian national security force" would be just as "well-funded" as the Armed Forces, he stepped squarely into the giant sandbox and played with the big numbers. As the late Carl Sagan said, "billions and billions" of dollars. Here's how.
The FY 2008 Department of Defense (DoD) budget is about $482 billion. Obama has announced his intentions to cut "tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending," including $9 billion per month spent in Iraq and expenditures for the missile defense system, while increasing the force size of the Army and Marine Corps.
Let's imagine "tens of billions" in cuts eventually adds up to a whopping $150 billion. That would be a near one-third cut in defense spending, taking the DoD budget down to $332 billion. Even in such an extreme case of DoD budget reduction, for his "civilian national security force" to be "just as well-funded" would mean funding his community service initiatives at an equivalent $332 billion.
Consequently, another $332 billion in addition to the Pentagon's reduced budget of $332 billion equals a net increase of $182 billion in the annual federal budget, assuming we sponge-up the already existing expenditures for the relatively meager, by comparison, existing service programs he plans to expand. That's $182,000,000,000 in new federal monies, and that means higher taxes.
In his entire life, Senator Obama has never managed an organization larger than a Senate staff, or that of a law school publication. And, he's never operated a for-profit business or been responsible for any profit center within one. So, while words matter to Senator Obama, it's not clear if math means anything to him at all.
Note: the author has experience in community organizing. For example, he organized one of the earliest Meals-on-Wheels programs in Illinois, in continuous service for over 30 years. He trained over a hundred Illinois non-profit organizations to resettle Vietnamese Refugees. He assembled three dozen congregations and a synagogue in a mid-sized Texas town to provide emergency assistance to low-income citizens, in continuous operation for 25 years. He was an expert witness at a Texas Senate hearing when legislation forming the state's Commission on Human Rights was being drafted.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Communist Manifesto and Amerika??
10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto: How Many Do We Have?Share
Today at 9:35am
http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/planks.html
In 1848 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels wrote a book outlining a political ideology, titled "The Communist Manifesto". Marxism's basic theme is that the proletariat (the "exploited" working class of a capitalistic society) will suffer from alienation and will rise up against the "bourgeoisie" (the middle class) and overthrow the system of "capitalism." After a brief period of rule by "the dictatorship of the proletariat" the classless society of communism would emerge. In his Manifesto Marx described the following ten steps as necessary steps to be taken to destroy a free enterprise society.
How many have we adopoted?
First Plank: Abolition of property in land and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Zoning - Model ordinances proposed by Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover widely adopted. Supreme Court ruled "zoning" to be "constitutional" in 1921. Private owners of property required to get permission from government relative to the use of their property. Federally owned lands are leased for grazing, mining, timber usages, the fees being paid into the U.S. Treasury
Second Plank: A heavy progressive or graduated incometax.
Corporate Tax Act of 1909. The 16th Amendment, allegedly ratified in 1913.
The Revenue Act of 1913, section 2, What is today a progressive income tax.
These laws have been purposely misapplied against American citizens to this day.
Third Plank: Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Partially accomplished by enactment of various state and federal "estate tax" laws taxing the "privilege" of transfering property after death and gift before death.
Fourth Plank: Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
No material example
Fifth Plank: Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
The Federal Reserve Bank, 1913- -the system of privately-owned Federal Reserve banks which maintain a monopoly on the valueless debt "money" in circulation.
Sixth Plank: Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
Federal Radio Commission, 1927
Federal Communications Commission, 1934
Air Commerce Act of 1926
Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938
Federal Aviation Agency, 1958; becoming part of the Department of Transportation in 1966
Federal Highway Act of 1916 (federal funds made available to States for highway construction)
Interstate Highway System, 1944 (funding began 1956)
Interstate Commerce Commission given authority by Congress to regulate trucking and carriers on inland waterways, 1935-40
Department of Transportation, 1966
Seventh Plank: Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Department of Agriculture, 1862
Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1933 -- farmers will receive government aid if and only if they relinquish control of farming activities
Tennessee Valley Authority, 1933 with the Hoover Dam completed in 1936
Eighth Plank: Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies especially for agriculture.
First labor unions, known as federations, appeared in 1820.
National Labor Union established 1866.
American Federation of Labor established 1886.
Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 placed railways under federal regulation.
Department of Labor, 1913.
Labor-management negotiations sanctioned under Railway Labor Act of 1926.
Civil Works Administration, 1933.
National Labor Relations Act of 1935, stated purpose to free inter-state commerce from disruptive strikes by eliminating the cause of the strike.
Works Progress Administration 1935.
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, mandated 40-hour work week and time-and-a-half for overtime, set "minimum wage" scale
Civil Rights Act of 1964, effectively the equal liability of all to labor
Ninth Plank: Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
Food processing companies, with the co-operation of the Farmers Home Administration foreclosures, are buying up farms and creating "conglomerates."
Tenth Plank: Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
Gradual shift from private education to publicly funded began in the Northern States, early 1800's
1887: federal money (unconstitutionally) began funding specialized education
Smith-Lever Act of 1914, vocational education
Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 and other relief acts of the 1930's
Federal school lunch program of 1935
National School Lunch Act of 1946
National Defense Education Act of 1958, a reaction to Russia's Sputnik satellite demonstration, provided grants to education's specialties
Federal school aid law passed, 1965, greatly enlarged federal role in education, "head-start" programs, textbooks, library books
Today at 9:35am
http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/planks.html
In 1848 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels wrote a book outlining a political ideology, titled "The Communist Manifesto". Marxism's basic theme is that the proletariat (the "exploited" working class of a capitalistic society) will suffer from alienation and will rise up against the "bourgeoisie" (the middle class) and overthrow the system of "capitalism." After a brief period of rule by "the dictatorship of the proletariat" the classless society of communism would emerge. In his Manifesto Marx described the following ten steps as necessary steps to be taken to destroy a free enterprise society.
How many have we adopoted?
First Plank: Abolition of property in land and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Zoning - Model ordinances proposed by Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover widely adopted. Supreme Court ruled "zoning" to be "constitutional" in 1921. Private owners of property required to get permission from government relative to the use of their property. Federally owned lands are leased for grazing, mining, timber usages, the fees being paid into the U.S. Treasury
Second Plank: A heavy progressive or graduated incometax.
Corporate Tax Act of 1909. The 16th Amendment, allegedly ratified in 1913.
The Revenue Act of 1913, section 2, What is today a progressive income tax.
These laws have been purposely misapplied against American citizens to this day.
Third Plank: Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Partially accomplished by enactment of various state and federal "estate tax" laws taxing the "privilege" of transfering property after death and gift before death.
Fourth Plank: Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
No material example
Fifth Plank: Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
The Federal Reserve Bank, 1913- -the system of privately-owned Federal Reserve banks which maintain a monopoly on the valueless debt "money" in circulation.
Sixth Plank: Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
Federal Radio Commission, 1927
Federal Communications Commission, 1934
Air Commerce Act of 1926
Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938
Federal Aviation Agency, 1958; becoming part of the Department of Transportation in 1966
Federal Highway Act of 1916 (federal funds made available to States for highway construction)
Interstate Highway System, 1944 (funding began 1956)
Interstate Commerce Commission given authority by Congress to regulate trucking and carriers on inland waterways, 1935-40
Department of Transportation, 1966
Seventh Plank: Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Department of Agriculture, 1862
Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1933 -- farmers will receive government aid if and only if they relinquish control of farming activities
Tennessee Valley Authority, 1933 with the Hoover Dam completed in 1936
Eighth Plank: Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies especially for agriculture.
First labor unions, known as federations, appeared in 1820.
National Labor Union established 1866.
American Federation of Labor established 1886.
Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 placed railways under federal regulation.
Department of Labor, 1913.
Labor-management negotiations sanctioned under Railway Labor Act of 1926.
Civil Works Administration, 1933.
National Labor Relations Act of 1935, stated purpose to free inter-state commerce from disruptive strikes by eliminating the cause of the strike.
Works Progress Administration 1935.
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, mandated 40-hour work week and time-and-a-half for overtime, set "minimum wage" scale
Civil Rights Act of 1964, effectively the equal liability of all to labor
Ninth Plank: Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
Food processing companies, with the co-operation of the Farmers Home Administration foreclosures, are buying up farms and creating "conglomerates."
Tenth Plank: Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
Gradual shift from private education to publicly funded began in the Northern States, early 1800's
1887: federal money (unconstitutionally) began funding specialized education
Smith-Lever Act of 1914, vocational education
Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 and other relief acts of the 1930's
Federal school lunch program of 1935
National School Lunch Act of 1946
National Defense Education Act of 1958, a reaction to Russia's Sputnik satellite demonstration, provided grants to education's specialties
Federal school aid law passed, 1965, greatly enlarged federal role in education, "head-start" programs, textbooks, library books
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
Great Email
Many of us witnessed the arrogance of Barbara Boxer as she admonished a
Brigadier General because he addressed her as ma'am. and not Senator before
a Senate hearing. This letter is from a National Guard aviator and Captain
for Alaska Airlines. I wonder what he would have said if he were really
angry. Long fly Alaska You can bet this guy is on every watch list in the
country except for no-fly!
Dear Senator Boxer:
You were so right-on when you scolded the general on TV for using the term
ma'am instead of Senator. After all, in the military, ma'am is a term of
respect when addressing a female of superior rank or position. The general
was totally wrong. You are not a person of superior rank or position. You
are a member of one of the world most corrupt organizations, the U.S.
Senate, equaled only by the U.S. House of Representatives.
Congress is a cesspool of liars, thieves, inside traders, traitors, drunks
(one who killed a staffer, yet is still revered), criminals, and other low
level swine who, as individuals (not all, but many), will do anything to
enhance their lives, fortunes and power, all at the expense of the People of
the United States and its Constitution, in order to be continually
re-elected. Many democrats even want American troops killed by releasing
photographs. How many of you could honestly say, We pledge our lives, our
fortunes, and our sacred honor? None? One? Two?
Your reaction to the general shows several things. First is your abysmal
ignorance of all things military. Your treatment of the general shows you to
be an elitist of the worst kind. When the general entered the military (as
most of us who served) he wrote the government a blank check, offering his
life to protect your derriere, now safely and comfortably ensconced in a 20
thousand dollar leather chair, paid for by the general ' s taxes. You repaid
him for this by humiliating him in front of millions.
Second is your puerile character, lack of sophistication, and arrogance
which borders on the hubristic. This display of brat-like behavior shows you
to be a virago, termagant, harridan, nag, scold, or shrew, unfit for your
position, regardless of the support of the unwashed, uneducated, masses who
have made California into the laughing stock of this nation..
What I am writing, Senator, are the same thoughts countless millions of
Americans have toward Congress, but who lack the energy, ability, or time to
convey them. Under the democrats, some don't even have the 44 cents to buy
the stamp. Regardless of their thoughts, most realize that politicians are
pretty much the same, and will vote for the one who will bring home the most
bacon, even if they do consider how corrupt that person is. Lord Acton (1834
- 1902) so aptly charged, Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts
absolutely. Unbeknownst to you and your colleagues, Mr. Power has had his
way with all of you, and we are all the worse for it.
>
Finally Senator, I too have a title. It is Right Wing Extremist Potential
Terrorist Threat It is not of my choosing, but was given to me by your
Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano. And you were offended by
ma'am.
>
> Have a fine day. Cheers!
>
> Jim Hill
> 16808 - 103rd Avenue Court East
> South Hill , WA 98374
> Please circulate this to remind every voter that the cesspools MUST be
pumped out when we go to the polls in November, 2010.
> Honoring and respecting the voters is a thing of the past for many of
those in our Congress and Senate. We need to vote their arrogant,
> self serving asses out of office if America is to get on the long road
back from the devastation that these self serving cowards have
> brought upon us!
Brigadier General because he addressed her as ma'am. and not Senator before
a Senate hearing. This letter is from a National Guard aviator and Captain
for Alaska Airlines. I wonder what he would have said if he were really
angry. Long fly Alaska You can bet this guy is on every watch list in the
country except for no-fly!
Dear Senator Boxer:
You were so right-on when you scolded the general on TV for using the term
ma'am instead of Senator. After all, in the military, ma'am is a term of
respect when addressing a female of superior rank or position. The general
was totally wrong. You are not a person of superior rank or position. You
are a member of one of the world most corrupt organizations, the U.S.
Senate, equaled only by the U.S. House of Representatives.
Congress is a cesspool of liars, thieves, inside traders, traitors, drunks
(one who killed a staffer, yet is still revered), criminals, and other low
level swine who, as individuals (not all, but many), will do anything to
enhance their lives, fortunes and power, all at the expense of the People of
the United States and its Constitution, in order to be continually
re-elected. Many democrats even want American troops killed by releasing
photographs. How many of you could honestly say, We pledge our lives, our
fortunes, and our sacred honor? None? One? Two?
Your reaction to the general shows several things. First is your abysmal
ignorance of all things military. Your treatment of the general shows you to
be an elitist of the worst kind. When the general entered the military (as
most of us who served) he wrote the government a blank check, offering his
life to protect your derriere, now safely and comfortably ensconced in a 20
thousand dollar leather chair, paid for by the general ' s taxes. You repaid
him for this by humiliating him in front of millions.
Second is your puerile character, lack of sophistication, and arrogance
which borders on the hubristic. This display of brat-like behavior shows you
to be a virago, termagant, harridan, nag, scold, or shrew, unfit for your
position, regardless of the support of the unwashed, uneducated, masses who
have made California into the laughing stock of this nation..
What I am writing, Senator, are the same thoughts countless millions of
Americans have toward Congress, but who lack the energy, ability, or time to
convey them. Under the democrats, some don't even have the 44 cents to buy
the stamp. Regardless of their thoughts, most realize that politicians are
pretty much the same, and will vote for the one who will bring home the most
bacon, even if they do consider how corrupt that person is. Lord Acton (1834
- 1902) so aptly charged, Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts
absolutely. Unbeknownst to you and your colleagues, Mr. Power has had his
way with all of you, and we are all the worse for it.
>
Finally Senator, I too have a title. It is Right Wing Extremist Potential
Terrorist Threat It is not of my choosing, but was given to me by your
Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano. And you were offended by
ma'am.
>
> Have a fine day. Cheers!
>
> Jim Hill
> 16808 - 103rd Avenue Court East
> South Hill , WA 98374
> Please circulate this to remind every voter that the cesspools MUST be
pumped out when we go to the polls in November, 2010.
> Honoring and respecting the voters is a thing of the past for many of
those in our Congress and Senate. We need to vote their arrogant,
> self serving asses out of office if America is to get on the long road
back from the devastation that these self serving cowards have
> brought upon us!
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Muslim Terrorist Training Camps in America!!!
“Act like you are his friend. Then kill him.” – Sheik Muburak Gilani explaining how to kill American infidels
Washington, DC—The American public was never supposed to know. The 2006 Justice Department document that exposes 35 terrorist training compounds in the U.S. was marked “Dissemination Restricted to Law Enforcement.” All the copies of Sheik Muburak Gilani’s terrorist training video, “Soldiers of Allah,” had been confiscated and sealed—all of them, that is, except one—that Christian Action Network now reveals in the documentary Homegrown Jihad: The Terrorist Camps Around the U.S.
It seems unfathomable—nearly three dozen terrorist training compounds in the U.S. and the FBI, Homeland Security, and State Department are no help at all? But the evidence is irrefutable: as Jamaat ul-Fuqra (known in the U.S. as Muslims of America) leader Sheik Muburak Gilani professes on the Soldiers of Allah video, “We are fighting to destroy the enemy. We are dealing with evil at its roots and its roots are America.”
The Soldiers of Allah training video teaches American students how to operate AK-47 rifles, rocket launchers, and machine guns; how to kidnap Americans and then kill them; how to conduct sabotage and subversive operations; and how to use mortars and explosives.
With almost 50 terrorist attacks on American soil linked to Jamaat ul-Fuqra—ranging from bombings to murder to plots to blowing up American landmarks—what will it take for the government to protect its citizens from self-professed enemies of Americans? They hide across 35 American cities as innocuous-sounding as Hancock, NY; Red House, VA; and Seattle, WA.
The allegations are serious, which is why Christian Action Network took more than two years to research Muslims of America—going inside the compounds with their video cameras and questions to confront violence and confirm the truth. Their mission? To make Americans aware of the threats and have Jamaat ul-Fuqra placed on the State Department's Foreign Terrorist Organization Watch List, thereby shutting down the camps in the U.S. run by ul-Fuqra's front group, Muslims of America.
The State Department issued a statement on January 31, 2002, regarding why the group was no longer recognized as a terrorist organization: “Jamaat ul-Fuqra has never been designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. It was included in several recent annual terrorism reports under ‘other terrorist groups,’ i.e., groups that had carried out acts of terrorism but that were not formally designated by the Secretary of State. However, because of the group’s inactivity during 2000, it was not included in the most recent terrorism report covering that calendar year.”
The effect of being removed from terrorist reports? In January 2002 Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and later beheaded while attempting to attend an interview with Jamaat ul-Fuqra leader Sheikh Muburak Gilani.
Was this an isolated incident? Hardly. In March 2003, Fuqra and al Qaeda member Iyman Faris pled guilty in federal court to a plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge, and the list goes on.
According to a 2006 Department of Justice report, “Today, Jamaat ul-Fuqra has more than 35 suspected communes and more than 3,000 members spread across the United States, all in support of one goal: the purification of Islam through violence.”
In 2005, The Department of Homeland Security predicted that Muslims of America will continue to strike in the United States-yet they are still not listed on the State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organization Watch List. “Other predicted possible sponsors of attacks include Jamaat ul-Fuqra, a Pakistani-based group that has been linked to Muslims of America.”
Armed Protest ???
Dozen Armed With Guns Protest Obama Speech
About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the Phoenix convention center where President Obama was giving a speech.
AP
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
0 x
in order to recommend a story, you must login or register.
329 Comments | Add Comment
ShareThisPhotos
Aug. 17: A man carries a military style AR-15 rifle during an Obama opposition rally in Phoenix. (The Arizona Republic via AP)
PEOPLE WHO READ THIS ALSO READ
Obama Takes Health Care Push to Colorado 27168900
Obama Family to Visit Grand Canyon 27180892
Sen. Kennedy to Miss Sister Shriver's Funeral Mass 27151300
White House Says Girl With Campaign Ties Chosen at 'Random' to Speak at Obama Town Hall 27115046
Analysis: Press Largely Ignored Incendiary Rhetoric at Bush Protest 27105706
PHOENIX -- About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday -- the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president.
Gun-rights advocates say they're exercising their constitutional right to bear arms and protest, while those who argue for more gun control say it could be a disaster waiting to happen.
Phoenix police said the gun-toters at Monday's event, including the man carrying an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle slung over his shoulder, didn't need permits. No crimes were committed, and no one was arrested.
The man with the rifle declined to be identified but told The Arizona Republic that he was carrying the assault weapon because he could. "In Arizona, I still have some freedoms," he said.
Phoenix police Detective J. Oliver, who monitored the man at the downtown protest, said police also wanted to make sure no one decided to harm him.
"Just by his presence and people seeing the rifle and people knowing the president was in town, it sparked a lot of emotions," Oliver said. "We were keeping peace on both ends."
Last week, during Obama's health care town hall in New Hampshire, a man carrying a sign reading "It is time to water the tree of liberty" stood outside with a pistol strapped to his leg.
"It's a political statement," he told The Boston Globe. "If you don't use your rights, then you lose your rights."
Police asked the man to move away from school property, but he was not arrested.
Fred Solop, a Northern Arizona University political scientist, said the incidents in New Hampshire and Arizona could signal the beginning of a disturbing trend.
"When you start to bring guns to political rallies, it does layer on another level of concern and significance," Solop said. "It actually becomes quite scary for many people. It creates a chilling effect in the ability of our society to carry on honest communication."
He said he's never heard of someone bringing an assault weapon near a presidential event. "The larger the gun, the more menacing the situation," he said.
Phoenix was Obama's last stop on a four-day tour of western states, including Montana and Colorado.
Authorities in Montana said they received no reports of anyone carrying firearms during Obama's health care town hall near Bozeman on Friday. About 1,000 people both for and against Obama converged at a protest area near the Gallatin Field Airport hangar where the event took place.
One person accused of disorderly conduct was detained and released, according to the Gallatin Airport Authority.
Heather Benjamin of Denver's Mesa County sheriff's department, the lead agency during Obama's visit there, said no one was arrested.
Arizona is an "open-carry" state, which means anyone legally allowed to have a firearm can carry it in public as long as it's visible. Only someone carrying a concealed weapon is required to have a permit.
Paul Helmke, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said people should not be allowed to bring guns to events where Obama is.
"To me, this is craziness," he said. "When you bring a loaded gun, particularly a loaded assault rifle, to any political event, but particularly to one where the president is appearing, you're just making the situation dangerous for everyone."
He said people who bring guns to presidential events are distracting the Secret Service and law enforcement from protecting the president. "The more guns we see at more events like this, there's more potential for something tragic happening," he said.
Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan said armed demonstrators in open-carry states such as Arizona and New Hampshire have little impact on security plans for the president.
"In both cases, the subject was not entering our site or otherwise attempting to," Donovan said. "They were in a designated public viewing area. The main thing to know is that they would not have been allowed inside with a weapon."
Representatives of the National Rifle Association did not return calls for comment.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Obama Care Is FISHEY
Obamacare a 'rotten fish,' says Broun at town hall
By BLAKE AUED | blake.aued@onlineathens.com | Story updated at 4:01 pm on 8/12/2009
CLARKESVILLE - U.S. Rep. Paul Broun, R-Athens, walked into a North Georgia Technical College auditorium Tuesday evening to a standing ovation, holding three thick white binders.
"Folks, this is Obamacare," he said, holding the binders over his head.
"Let me start this by telling you what I think of this bill and Obamacare," he said, and slammed the binders on the ground.
With that, Broun set the tone for a town hall meeting on health care reform. The Democrats' proposal is too expensive and will threaten millions of Georgians' jobs and lives, he said.
"This is a stinking, rotten fish, and they don't want you to smell it, and they want to shove it down your throat and make you eat it before you smell how rotten and stinky it is," he said.
At another point, Broun, who last year made national news by comparing Obama to Hitler, called Cuba's former dictator Fidel Castro and leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Obama's "good buddy."
He also spoke of a "socialistic elite" - Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid - who might use a pandemic disease or natural disaster as an excuse to declare martial law.
"They're trying to develop an environment where they can take over," he said. "We've seen that historically."
Many speakers in the senior-heavy audience honed in on a clause in the health care proposal that would require insurers to cover end-of-life counseling sessions to help healthy patients decide beforehand what types of treatments they want to keep them alive if they are about to die.
"(Obama) is going to let the old folks die, and I don't like that at all," Oconee County resident Gene Aycock said.
Young people who get sick would get preference over the elderly under the Democrats' plan, said Broun, a medical doctor who made house calls in the Athens area before taking office in 2007.
"Eventually, mama will be lying in bed until she gets pneumonia and dies," he said.
Citing a study by the Lewin Group, a consulting firm owned by the insurance company UnitedHealth Group, Broun said 114 million Americans will be forced off their employers' insurance plans and onto a competing government-run plan because small businesses will not be able to pay for the mandated insurance. The Democrats' plan would be a precursor to a single-payer system, he said.
"They want to take away your insurance and dictate what kind of health care you're going to get," he said.
A federal health care program for veterans and senior citizens' Medicare Advantage benefits also are at risk, he said.
Broun proposed an alternative to the Democrats' plan that includes allowing groups of people like University of Georgia graduates or Rotary Club members to band together to cut insurance costs, restricting malpractice lawsuits, expanding health savings accounts, offering Medicaid recipients a choice of private plans, making all health care expenses tax-deductible and expanding state insurance programs for people with pre-existing conditions.
"We can lower the cost of health care markedly by giving people more options and letting the market work," he said.
At some town hall meetings around the country during Congress' annual August recess, conservative protesters have clashed with Democrats and disrupted events. However, at Broun's Tuesday hearing, the crowd of 500 or so clearly was almost unanimously on Broun's side and relatively peaceful.
One woman attempted to ask a critical question about covering the uninsured while Broun was speaking, and Habersham County sheriff's deputies briefly removed her from the room before allowing her back inside. When she rambled for a few seconds during the designated question-and-answer period, Broun politely asked her to respect the people waiting to speak, but members of the audience shouted, "Cut her mike."
Attendance Tuesday was well short of the estimated 1,500 to 2,000 who came out to a similar meeting Broun hosted Monday in Evans, but enough people showed up that he split the group into two sessions. About 400 people packed into the 250-seat auditorium for the first meeting, and 150 stuck around for the second.
Broun assured the crowds he will vote against the Democrats' plan no matter what. He urged them to contact friends and relatives in other states to tell conservative Blue Dog Democrats to do the same.
An earlier version of this story contained an incorrect transcription that made it appear Broun spoke negatively about President Obama; he was referring to the administration's health care proposal.
Originally published in the Athens Banner-Herald on Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Friday, August 14, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Obama Care Town Hall
< Back to Front Page Text size – + Protests planned for Obama N.H. visit
Email|Link|Comments (220) Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor August 10, 2009 05:24 PM
President Obama's town hall meeting on healthcare on Tuesday in Portsmouth, N.H., will almost certainly be far less of a free-for-all than the raucous ones that members of Congress have been having, filled with shouting matches, pushing and shoving, and even some arrests.
It is the president's first public healthcare event since the protests at town halls became big news -- and it is happening in the birthplace of the American ideal of town meetings and small-d democracy. (The White House this evening confirmed the start time as 1 p.m. EDT)
As usual for such events, the White House controlled the distribution of the free tickets to get into the gym at Portsmouth High School. And, per usual, the Secret Service will take care of any unruliness.
But that won't stop protestors outside the event.
According to an invitation obtained by NBC News, a group called the New Hampshire Republican Volunteer Coalition is urging members to make sure the other side gets heard and noticed by the media.
"Barack Hussein Obama will be arriving in Portsmouth on Tuesday to hold a STAGED "Town Hall Meeting", where he will essentially hand pick who the guests will be and what types of questions will be asked of him," the call to arms reads. "A MASSIVE protest rally is being organized just outside of the facility where Obama will be holding his 'Town Hall Meeting' to promote his plan for a government takeover of your healthcare decisions."
"There will be news media from all over the world at this event and it will be the ideal opportunity for us to tell the rest of the country exactly how NH voters feel about Obamacare (taxed/rationed healthcare). It will be the most important pro-liberty event of the year in NH and it is critically important that every one of us attend," the invitation continues. "If you can, bring a sign that says something like, 'OBAMACARE=TAXED/RATIONED HEALTHCARE', etc."
Supporters of the Democratic healthcare bills also plan to show their strength outside the town hall.
The AFL-CIO said today that New Hampshire workers "will respectfully make the case for major health care reform and speak out against the ‘mob rule’ tactics of the opposition."
“New Hampshire workers desperately need major health care reform and we will not let our voices be silenced by the corporate funded mobs on the other side,” state AFL-CIO President Mark MacKenzie said in a statement.
Asked about the current discourse at a joint news conference this afternoon at the summit with the leaders of Canada and Mexico, Obama said, "We are having a vigorous debate in the United States, and I think that's a healthy thing."
He repeated that healthcare overhaul is closer than at any time in 40 years and addressing whether there were parts of the more government-heavy Canadian health plan to emulate, said the US must come up with an uniquely American solution.
Opponents, the president said, seem to want to talk about Canadian healthcare.
"I suspect that you Canadians will continue to get dragged in by those who oppose reform, even though I've said nothing about Canadian healthcare reform. I don't find Canadians particularly scary, but I guess some of the opponents of reform think that they make a good bogeyman.
"I think that's a mistake. And I suspect that once we get into the fall and people look at the actual legislation that's being proposed, that more sensible and reasoned arguments will emerge. And we're going to get -- we're going to get this passed."
Speaking of the contentious town halls, Democrats have been complaining that the conservative activists and their Republican allies have been hijacking them.
In an opinion piece in today's USA Today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her wingman Representative Steny Hoyer went further, calling the disruptions downright un-American.
"It is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue," they wrote. "These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American."
Republicans strongly dispute that, arguing that opponents are only venting their frustrations and objections to the Democratic bills.
UPDATE: Asked about the town hall, White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton said today that there will be about 1,800 people in the audience, including members of the general public and those who received tickets through members of Congress.
"New Hampshire is a place where people are really feeling the pinch of healthcare reform, and it's a place where he can talk specifically about getting real consumer protections in place, like making sure people can get covered if they have a preexisting condition," Burton said.
"We expect that there will be a vigorous debate, as there have been at plenty of town halls that President Obama has had as president and as candidate, and we look forward to it," Burton told reporters on Air Force One this afternoon.
Asked about Pelosi and Hoyer calling some of the protests "un-American," Burton said, "Well, I think there's actually a pretty long tradition of people shouting at politicians in America. The president thinks that if people want to come and have a spirited debate about health care, a real vigorous conversation about it, that's a part of the American tradition and he encourages that, because people do have questions and concerns."
"Now, if you just want to come to a town hall so that you can disrupt and so that you can scream over another person, he doesn’t think that that's productive," Burton added. "And as a country, we've been able to make progress when people actually talk out what our problems are, not try to shout each other down. So he thinks that we're going to be able to have a constructive conversation tomorrow and he'll continue to do that at the town hall later in the week and throughout this effort."
"There's obviously a lot of passion on one side of this, and that's why people are showing up and screaming. And again he doesn't think that that's constructive. But, you know, there's passion on the other side, too -- the people who want health care reform and who think that it's wrong that health insurance companies can stop you from getting coverage just because you have a preexisting condition, or drop you from coverage just because you get sick," Burton said.
"There's obviously been some orchestration of some of the folks who go out there, but I don't think that that is as important as the fact that, A, there are people who do have legitimate concerns and questions about health care reform and the President wants to have an opportunity to answer those folks and wants members of Congress to have the opportunity to answer those questions, as well. And that's why it's important that when people go to town hall meetings, if you want to have a tussle over an issue, that's fine; but screaming so that you can't hear the answer to whatever the complaint isn't moving the ball forward for anybody."
Sharia in America
Iam not a Bible thumper buy nomeans , But to see Islam grow in America to this leval is scary.Look at how the women are being targeted buy the securiety.
Top ten reasons why sharia is bad for all societies
By James Arlandson
Traditional Muslims who understand the Quran and the hadith believe that sharia (Islamic law) expresses the highest and best goals for all societies. It is the will of Allah.
But is Islam just in its laws that Muhammad himself practiced and invented?
This article says no for ten verifiable reasons.
Here are four points you must read, before reading this article:
First, sometimes these ten points quote the Quran or omit it; sometimes they quote the hadith (reports of Muhammad's words and actions outside of the Quran) or omit it. This is done only to keep down the length of the article. No one should be fooled into believing that these harsh and excessive laws were invented in the fevered imagination of extremists who came long after Muhammad. These harsh and excessive laws come directly from the founder of Islam in his Quran and in his example in the hadith.
Second, each of these ten reasons has a back—up article (or more) that is long and well documented with quotations and references to the Quran, the hadith, and classical legal opinions. The supporting articles also examine the historical and literary context of each Quranic verse. If the readers, especially critics, wish to challenge one or all of these ten reasons, or if they simply doubt them, they should click on the supporting articles. They will see that Muhammad himself actually laid down these excessive punishments and policies.
Third, it must be pointed out that these harsh laws are not (or should not be) imposed outside of an Islamic court of law. Careful legal hurdles must be passed before the punishments are carried out. However, even in that case, it will become clear to anyone who thinks clearly that these punishments and policies are excessive by their very nature, and excess is never just, as Aristotle taught us in his Nicomachean Ethics.
Fourth, in each of the lengthy supporting article (or articles), a Biblical view on these infractions of moral law (or sometimes civil law or personal injuries) is presented. One of the reasons we all sense that these Islamic punishments are harsh and excessive is that Christianity has also filled the globe. Even if one is not a Christian or is only a nominal Christian, he or she has breathed deeply of Christianity by virtue of laws and customs or even driving by churches. New Testament Christianity, when properly understood and followed, offers humanity dignity.
'Islam' in this article stands for Muhammad, the earliest Muslims, and classical legal scholars.
Here are the top ten reasons why sharia or Islamic law is bad for all societies.
10. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.
In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging not only for illicit sex (see reason no. nine), but also for drinking alcohol.
In 2005, in Nigeria a sharia court ordered that a drinker should be caned eighty strokes.
In 2005, in the Indonesian province of Aceh, fifteen men were caned in front of a mosque for gambling. This was done publicly so all could see and fear. Eleven others are scheduled to undergo the same penalty for gambling.
After going through two previous confusing stages before coming down hard on drinkers and gamblers, the Quran finally prohibits alcohol and gambling in Sura 5:90—91; they do not prescribe the punishment of flogging, but the hadith does. A poor 'criminal' was brought to Muhammad who became angry:
The Prophet felt it hard (was angry) and ordered all those who were present in the house, to beat him [the drinker dragged into Muhammad's presence]. (Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6774—6775)
Thus, we see no offer of help for the alcoholic when he is dragged before Muhammad and his followers. Why does Muhammad not offer rehabilitation? Why does he immediately go to corporal punishment?
The later classical legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith, so we do not need to examine them here.
It is sometimes argued that Islamic countries are pure, whereas the West is decadent. No one can argue with this latter claim, but are Islamic countries pure? The Supplemental Material, below, demonstrates that Islamic countries still have drinking and gambling in them.
Here is the article that supports this tenth point and that analyzes the confusing Quranic verses on drinking and gambling. It analyzes the hadith and later legal rulings.
9. Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.
In 2004, Rania al—Baz, who had been beaten by her husband, made her ordeal public to raise awareness about violence suffered by women in the home in Saudi Arabia.
Saudi television aired a talk show that discussed this issue. Scrolling three—fourths of the way down the link, the readers can see an Islamic scholar holding up sample rods that husbands may use to hit their wives.
The Quran says:
4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (MAS Abdel Haleem, the Qur'an, Oxford UP, 2004)
The hadith says that Muslim women in the time of Muhammad were suffering from domestic violence in the context of confusing marriage laws:
Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Az—Zubair Al—Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" (Bukhari)
This hadith shows Muhammad hitting his girl—bride, Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakr: Muslim no. 2127:
'He [Muhammad] struck me [Aisha] on the chest which caused me pain.'
It is claimed that Islamic societies have fewer incidents of fornication and adultery because of strict laws or customs, for example, women wearing veils over their faces or keeping separate from men in social settings. But these results of fewer incidents of sexual 'crimes' may have unanticipated negative effects in other areas, such as the oppression of women. Generally, sharia restricts women's social mobility and rights, the more closely sharia is followed. For example, in conservative Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive cars. In Iran, the law oppresses women. For example, women's testimony counts half that of men, and far more women than men are stoned to death for adultery.
Here is the supporting article for the ninth point. It has a long list of different translations of Sura 4:34, in order to resolve confusion over this verse, circulating around the web. This longer article has many links that demonstrate the oppression of women under Islamic law (scroll down to 'Further discussion').
8. Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge—physical eye for physical eye.
In 2003, in Saudi Arabia a man had two teeth extracted under the law of retaliation.
In 2003, a court in Pakistan sentenced a man to be blinded by acid after he carried out a similar attack on his fianc�e.
In 2005, an Iranian court orders a man's eye to be removed for throwing acid on another man and blinding him in both eyes.
The Quran says:
5:45 And We ordained therein for them: Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth and wounds equal for equal. But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him an expiation. And whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrongdoers . . .). (Hilali and Khan, The Noble Qur'an, Riyadh: Darussalam, 1996)
This passage allows for an indemnity or compensation instead of imposing the literal punishment of eye for an eye. No one should have a quarrel with this option. According to the hadith, the plaintiff also has the option to forgive, and this is legitimate, provided a judge oversees the process. The problem is the literal law of retaliation.
The hadith and later legal rulings demonstrate that this excessive option was actually carried out, as do the three modern examples linked above.
Please go here for the supporting article that cites the hadith and later legal rulings.
Islamic law calls all of humanity to march backwards 1,400 years BC and to re—impose the old law of retaliation—literally, and the evidence suggest that the Torah never intended the law to be carried out literally, as the supporting article demonstrates.
7. Islam commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off.
Warning! This short article has photos of severed hands. The reader should never lose sight of the fact that this punishment is prescribed in the Quran, the eternal word of Allah. It does not exist only in the fevered imagination of a violent and sick radical regime like the Taliban, which once ruled in Afghanistan.
A Saudi cleric justifies chopping off hands here.
The Quran says:
5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done—a deterrent from God: God is almighty and wise. 39 But if anyone repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, God will accept his repentance: God is most forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)
At first glance, verse 39 seems to accept repentance before the thief's hand is cut off. But the hadith states emphatically that repentance is acceptable only after mutilation. Muhammad himself says that even if his own daughter, Fatima, were to steal and then intercede that her hand should not be cut off, he would still have to cut it off (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6788)
If the reader would like to see more hadith passages, modern defenses of this indefensible punishment (and a refutation of them), and the Biblical solution to theft, they should click on this long supporting article or this shorter one.
6. Islam commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated.
In September 2003, Scotsman Sandy Mitchell faced crucifixion in Saudi Arabia. He was beaten and tortured until he confessed to a crime he did not commit: a bomb plot masterminded by the British embassy. The article says of this punishment that it is the worst kind of execution and that two have been carried out in the last twenty years.
In 2002 Amnesty International reports that even though Saudi Arabia ratified the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture) in October 1997, amputation is prescribed under both Hudud (punishments) and Qisas (law of retaliation). AI has recorded thirty—three amputations and nine cross—amputations where the alternate hand or foot is mutilated.
The Quran says:
5:33 Those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot or banishment from the land: a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter, 34 unless they repent before you overpower them: in that case bear in mind that God is forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)
It may be difficult to accept, but the hadith says that Muhammad tortured these next people before he executed them. This scenario provides the historical context of Sura 5:33—34. The explanations in parentheses have been added by the translator:
Narrated Anas: Some people . . . came to the Prophet and embraced Islam . . . [T]hey turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away . . . The Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they died. (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6802)
The next hadith reports that the renegades died from bleeding to death because Muhammad refused to cauterize their amputated limbs. Then the hadith after that one reports that the renegades were not given water, so they died of thirst. They probably died of both causes: thirst and loss of blood.
See this short article for details on another example of Muhammad's use of torture.
Islamic law says that these punishments are imposed for highway robbery, and in some cases crucifixion does not need a murder before it is imposed.
For more information on Muhammad's brutality and the barbaric laws that flow out of it, go to the back—up article.
5. Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed.
In February 1998, the Taliban, who once ruled in Afghanistan, ordered a stone wall to be pushed over three men convicted of sodomy. Their lives were to be spared if they survived for 30 minutes and were still alive when the stones were removed.
In its 1991 Constitution, in Articles 108—113, Iran adopted the punishment of execution for sodomy.
In April 2005, a Kuwaiti cleric says homosexuals should be thrown off a mountain or stoned to death.
On April 7, 2005, it was reported that Saudi Arabia sentenced more than 100 men to prison or flogging for 'gay conduct.'
These homosexuals were lucky. Early Islam would have executed them, as these hadith demonstrate.
Ibn Abbas, Muhammad's cousin and highly reliable transmitter of hadith, reports the following about early Islam and Muhammad's punishment of homosexuals: . . .
'If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done' (Abu Dawud no. 4447).
This hadith passage says that homosexuals should be burned alive or have wall pushed on them:
Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira reported God's messenger as saying, 'Accursed is he who does what Lot's people did.' In a version . . . on the authority of Ibn Abbas it says that Ali [Muhammad's cousin and son—in—law] had two people burned and that Abu Bakr [Muhammad's chief companion] had a wall thrown down on them. (Mishkat, vol. 1, p. 765, Prescribed Punishments)
Though this punishment of a wall being toppled on them is extreme, the Taliban were merely following the origins of their religion.
If the reader would like to see the confusion in the Quran on the matter of homosexuality, the severity in the hadith, and excessive rulings of classical fiqh, they should see the supporting article. This longer one has links to many discussions on Islamic punishments of homosexuals (scroll down to 'Supplemental material').
4. Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.
Fornication:
In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging for illicit sex.
The Quran says:
24:2 The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. [This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime (illegal sex), but if married persons commit it (illegal sex), the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allah's law]. (Hilali and Khan).
The additions in the brackets, though not original to the Arabic, have the support of the hadith. These command flogging only of unmarried fornicators: Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6831 and 6833.
The classical legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith closely, so we do not need to analyze them here.
According to this report, in Iran a teenage boy broke his Ramadan fast, so a judge sentenced him to be lashed with eighty—five stripes. He died from the punishment. Though his sad case does not deal with fornication, it is cited here because it shows that lashing can be fatal.
Adultery:
In December 2004, Amnesty International reports:
An Iranian woman charged with adultery faces death by stoning in the next five days after her death sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court last month. Her unnamed co—defendant is at risk of imminent execution by hanging. Amnesty International members are now writing urgent appeals to the Iranian authorities, calling for the execution to be stopped.
She is to be buried up to her chest and stoned to death.
This gruesome hadith passage reports that a woman was buried up to her chest and stoned to death:
And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al—Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on his face he cursed her . . . (Muslim no. 4206)
The Prophet prayed over her dead body and then buried her. Truthfully, though, how effective was the prayer when Muhammad and his community murdered her in cold blood? The rest of the hadith says that Muhammad told Khalid not to be too harsh, but the Prophet's words drip with irony. Perhaps Muhammad meant that Khalid should not have cursed her. However, if they really did not want to be harsh, they should have forgiven her and let her go to raise her child.
Later Islamic legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith closely, so we do not need to analyze them here.
Here is the back—up article that supports this fourth reason.
3. Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for non—Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even sharia itself.
In 1989, Iran's Supreme Leader issued a fatwa (legal decree) to assassinate Salman Rushdie, a novelist, who wrote Satanic Verses, which includes questions about the angel Gabriel's role in inspiring the Quran. Now the extremists in the highest levels in Iran have recently renewed the fatwa.
In 2005, The Muslim Council of Victoria, Australia, brought a lawsuit against two pastors for holding a conference and posting articles critiquing Islam. Three Muslims attended the conference and felt offended. The two pastors have been convicted based on Australia's vilification law. While on trial, one of them wanted to read from the Quran on domestic violence (see 9, above), but the lawyer representing the Council would not allow it. The pastors are appealing their conviction.
In 2005, British Muslims have been campaigning to pass a religious hate speech law in England's parliament. They have succeeded. Their ability to propagandize has not been curtailed. Opponents of the law say that it stifles free speech that may criticize Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam.
Here are the classical legal rulings.
First, the Muslim deserves death for doing any of the following (Reliance of the Traveler pp. 597—98, o8.7):
(1) Reviling Allah or his Messenger; (2) being sarcastic about 'Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat'; (3) denying any verse of the Quran or 'anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it'; (4) holding that 'any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent'; (5) reviling the religion of Islam; (6) being sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law; (7) denying that Allah intended 'the Prophet's message . . . to be the religion followed by the entire world.'
It is no wonder that critical investigation of the truth claims of Islam can never prevail in Islamic lands when the sword of Muhammad hangs over the scholars' head.
The non—Muslims living under Islamic rule are not allowed to do the following (p. 609, o11.10(1)—(5)):
(1) Commit adultery with a Muslim woman or marry her; (2) conceal spies of hostile forces; (3) lead a Muslim away from Islam; (4) mention something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet . . . or Islam.
According to the discretion of the caliph or his representative, the punishments for violating these rules are as follows: (1) death, (2) enslavement, (3) release without paying anything, and (4) ransoming in exchange for money. These punishments also execute free speech—even repulsive speech—and freedom of religion or conscience.
Ultimately, censorship testifies to a lack of confidence in one's position and message. If the message of Islam were truly superior, one could trust in the power of truth. As it stands, sharia with its prescribed punishments for questioning Muhammad, the Quran, and sharia itself testifies to their weakness since sharia threatens those who dare to differ.
How confident was Muhammad (and today's Muslims) in his message that he had to rely on violence and force to protect his message, besides reason and persuasive argumentation?
For the supporting article that analyzes the Quran and the hadith, both of which orders death to critics, click here.
2. Islam orders apostates to be killed.
In Iran an academic was condemned to death for criticizing clerical rule in Iran. The rulers assert that he was insulting Muhammad and Shi'ite laws. He was charged with apostasy.
This analysis tracks the application of apostasy laws around the world, citing many examples.
Apostates are those who leave Islam, like Salman Rushdie (see the linked article in no. three, above), whether they become atheists or convert to another religion. They are supposed to be killed according to the Quran, the hadith, and later legal rulings.
See the previous point no. three for acts that entail leaving Islam according to Islamic law.
Here are the articles that support reason no. two.
This is a short, but full article on apostasy, citing Quranic verses and hadith passages.
Sayyid Maududi, a respected Islamic scholar, in this booklet argues that Sura 9:11—12 refers to apostates and that they should be put to death (scroll down to 'The Proof in the Quran for the Commandment to Execute Apostates').
This Muslim website has an overview of Islam on apostates. They should be given time to repent, but if they refuse, they must be killed.
And the number one reason why sharia is bad for all societies . . .
1. Islam commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad.
Muhammad is foundational to Islam, and he set the genetic code for Islam, waging war. In the ten years that he lived in Medina from his Hijrah (Emigration) from Mecca in AD 622 to his death of a fever in AD 632, he either sent out or went out on seventy—four raids, expeditions, or full—scale wars. They range from small assassination hit squads to kill anyone who insulted him, to the Tabuk Crusades in late AD 630 against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a rumor that an army was mobilizing to invade Arabia, but the rumor was false, so his 30,000 jihadists returned home, but not before imposing a jizya tax on northern Christians and Jews.
Money flowed into the Islamic treasury. So why would Muhammad get a revelation to dry up this money flow?
What are some of the legalized rules of jihad found in the Quran, hadith, and classical legal opinions?
(1) Women and children are enslaved. They can either be sold, or the Muslims may 'marry' the women, since their marriages are automatically annulled upon their capture. (2) Jihadists may have sex with slave women. Ali, Muhammad's cousin and son—in—law, did this. (3) Women and children must not be killed during war, unless this happens in a nighttime raid when visibility was low. (4) Old men and monks could be killed. (5) A captured enemy of war could be killed, enslaved, ransomed for money or an exchange, freely released, or beaten. One time Muhammad even tortured a citizen of the city of Khaybar in order to extract information about where the wealth of the city was hidden. (6) Enemy men who converted could keep their property and small children. This law is so excessive that it amounts to forced conversion. Only the strongest of the strong could resist this coercion and remain a non—Muslim. (7) Civilian property may be confiscated. (8) Civilian homes may be destroyed. (9) Civilian fruit trees may be destroyed. (10) Pagan Arabs had to convert or die. This does not allow for the freedom of religion or conscience. (11) People of the Book (Jews and Christians) had three options (Sura 9:29): fight and die; convert and pay a forced 'charity' or zakat tax; or keep their Biblical faith and pay a jizya or poll tax. The last two options mean that money flows into the Islamic treasury, so why would Muhammad receive a revelation to dry up this money flow?
Thus, jihad is aggressive, coercive, and excessive, and Allah never revealed to Muhammad to stop these practices.
For an analysis of the Christian Crusades and the Islamic Crusades, click here.
For the supporting article of reason no. one, please go here. It also has a segment on the differences between jihad in Islam and the wars in the Old Testament. Another article on that topic can be read here. There are vast differences between Islam and Judaism on this topic.
Therefore, Islam is violent—unjustly and aggressively.
Conclusion
The nightmare must end. Sharia oppresses the citizens of Islamic countries. Islam must reform, but the legal hierarchy in Islamic nations will not do this because the judges and legal scholars understand the cost: many passages in the Quran and the hadith must be rejected, and this they cannot do. After all, the Quran came down directly from Allah through Gabriel, so says traditional theology. So how can Islam reform? But reform it must. It can start by rewriting classical fiqh (interpretations of law). Again, though, that would mean leaving behind the Quran and Muhammad's example. How can the legal hierarchy in Islamic nations do this?
In contrast, the West has undergone the Enlightenment or the Age of Reason (c. 1600—1800+), so western law has been injected with a heavy dose of reason. Also, the New Testament tempers excessive punishments. At least when Christianity reformed (c. 1400—1600), the reformers went back to the New Testament, which preaches peace and love. So religion and reason in the West permit justice to be found more readily—the Medieval Church is not foundational to Christianity; only Jesus and the New Testament are.
Can Islamic countries benefit from an Enlightenment that may deny the Quran and the hadith? This seems impossible. Islamic law threatens Muslims with death if they criticize Muhammad and the Quran, not to mention denying them.
Since Islamic law cannot be reformed without doing serious damage to original and authentic Islam—the one taught by Muhammad—then a second plan must be played out. Sharia must never spread around the world. At least that much is clear and achievable. The hard evidence in this article demonstrates beyond doubt that sharia does not benefit any society, for it contains too many harsh rules and punishments.
One of the most tragic and under—reported occurrences in the West in recent years is the existence of a sharia court in Canada. Muslims are pushing for a sharia divorce courting Australia as well. Having a court of arbitration if it is based on western law and legal theory is legitimate, but sharia does not hold to this standard. Whether sharia is imposed gradually or rapidly, Canada should promptly shut down any sharia court, and Australia should never allow one. Such a court should never be permitted in the US, the rest of the West, or anywhere else in the world that is battling Islam.
It is true that the Enlightenment teaches tolerance, but it also teaches critical thinking and reasoning. Sharia cannot stand up under scrutiny. It is intolerant and excessive, and Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics teaches the West that excess is never just.
Thankfully, the province of Quebec, Canada, has forbidden sharia. This is the right initiative.
Sharia ultimately degrades society and diminishes freedom.
James M. Arlandson may be reached at jamesmarlandson@hotmail.com
Supplemental material:
In private emails to me or on websites, Muslim apologists (defenders) claim that the Islamic way of dealing with vices is superior to the western way, even in Islam's punishments like flogging and stoning. It is true that the West is filled with decadence, but are Islamic countries pure and pristine through and through, as these Muslim apologists imply? To anyone whose mind has not been clouded by a lifetime of devotion to Islam, the answer to this rhetorical question is obvious. Alcohol and other intoxicants and gambling serve as test cases.
This article says that Bahrain, an island and independent sate that is connected to Saudi Arabia by a causeway, provides a 'breathing lung' for Saudis because this Islamic island allows the free flow of alcohol and a night life. The words 'breathing lung' in Bahrain mean that Saudi Arabia suffocates people. On the weekends an average of 40,000 cars line up to cross the bridge.
This article discusses the smuggling of alcohol in Saudi Arabia and says:
"Western analysts note that alcohol smuggling of the magnitude underway in Saudi Arabia —— perhaps tens of millions of dollars' worth of illegal merchandise annually —— would likely involve the complicity of Saudi customs agents and perhaps a higher—level patron."
This article reveals how Iranians get around the official ban on alcohol, like beer and vodka and other intoxicants, like opium. A black market has sprung up—just like the one in America during Prohibition.
This article says that even though the Taliban, the tyrants who formerly ruled Afghanistan, outlawed the growth of poppies, which are the source of opium, the leaders of the Taliban may have profited from the drug trade. The new and democratic government has a hard time keeping this drug under control.
This article says that authorities in Turkey threaten to imprison online gamblers, and this page links to a report (scroll to the second one) that discusses how Turkey must deal with the problem of monetary interest, alcohol, and gambling. It is revealing to see how Muslim religious leaders try to squirm out of Quranic laws against interest, in order to help Islamic financial institutions make money.
The purpose of these links is not to condemn Islamic countries or to assert that the West is better than they are. Facts say that the West has many problems. Rather, the purpose is to demonstrate that Islamic countries have their share of problems as well. This means that Islamic countries are also decadent. This means that Islamic punishments do not work entirely (except by scare tactics), but they can drive the sin or crime underground.
on "Top ten reasons why sharia is bad for all societies"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
