For some time congress has conducted an investigation into the firing of seven U.S. Attorneys by the Bush administration. Headlines have been made, subpoenas issued and criticism of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as well as President Bush is rampant by Democrats and their house organs in print. But what is this all about?
Will Rogers had it right when he said:
"I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts."
The investigation into these firings would be comical if it wasn’t so insincere and serious.
Congressional Democrats have been chomping at the bit for years over the firing of these seven U.S. Attorneys because they see in this a "scandal" that can be exploited for political purposes. Especially newsworthy for Democrats and media allies is the possibility that instructions for the firings originated in the White House so they can blame President Bush for "the politicization of our prosecutorial system" (as per Senator Hillary Clinton).
It’s interesting that Hillary is leading this charge because she has personal experience with firing of U.S. Attorneys from her time as first lady to the morally corrupt President Bill Clinton. In the current investigation Hillary could be a prime witness along with that felon, Webster Hubbell who, in addition to being a former partner of Hillary in a Little Rock law firm, was Associate Attorney General under Janet Reno during the Clinton administration.
As everyone knows Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock and went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. While he was Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department, Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993; they were given 10 days to move out of their offices.
Democrats like to portray firing of all U.S. Attorneys at once by Clinton as something perfectly ordinary while the firings under Bush were "politically motivated": "All those people are routinely replaced," Clinton told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact however, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition. George Bush did the same thing when he came into office. In reality, Attorney General Gonzales only fired 7 of 93 U.S. Attorneys (7.53%).
The only involvement of the White House was an expression by the president that some of his political appointees are not doing their job by not aggressively addressing voter fraud. This was in reaction to concerns by Republicans that some prosecutors were not doing enough to investigate and prosecute fraud during recent elections. Among them was Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, who complained directly to the president. There was good reason to claim the fired U.S. Attorneys were not doing their job.
Take fired U.S. Attorney John McKay from Washington State for example. In 2004, the Governor's race was decided in favor of Democrat Christine Gregoire by 129 votes on a third recount. As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and other media outlets reported, some of the "voters" were deceased, others were registered in storage-rental facilities, and still others were convicted felons. More than 100 ballots were "discovered" in a Seattle warehouse. None of this constitutes proof that the election was stolen. But it should have been enough to prompt Mr. McKay, a Democrat, to investigate, something he declined to do, apparently on grounds that he had better things to do.
In New Mexico, another state in an election was decided by a thin margin, U.S. Attorney David Iglesias did establish a voter fraud task force in 2004. But it lasted all of 10 weeks before closing its doors, despite evidence of irregularities by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or Acorn. As Wall Street Journal John Fund reported at the time, Acorn's director Matt Henderson refused to answer questions in court about whether his group had illegally made copies of voter registration cards in the run-up to the 2004 election.
In the case of some of the other fired Attorneys, at least one seemed to be due to differences with the Administration about the death penalty; another firing dealt with questions about the Attorney's managerial skills. It is no surprise the dismissed Attorneys insisted their dismissals were unfair. However even if "unfair" it would not be the first time in history that a dismissed employee did not take kindly to his firing, nor would it be the first in which an employer sacked the wrong person. Obviously, the Justice Department and White House have botched the handling of this issue. But there is really no evidence that the Administration acted improperly or to protect some of its friends. If Democrats want to understand what a real abuse of power looks like, they can always ask Senator Hillary Clinton and her husband Bill.
Were these firings "politically motivated"; perhaps although only under the broadest definition of that term? However U.S. Attorneys are political appointees, not career civil servants. They likely have that status because it was understood that U.S. Attorneys are policy makers, assigned to not only carry out the law but respond to the orders of the Chief Executive of the United States.
If they were being fired because they were prosecuting the president’s friends, that would be wrong. If they were fired because they refused to prosecute the president’s enemies, that would be wrong. If the president or the Attorney General were "suggesting" that specific people be singled out for selective prosecution of crimes; that would also be wrong. However none of that was an issue in the firing of these 7 political appointees; they were let go simply for refusing to investigate and prosecute general voter fraud cases. Why can’t political appointees be fired for failing to do their job?
Looking back to the firing of all 93 U.S. Attorneys under the Bill Clinton administration; there were extraordinary circumstances indeed and politics were at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was directing Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.
Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons' Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint "Friend of Bill" Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from another FOB, David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas insiders including Bill and Hillary Clinton. When it comes to "politicizing" the Justice Department, the Bush administration are rank amateurs compared to the Clintons.
Not many rise to the defense of President Bush in connection with the purported "firing scandal" but the Wall Street Journal did say:
"[T]hese are the same Democrats who didn’t raise a whimper when Bill Clinton’s Attorney General Janet Reno sacked all 93 U.S. attorneys in one unclean sweep upon taking office. Previous Presidents had kept the attorneys in place until they could replace each one. That was a more serious abuse than anything known about these Bush dismissals."
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Do you think a Republican who said this could be elected president?
In his speech July 2 in Colorado Springs, Denver, media darling Barack Obama said:
“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives 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.”
What Obama meant:
“…we need a ‘civilian national security force’ that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the half-trillion dollar Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force …”
But as reported by Joseph Farah of WorldNet Daily Obama’s comments concerning a national police force are not included in published transcripts of his prepared remarks. Moreover, transcripts posted at both the Wall Street Journal and Denver Post do not have the critical passage and none of the major news media even mentioned Obama’s call for a national police force.
The transcripts have all had the above paragraph censored. But on the YouTube video you can hear the above comment.
The budget of the Defense Department is about $585 billion, over $200,000 per employee. The Heritage Foundation reports that spending on military personnel averages $70,000 per member, though it is not clear what that entails. If Obama is talking about funding his civilian national security corps at the same level as the military, he would need at least an additional $500 billion. That can buy a lot of clicking boots and Lugers and other wafen for his national Gestapo.
Joseph Farah on WorldNet Daily wrote:
"If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal. I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together? Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?"
I think Obama said exactly what he meant although as a slip of the tongue because this part of his agenda is not something to be expressed prior to the election. Obama has a socialist, near communist agenda, of government control and redistribution of wealth. A national police force would be important in achieving Obama’s goals and could be used to stifle opposition. If you think this is just conspiratorial thinking, reflect back on the days before Hitler’s rise to power in Germany.
I thought we already had the FBI, DEA, BATF, U.S. Marshals, TSA, postal inspectors, park rangers, Secret Service, state bureaus of investigation, state police, local police, sheriffs and constables, among others, to already handle domestic law enforcement; why do we need an additional national police force? The only reason would be to exercise authority the existing agencies do not have.
In all his life 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. Yet now too many Americans seem willing to entrust him with management of the largest business in the world; and with a national police force as well.
All Obama’s experience prior to his 123 days in the U.S. Senate has been in community organizing. Among other things he worked with ACORN, the extremist community organization whose rap sheet include perpetration of numerous acts of violence, such as the destructive actions in Philadelphia where numerous buildings were burned to the ground. His other experience includes assisting in the Meals-on-Wheels programs in Illinois, training programs for Vietnamese Refugees, assembling congregations and a synagogue in a mid-sized Texas town to provide emergency assistance to low-income citizens, and being an expert witness at a Texas Senate hearing when legislation forming the state's Commission on Human Rights was being drafted. Although some of these community action deeds may be commendable, on one level, they hardly constitute any sort of experience to justify his election to the country’s highest office, and any comparison to Senator John McCain’s experience and background is laughable.
Putting Obama in charge of a national police force is akin to giving a paper hanger (Hitler’s previous profession) an armed force funded with billions of dollars (to be commensurate with the existing military) and the power to enforce an agenda that will change every fabric of American freedom.
I do not trust Barack Obama in the least and this only adds to my mistrust. If it had been John McCain who had made this proposal, the press would have been all over it. Why does Obama get a pass from the media; because they want Obama elected president!
Do you Obama supporters still want him to be president after knowing about this part of his agenda? If you buy into Obama's call for "change", is this the kind of change you want?
“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives 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.”
What Obama meant:
“…we need a ‘civilian national security force’ that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the half-trillion dollar Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force …”
But as reported by Joseph Farah of WorldNet Daily Obama’s comments concerning a national police force are not included in published transcripts of his prepared remarks. Moreover, transcripts posted at both the Wall Street Journal and Denver Post do not have the critical passage and none of the major news media even mentioned Obama’s call for a national police force.
The transcripts have all had the above paragraph censored. But on the YouTube video you can hear the above comment.
The budget of the Defense Department is about $585 billion, over $200,000 per employee. The Heritage Foundation reports that spending on military personnel averages $70,000 per member, though it is not clear what that entails. If Obama is talking about funding his civilian national security corps at the same level as the military, he would need at least an additional $500 billion. That can buy a lot of clicking boots and Lugers and other wafen for his national Gestapo.
Joseph Farah on WorldNet Daily wrote:
"If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal. I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together? Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?"
I think Obama said exactly what he meant although as a slip of the tongue because this part of his agenda is not something to be expressed prior to the election. Obama has a socialist, near communist agenda, of government control and redistribution of wealth. A national police force would be important in achieving Obama’s goals and could be used to stifle opposition. If you think this is just conspiratorial thinking, reflect back on the days before Hitler’s rise to power in Germany.
I thought we already had the FBI, DEA, BATF, U.S. Marshals, TSA, postal inspectors, park rangers, Secret Service, state bureaus of investigation, state police, local police, sheriffs and constables, among others, to already handle domestic law enforcement; why do we need an additional national police force? The only reason would be to exercise authority the existing agencies do not have.
In all his life 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. Yet now too many Americans seem willing to entrust him with management of the largest business in the world; and with a national police force as well.
All Obama’s experience prior to his 123 days in the U.S. Senate has been in community organizing. Among other things he worked with ACORN, the extremist community organization whose rap sheet include perpetration of numerous acts of violence, such as the destructive actions in Philadelphia where numerous buildings were burned to the ground. His other experience includes assisting in the Meals-on-Wheels programs in Illinois, training programs for Vietnamese Refugees, assembling congregations and a synagogue in a mid-sized Texas town to provide emergency assistance to low-income citizens, and being an expert witness at a Texas Senate hearing when legislation forming the state's Commission on Human Rights was being drafted. Although some of these community action deeds may be commendable, on one level, they hardly constitute any sort of experience to justify his election to the country’s highest office, and any comparison to Senator John McCain’s experience and background is laughable.
Putting Obama in charge of a national police force is akin to giving a paper hanger (Hitler’s previous profession) an armed force funded with billions of dollars (to be commensurate with the existing military) and the power to enforce an agenda that will change every fabric of American freedom.
I do not trust Barack Obama in the least and this only adds to my mistrust. If it had been John McCain who had made this proposal, the press would have been all over it. Why does Obama get a pass from the media; because they want Obama elected president!
Do you Obama supporters still want him to be president after knowing about this part of his agenda? If you buy into Obama's call for "change", is this the kind of change you want?
Sunday, July 27, 2008
We should not expect a public uprising against the Mullahs in Iran
Those of us who expect the people in Iran to overthrow their Shariah shackles are in for a great disappointment. Along with outright Gestapo-like intimidation, Iranian people have been drugged into submission.
According to “official surveys” reported in Iranian government newspapers, about six million Iranians, or nearly 10% of the total population of 65 million, can be classed as drug users. The Iran newspaper said that out of the total number of narcotics users, some 2.5 million people were actual addicts; but gave no further details; experts believe the number to be higher. Iran is on a major trafficking route for heroin, opium, morphine and cannabis from Afghanistan. In the past ten years Iran has experienced an explosion of narcotics use.
Unemployment in Iran is somewhere between 11 percent (the official level) and 25 percent (the estimate given by some outside economists). One in four Iranians lives in poverty, despite high oil prices and high oil revenue. Some in government say because of these dire economic conditions—particularly among those under thirty, who comprise 70 percent of Iran’s population—people turn to drugs. Bill Samii of RFE/RL in the Brown Journal of World Affairs writes “This grievance combines with general boredom and a lack of options.” The Washington Post says a government poll shows almost 80 percent of Iranians believe there is a direct link between unemployment and drug addiction.
Samii, who has written extensively about drug abuse in Iran, reports that young Iranians, restricted from drinking alcohol in pubs, are increasingly switching to synthetic “club drugs” like methamphetamines and LSD, in addition to cannabis, ecstasy, and crystal forms of concentrated heroin. Iran’s state welfare organization tells RFE/RL that an estimated 10% of the adult population is addicted to drugs, with 90,000 Iranians becoming drug addicts—most of them hooked on heroin or opium—each year. Government sources say “Drugs are symptomatic of a people’s social problems. In Iran it’s a conflict between pre-modern and modern Iranians.”
But is poverty and boredom the only real causes of increasing drug addition among the populace?
Officially, the economy, and especially the high rate of joblessness, tops the list of reasons given by Iranians for drug abuse. Unemployment stands at 14% officially and is estimated by outside experts to be in the 25% range. But in actuality it is the despair people, especially young people, feel about their prospects in a government controlled theocratic society depriving them of freedom that is responsible. In one report, a young man in the town of Islamshahr said “We’re all jobless. We have nothing to do. We try to do a little bit of business here and there and we get arrested as troublemakers. That’s why there are so many drug addicts here. It’s the despair.” Another addict said that he had been in combat for forty months during the Iran-Iraq War, but when he returned the regime abandoned him. He supported his drug habit with odd jobs and charity, and he warned, “The youth are becoming drug addicts. We have no freedom, no jobs, nowhere to go and have fun. So we are all addicts.”
The availability of drugs not being discouraged by the government also has an impact. In the words of an individual who deals with addiction treatment and prevention at one Welfare Organization in Iran, “the purchase of heroin has become easier than the purchase of a bottle of milk. To buy bread, we are forced to wait in a line for a long time, but to purchase drugs, no problem exists.”
While a war veteran was describing the lack of alternatives to taking or dealing drugs said that the local park only has four trees, an opium addict added “Instead of trees in our parks, all you find are drug dealers.”
There are also other factors contributing to drug abuse in Iran. A member of parliament who is also secretary of the Anti-drugs Society attributed drug abuse to the way individuals are treated in society: “In our society, human beings are not looked upon with dignity and respect, otherwise people who are socially accepted would not turn to drugs.”
Of course, the government answer to increasing drug use cannot admit the problem is a government controlled society that denies freedom to its people so they have to attribute the drug problem to poverty; ironically for which they are also responsible. Naturally too western culture of free countries has to be blamed as well.
A member of the theocratic parliament explained that culture is behind the demand for drugs: “Today, the youth are bored with what they have and wish for things they haven’t got. This is rooted in Western culture and should be confronted with the use of cultural tools.” This explanation and others also are the kinds of reasons one expects to hear from Iranian officials. One cleric said that weak religious faith is the main reason why people are attracted to drugs. Another cleric said that Iran’s enemies are encouraging the youth to consume drugs (but it is the Iranian government that is responsible for the ease with which drugs are available).
Drug rehabilitation programs are available but people are reluctant to use them because of the stigma associated with being an admitted drug addict. Moreover, many who quit using drugs resume their addictions because of the country’s bleak realities and because of the lack of alternatives. Ex-addicts are rejected by their families and cannot get good jobs if they have served prison time, even though work centers have been created for them. As a result, they fall back in with drug users. A psychiatrist who works with addicts concurred that many who supposedly are cured resume their habits, because the focus is on curing addiction rather than on what causes addiction. To acknowledge the real reason for drug addiction requires implied admission that the theocratic system of freedom deprivation is the root cause.
It is true that the government in Iran makes a show of trying to halt the flow of drugs into the country and punishes seriously some found to sell or distribute drugs but this is window dressing to show the world that Iran cares about the drug blight on its people. The reality is that drug addiction is not discouraged because it is useful to keep the population under control. Addicts are not likely to take up arms to overthrow the theocratic regime.
However even in the area of seeming attempts to thwart entry of drugs the government is woefully inadequate,
In 1995 the U.S. State Department described “intermittent reports that drug-related corruption is endemic…extensive bribing of border guards…traffickers are sometimes set free upon payment of a bribe.” A police commander later admitted, “Traffickers sometimes persuade police personnel to take bribes. In the province so far this year [March 1999-January 2000] there have been such cases.” A parliamentary deputy from the southeastern town of Minab said that the local Law Enforcement Forces “have put the city’s people under heavy pressure, beat them, and kill them in the name of fighting drug trafficking. Further, the [police] are taking bribes, while people who suffer from hunger and poverty are accused of illicit drug trade.” A Western journalist noted that official reports do not mention corruption, while in Tehran “street dealers pay police patrols $15 a day to turn a blind eye.” “Security officials are poorly paid. They can earn finders’ fees for confiscating narcotics, but smugglers can offer them much more money. The chief of police specifically mentioned the problem of low salaries when he complained about inadequate financial resources for drug interdiction.”
Does this sound like a government serious about preventing introduction of drugs and easy access to drugs in the country? I don’t think so; it sounds to me like what it is; another tool for Islamists to use to control the population and the state for Allah (and for themselves).
According to “official surveys” reported in Iranian government newspapers, about six million Iranians, or nearly 10% of the total population of 65 million, can be classed as drug users. The Iran newspaper said that out of the total number of narcotics users, some 2.5 million people were actual addicts; but gave no further details; experts believe the number to be higher. Iran is on a major trafficking route for heroin, opium, morphine and cannabis from Afghanistan. In the past ten years Iran has experienced an explosion of narcotics use.
Unemployment in Iran is somewhere between 11 percent (the official level) and 25 percent (the estimate given by some outside economists). One in four Iranians lives in poverty, despite high oil prices and high oil revenue. Some in government say because of these dire economic conditions—particularly among those under thirty, who comprise 70 percent of Iran’s population—people turn to drugs. Bill Samii of RFE/RL in the Brown Journal of World Affairs writes “This grievance combines with general boredom and a lack of options.” The Washington Post says a government poll shows almost 80 percent of Iranians believe there is a direct link between unemployment and drug addiction.
Samii, who has written extensively about drug abuse in Iran, reports that young Iranians, restricted from drinking alcohol in pubs, are increasingly switching to synthetic “club drugs” like methamphetamines and LSD, in addition to cannabis, ecstasy, and crystal forms of concentrated heroin. Iran’s state welfare organization tells RFE/RL that an estimated 10% of the adult population is addicted to drugs, with 90,000 Iranians becoming drug addicts—most of them hooked on heroin or opium—each year. Government sources say “Drugs are symptomatic of a people’s social problems. In Iran it’s a conflict between pre-modern and modern Iranians.”
But is poverty and boredom the only real causes of increasing drug addition among the populace?
Officially, the economy, and especially the high rate of joblessness, tops the list of reasons given by Iranians for drug abuse. Unemployment stands at 14% officially and is estimated by outside experts to be in the 25% range. But in actuality it is the despair people, especially young people, feel about their prospects in a government controlled theocratic society depriving them of freedom that is responsible. In one report, a young man in the town of Islamshahr said “We’re all jobless. We have nothing to do. We try to do a little bit of business here and there and we get arrested as troublemakers. That’s why there are so many drug addicts here. It’s the despair.” Another addict said that he had been in combat for forty months during the Iran-Iraq War, but when he returned the regime abandoned him. He supported his drug habit with odd jobs and charity, and he warned, “The youth are becoming drug addicts. We have no freedom, no jobs, nowhere to go and have fun. So we are all addicts.”
The availability of drugs not being discouraged by the government also has an impact. In the words of an individual who deals with addiction treatment and prevention at one Welfare Organization in Iran, “the purchase of heroin has become easier than the purchase of a bottle of milk. To buy bread, we are forced to wait in a line for a long time, but to purchase drugs, no problem exists.”
While a war veteran was describing the lack of alternatives to taking or dealing drugs said that the local park only has four trees, an opium addict added “Instead of trees in our parks, all you find are drug dealers.”
There are also other factors contributing to drug abuse in Iran. A member of parliament who is also secretary of the Anti-drugs Society attributed drug abuse to the way individuals are treated in society: “In our society, human beings are not looked upon with dignity and respect, otherwise people who are socially accepted would not turn to drugs.”
Of course, the government answer to increasing drug use cannot admit the problem is a government controlled society that denies freedom to its people so they have to attribute the drug problem to poverty; ironically for which they are also responsible. Naturally too western culture of free countries has to be blamed as well.
A member of the theocratic parliament explained that culture is behind the demand for drugs: “Today, the youth are bored with what they have and wish for things they haven’t got. This is rooted in Western culture and should be confronted with the use of cultural tools.” This explanation and others also are the kinds of reasons one expects to hear from Iranian officials. One cleric said that weak religious faith is the main reason why people are attracted to drugs. Another cleric said that Iran’s enemies are encouraging the youth to consume drugs (but it is the Iranian government that is responsible for the ease with which drugs are available).
Drug rehabilitation programs are available but people are reluctant to use them because of the stigma associated with being an admitted drug addict. Moreover, many who quit using drugs resume their addictions because of the country’s bleak realities and because of the lack of alternatives. Ex-addicts are rejected by their families and cannot get good jobs if they have served prison time, even though work centers have been created for them. As a result, they fall back in with drug users. A psychiatrist who works with addicts concurred that many who supposedly are cured resume their habits, because the focus is on curing addiction rather than on what causes addiction. To acknowledge the real reason for drug addiction requires implied admission that the theocratic system of freedom deprivation is the root cause.
It is true that the government in Iran makes a show of trying to halt the flow of drugs into the country and punishes seriously some found to sell or distribute drugs but this is window dressing to show the world that Iran cares about the drug blight on its people. The reality is that drug addiction is not discouraged because it is useful to keep the population under control. Addicts are not likely to take up arms to overthrow the theocratic regime.
However even in the area of seeming attempts to thwart entry of drugs the government is woefully inadequate,
In 1995 the U.S. State Department described “intermittent reports that drug-related corruption is endemic…extensive bribing of border guards…traffickers are sometimes set free upon payment of a bribe.” A police commander later admitted, “Traffickers sometimes persuade police personnel to take bribes. In the province so far this year [March 1999-January 2000] there have been such cases.” A parliamentary deputy from the southeastern town of Minab said that the local Law Enforcement Forces “have put the city’s people under heavy pressure, beat them, and kill them in the name of fighting drug trafficking. Further, the [police] are taking bribes, while people who suffer from hunger and poverty are accused of illicit drug trade.” A Western journalist noted that official reports do not mention corruption, while in Tehran “street dealers pay police patrols $15 a day to turn a blind eye.” “Security officials are poorly paid. They can earn finders’ fees for confiscating narcotics, but smugglers can offer them much more money. The chief of police specifically mentioned the problem of low salaries when he complained about inadequate financial resources for drug interdiction.”
Does this sound like a government serious about preventing introduction of drugs and easy access to drugs in the country? I don’t think so; it sounds to me like what it is; another tool for Islamists to use to control the population and the state for Allah (and for themselves).
Thursday, July 24, 2008
If Barack Obama had a truthful political theme, it would be “Elect me and I will raise your taxes.”
If you believe as I do that the tax hikes proposed by Barack Obama and Democrats are bad for the country, then we are in good company.
No less an authority than Nobel Prize winner and Columbia University economist Robert Mundell, a principal contributor to the creation of the euro, says that ending the Bush tax cuts — as proposed by presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama — would cause "a big recession, a nosedive."
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Mundell said, "the most important thing that could be done with respect to tax rates is to make the Bush tax cuts permanent." Mundell, a recognized expert in many areas of economics including the theory that low taxes stimulate an economy, was also involved in the Reagan tax-cut revolution.
During the Reagan years tax cuts were a product of so-called "supply-side economics" approach to encouraging economic growth — Mundell says they were "as important to the United States as the creation of the euro was to Europe — a fundamental change."
Tax rates in the United States fluctuated wildly throughout the 20th century. The first income tax rate, which took an amendment to the constitution to establish, was 3% in 1913; it went up to 60% during World War I, and ultimately sky rocketed to a top rate of 92.5% during World War II.
After taxes were cut to 28% under Reagan, the economy began to boom and recover from the horrifying Carter years. However, the tax rate was then increased up to almost 40% percent during the Clinton administration. Taxes were cut by President George W. Bush to the dismay and anguish of Democrats in government.
Mundell says "Making the Bush tax cuts permanent would eliminate economic uncertainty and would be more important than pushing for a further cut ... in the income tax rates." Mundell also says that adding tax increases to the long list of financial woes afflicting the U.S. and global economies would be economically destructive; "the big issue economically ... is what's going to happen to taxes." Obviously not of concern to Democrats, and not honestly reported by the news media, eliminating the Bush tax cuts and restoring previous tax rates and rules, will amount to the largest tax increase in history.
Abruptly raising taxes could be "lethal," according to Mundell. "This would be devastating to the world economy, to the United States, and it would be, I think, political suicide," says Mundell.
An ideal rate, according to Mundell, would be a 30% ceiling on marginal rates, which he advocates. That would be 5 percent lower than the current 35 percent top rate. To further stimulate the economy, Mundell would cut the corporate tax rate to 25 percent. "It could be even lower." However although in my opinion businesses must pay taxes, placing too high a tax burden on business does two things: causes some businesses to close down and increases costs to consumers - neither of which are good for the economy.
Although After Jimmy Carter and Yassir Arafat awards of Nobel Prizes I don’t put much value on the award, Nobel Prize winner Robert Mendel’s track record shows he does know about economics and his opinions carry more weight.
Of course, we cannot expect the Democrats to relent on increasing taxes while in power and electing Barack Obama president will make higher taxes inevitable.
No less an authority than Nobel Prize winner and Columbia University economist Robert Mundell, a principal contributor to the creation of the euro, says that ending the Bush tax cuts — as proposed by presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama — would cause "a big recession, a nosedive."
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Mundell said, "the most important thing that could be done with respect to tax rates is to make the Bush tax cuts permanent." Mundell, a recognized expert in many areas of economics including the theory that low taxes stimulate an economy, was also involved in the Reagan tax-cut revolution.
During the Reagan years tax cuts were a product of so-called "supply-side economics" approach to encouraging economic growth — Mundell says they were "as important to the United States as the creation of the euro was to Europe — a fundamental change."
Tax rates in the United States fluctuated wildly throughout the 20th century. The first income tax rate, which took an amendment to the constitution to establish, was 3% in 1913; it went up to 60% during World War I, and ultimately sky rocketed to a top rate of 92.5% during World War II.
After taxes were cut to 28% under Reagan, the economy began to boom and recover from the horrifying Carter years. However, the tax rate was then increased up to almost 40% percent during the Clinton administration. Taxes were cut by President George W. Bush to the dismay and anguish of Democrats in government.
Mundell says "Making the Bush tax cuts permanent would eliminate economic uncertainty and would be more important than pushing for a further cut ... in the income tax rates." Mundell also says that adding tax increases to the long list of financial woes afflicting the U.S. and global economies would be economically destructive; "the big issue economically ... is what's going to happen to taxes." Obviously not of concern to Democrats, and not honestly reported by the news media, eliminating the Bush tax cuts and restoring previous tax rates and rules, will amount to the largest tax increase in history.
Abruptly raising taxes could be "lethal," according to Mundell. "This would be devastating to the world economy, to the United States, and it would be, I think, political suicide," says Mundell.
An ideal rate, according to Mundell, would be a 30% ceiling on marginal rates, which he advocates. That would be 5 percent lower than the current 35 percent top rate. To further stimulate the economy, Mundell would cut the corporate tax rate to 25 percent. "It could be even lower." However although in my opinion businesses must pay taxes, placing too high a tax burden on business does two things: causes some businesses to close down and increases costs to consumers - neither of which are good for the economy.
Although After Jimmy Carter and Yassir Arafat awards of Nobel Prizes I don’t put much value on the award, Nobel Prize winner Robert Mendel’s track record shows he does know about economics and his opinions carry more weight.
Of course, we cannot expect the Democrats to relent on increasing taxes while in power and electing Barack Obama president will make higher taxes inevitable.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Time to take another look at Islam and Shariah Banking
With false prophet Barack Obama in the Middle East acting presidential, it’s time to consider again what we, the free people of the world, can expect if through Obama’s appeasement approach to solving Middle East problems, Islam extends its reach around the globe.
With Islam comes Shariah law. This is the framework or rules and regulations enforced in Islamic theocracies as "law." Examples of authoritarian Shariah law include: requirement of women to obtain permission from husbands for daily freedoms; beating of disobedient woman and girls; execution of homosexuals; engagement of polygamy and forced child marriages; the testimony of four male witnesses to prove rape; honor killings of those, principally women, who have dishonored the family; death to apostate Muslims who chose to leave Islam; inferior status of non-Muslims, and capital punishment for those who "slander Islam." This is what Islam replaces freedom with wherever Muslims succeed in taking over – Shariah law at its finest absurdity.
If you realize what Islam and Shariah law is all about; it is virtually impossible for western minds to comprehend why anyone would be attracted to an Islamic system of life, especially women.
Whoever says Islam is a religion is totally blind to the obvious or is a sympathizer. Islam is a complete authoritarian government-political-business-control enterprise whose only object is total subjugation of mankind and the destruction of western civilization. They invade the host country as a virus by exploiting the host’s freedom of speech, religion, political correctness, and laws and eventually grow to demand Shariah law and Shariah banking. As we appease Muslims and accede to their demands we will see the decline of western civilization. The western world may have started out as Neanderthals but learned from experience and developed into societies of rights, duties and obligations to themselves and one another – Islam and Muslims have remained the same since that day 1,500 years ago when Mohammed camped out in the desert and worked out how to control the world.
Understanding Shariah law is essential to understanding the dangers of Shariah-compliant finance. Shariah law is Islamic law dating back to the 7th century and is today the law of the land in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, UAE and other Islamic countries, and the law under which the Taliban operates. Some recent polls seem to indicate that only 10-15% of Muslims worldwide want to live under this all-encompassing archaic system of Islamic jurisprudence that covers all aspects of a Muslim’s life including religious, social, political, and military obligations. However in Islamic countries the state is so powerful that even modern Muslims comprising 85-90% of worldwide Muslims who prefer not to practice some of the Shariah law mandates are intimidated and forced to accept whatever the Islamic government requires of the people; an example may be Iran whose population is said to want to live a more western lifestyle. Nonetheless, with a current world population of about 1.5 billion Muslims, 10-15% of hardcore Islamists translates into a huge pool of Jihadist recruits and supporters - approximately 150 - 225 million Muslims.
Shariah Financing and Shariah Banks has become a growing vehicle to use western money to finance terrorism and expansion of Islam. Shariah Finance is dangerous because Shariah investments are being used as a place for the Taliban, Iran and other Shariah regimes to invest their petrodollars.
Here is a statement of the problem as provided by American Congress for Truth:
"Terror Financing Mechanism: SCF (Sharia Compliant Banks) as monitored by paid Shariah law advisors to U.S. banking institutions must "purify" certain return on investment (ROI) dollars that do not meet Shariah law standards. This money must be donated to Islamic charities - including some that promote Jihad and support suicide bombing. Investment disclosures state that these sums can be as high as 6% of profits of investments. With $800 billion already in SCF assets, the potential for billions of dollars to be siphoned off for terrorism is real. This would be a serious criminal violation of U.S. law."
Shariah law authorities, some of whom are now being paid handsomely by Barclays, Dow Jones, Standard & Poors, HSBC, Citibank, Merrill Lynch, Deutschebank, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, UBS, Credit Suisse and others, have the power to dictate Shariah compliance as deemed by "scholarly consensus" on matters of finance, family, penal law, apostasy, and war.
U.S. investment banks are essentially being money managers for regimes who want to build building nuclear weapons and those providing terrorists with weaponry used for killing American soldiers. The Taliban is reported in the news to be on the rise in Pakistan, funded by Shariah investment profits and embedded donations to "Shariah Islamic Charities." As these regimes gain legitimacy in our banking system and their net worth increases, the network of extremism and terrorism grows. One sad example from the past: September 11th attacks were funded by Shariah Banks which provided profits to Al-Qaeda. Evidence of this was presented in a court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on behalf of Cantor Fitzgerald, Ace, Allstate, Chubb and other life insurance companies, which paid insurance benefits to over 3000 widows, widowers or surviving family members.
Shariah Law is being forced upon and/or tolerated in Europe at a rapid pace, especially in Great Britain. The correlation between Shariah expansion with Shariah Finance is clear: Shariah Finance has strong market share and acceptance in Great Britain, and now the British are dealing with serious issues of whether or not to accept Shariah Law over British Law. The consequences will be the same in America if we don’t stand guard to prevent Shariah financing from expanding and American banks from accepting Muslim standards in order to become Shariah compliant – greed is a strong motivation.
We in the West, particularly in the U.S., are indirectly financing the enemy in the "War on Terrorism." What I didn’t realize was the large number of banks; including huge international banks having names I recognized, are on the list of Shariah compliant banks. Having accounts or even just having a credit card associated with one of these banks is helping the terrorists.
For a list of Shariah compliant banks, send your request to gioia@gte.net.
With Islam comes Shariah law. This is the framework or rules and regulations enforced in Islamic theocracies as "law." Examples of authoritarian Shariah law include: requirement of women to obtain permission from husbands for daily freedoms; beating of disobedient woman and girls; execution of homosexuals; engagement of polygamy and forced child marriages; the testimony of four male witnesses to prove rape; honor killings of those, principally women, who have dishonored the family; death to apostate Muslims who chose to leave Islam; inferior status of non-Muslims, and capital punishment for those who "slander Islam." This is what Islam replaces freedom with wherever Muslims succeed in taking over – Shariah law at its finest absurdity.
If you realize what Islam and Shariah law is all about; it is virtually impossible for western minds to comprehend why anyone would be attracted to an Islamic system of life, especially women.
Whoever says Islam is a religion is totally blind to the obvious or is a sympathizer. Islam is a complete authoritarian government-political-business-control enterprise whose only object is total subjugation of mankind and the destruction of western civilization. They invade the host country as a virus by exploiting the host’s freedom of speech, religion, political correctness, and laws and eventually grow to demand Shariah law and Shariah banking. As we appease Muslims and accede to their demands we will see the decline of western civilization. The western world may have started out as Neanderthals but learned from experience and developed into societies of rights, duties and obligations to themselves and one another – Islam and Muslims have remained the same since that day 1,500 years ago when Mohammed camped out in the desert and worked out how to control the world.
Understanding Shariah law is essential to understanding the dangers of Shariah-compliant finance. Shariah law is Islamic law dating back to the 7th century and is today the law of the land in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, UAE and other Islamic countries, and the law under which the Taliban operates. Some recent polls seem to indicate that only 10-15% of Muslims worldwide want to live under this all-encompassing archaic system of Islamic jurisprudence that covers all aspects of a Muslim’s life including religious, social, political, and military obligations. However in Islamic countries the state is so powerful that even modern Muslims comprising 85-90% of worldwide Muslims who prefer not to practice some of the Shariah law mandates are intimidated and forced to accept whatever the Islamic government requires of the people; an example may be Iran whose population is said to want to live a more western lifestyle. Nonetheless, with a current world population of about 1.5 billion Muslims, 10-15% of hardcore Islamists translates into a huge pool of Jihadist recruits and supporters - approximately 150 - 225 million Muslims.
Shariah Financing and Shariah Banks has become a growing vehicle to use western money to finance terrorism and expansion of Islam. Shariah Finance is dangerous because Shariah investments are being used as a place for the Taliban, Iran and other Shariah regimes to invest their petrodollars.
Here is a statement of the problem as provided by American Congress for Truth:
"Terror Financing Mechanism: SCF (Sharia Compliant Banks) as monitored by paid Shariah law advisors to U.S. banking institutions must "purify" certain return on investment (ROI) dollars that do not meet Shariah law standards. This money must be donated to Islamic charities - including some that promote Jihad and support suicide bombing. Investment disclosures state that these sums can be as high as 6% of profits of investments. With $800 billion already in SCF assets, the potential for billions of dollars to be siphoned off for terrorism is real. This would be a serious criminal violation of U.S. law."
Shariah law authorities, some of whom are now being paid handsomely by Barclays, Dow Jones, Standard & Poors, HSBC, Citibank, Merrill Lynch, Deutschebank, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, UBS, Credit Suisse and others, have the power to dictate Shariah compliance as deemed by "scholarly consensus" on matters of finance, family, penal law, apostasy, and war.
U.S. investment banks are essentially being money managers for regimes who want to build building nuclear weapons and those providing terrorists with weaponry used for killing American soldiers. The Taliban is reported in the news to be on the rise in Pakistan, funded by Shariah investment profits and embedded donations to "Shariah Islamic Charities." As these regimes gain legitimacy in our banking system and their net worth increases, the network of extremism and terrorism grows. One sad example from the past: September 11th attacks were funded by Shariah Banks which provided profits to Al-Qaeda. Evidence of this was presented in a court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on behalf of Cantor Fitzgerald, Ace, Allstate, Chubb and other life insurance companies, which paid insurance benefits to over 3000 widows, widowers or surviving family members.
Shariah Law is being forced upon and/or tolerated in Europe at a rapid pace, especially in Great Britain. The correlation between Shariah expansion with Shariah Finance is clear: Shariah Finance has strong market share and acceptance in Great Britain, and now the British are dealing with serious issues of whether or not to accept Shariah Law over British Law. The consequences will be the same in America if we don’t stand guard to prevent Shariah financing from expanding and American banks from accepting Muslim standards in order to become Shariah compliant – greed is a strong motivation.
We in the West, particularly in the U.S., are indirectly financing the enemy in the "War on Terrorism." What I didn’t realize was the large number of banks; including huge international banks having names I recognized, are on the list of Shariah compliant banks. Having accounts or even just having a credit card associated with one of these banks is helping the terrorists.
For a list of Shariah compliant banks, send your request to gioia@gte.net.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Is anyone listening to what Obama says?
It is incredible and disgustingly sad at the same time that the American people are not completely turned off by this guy even though some of Obama’s comments are actually reported in the main stream press.
While his trip to Europe is viewed as the second coming, Obama’s stance on foreign policy issues of importance go largely unabsorbed by infertile minds.
For example, in acknowledging the devastating blow inflicted upon the United States on 9/11, Obama said the 9-11 attacks were carried out because of al Qaeda’s lack of "empathy" for the suffering of others. Can you imagine, these ruthless sub-humans have a lack of "empathy" which is the reason why they kill innocents, chop off heads and sacrifice children’s’ lives?
Messiah Obama also said after 9/11 that al Qaeda’s terrorist ideology "grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair." In essence, we are responsible for the suicide killing of thousands of Americans on U.S. soil because we have done nothing to alleviate "poverty", "helplessness" and "despair" of the terrorist Cretans. The fact that Islamists want to take over the world for a future Caliphate, and are willing to kill and do anything else they can think of to achieve that goal, is unknown to Obama – or he chooses to ignore it.
WorldNet Daily reminds us "Obama went on to imply the September 11th attacks were in part a result of U.S. policy, lecturing the American military to minimize civilian casualties in the Middle East and urging action opposing ‘bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle-Eastern descent’."
"Even as I hope for some measure of peace and comfort to the bereaved families, I must also hope that we, as a nation, draw some measure of wisdom from this tragedy,’ Obama wrote in a piece about 9-11 published on Sept. 19, 2001, in Chicago's Hyde Park Herald."
Is this the person Americans want to lead the nation as we battle for survival against an implacable enemy bent on killing and destroying our country?
If you are still not convinced we should not place our trust in Obama, here is more of the liberal drivel the Democrat presidential candidate spews on us:
"We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity or suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence; it may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics."
"Most often, though, it grows out a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair."
"We will have to make sure, despite our rage, that any U.S. military action takes into account the lives of innocent civilians abroad. We will have to be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle-Eastern descent. Finally, we will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes and prospects of embittered children across the globe – children not just in the Middle East, but also in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and within our own shores."
As like other liberals, Obama believes that our enemies can be dissuaded from killing innocent people and inciting resurrection where ever possible by understanding "the root causes" of their actions and treating them as poor innocents who lacked love as children while they lived in poverty "across the globe". Without doubt this thinking is behind Obama’s desire to smoke the peace pipe with Iranian thugs and maybe hold a love-in "without preconditions" so they may succumb to his messianic message of "change". Diplomacy will somehow change the hearts and minds of those who would slit his throat without any qualm under different circumstances.
Thank God for the internet; only there is the truth available since the main stream press doesn’t want Americans to know the character and beliefs of the person chosen to be the next U.S. president. We got to see the cover of the New Yorker magazine which aptly described the next first couple; Michelle Obama in terrorist fatigues and AK-47, the future president dressed as a Muslim, the American flag burning in the background and a picture of the other "Osama" (bin Laden) hanging on the wall in the oval office. Of course this was not editorial comment by the liberal magazine; it just accidentally described the true nature of these two and their arrogance about the intellect of the folks.
Michelle Malkin in her usual excellent style wrote in National Review Online:
"Is this man for real? Osama bin Laden’s murderous legions are plenty able to 'imagine' the 'suffering of others.' Go watch an al-Qaeda beheading snuff video. Just Google it or surf You Tube. Imagining the suffering of infidels is covered amply in basic Jihadi Training 101."
Robert Spencer, director of the Jihad Watch website, also had it right:
"What Obama could not, and apparently cannot, allow himself to do is to investigate the nature of Islam, to find out what it teaches about Believers and Infidels. I can help out a bit. I can tell him, right now, right here, that Islam is based on a clear division of the universe between Believers and Infidels."
Abe Greenwald in Commentary Magazine wrote, "[P]overty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.' Strange, considering our attackers were wealthy and educated, connected and ecstatic. You know, if Obama is going to keep ex-terrorists around, he should at least utilize them. He could have asked Bill Ayers, 'Bill, did your 'failure of empathy' stem from your impoverished upbringing as the son of the CEO of Commonwealth Edison?"
Last year WorldNet Daily conducted an interview with am unsuccessful suicide bomber and inquired if the terrorist act he wanted to commit was due to his desperation out of living in poor conditions. No that was not the case said the disciple of jihad; he was persuaded to do this to "satisfy Allah and his instructions. No money interests, nothing. No brainwash, no pressure; it is my decision."
"[It] became stronger when I understood what status I will have in heaven if I scarify myself for Allah."
When asked about media reporting Palestinian suicide attackers are acting in response to occupation or poor living conditions, the defender of Allah said those media claims are "lies" and "Israeli propaganda."
Wakeup America! We must not put Barack Hussein Obama in the Whitehouse; our lives and the life of the country as we know it is in the balance.
While his trip to Europe is viewed as the second coming, Obama’s stance on foreign policy issues of importance go largely unabsorbed by infertile minds.
For example, in acknowledging the devastating blow inflicted upon the United States on 9/11, Obama said the 9-11 attacks were carried out because of al Qaeda’s lack of "empathy" for the suffering of others. Can you imagine, these ruthless sub-humans have a lack of "empathy" which is the reason why they kill innocents, chop off heads and sacrifice children’s’ lives?
Messiah Obama also said after 9/11 that al Qaeda’s terrorist ideology "grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair." In essence, we are responsible for the suicide killing of thousands of Americans on U.S. soil because we have done nothing to alleviate "poverty", "helplessness" and "despair" of the terrorist Cretans. The fact that Islamists want to take over the world for a future Caliphate, and are willing to kill and do anything else they can think of to achieve that goal, is unknown to Obama – or he chooses to ignore it.
WorldNet Daily reminds us "Obama went on to imply the September 11th attacks were in part a result of U.S. policy, lecturing the American military to minimize civilian casualties in the Middle East and urging action opposing ‘bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle-Eastern descent’."
"Even as I hope for some measure of peace and comfort to the bereaved families, I must also hope that we, as a nation, draw some measure of wisdom from this tragedy,’ Obama wrote in a piece about 9-11 published on Sept. 19, 2001, in Chicago's Hyde Park Herald."
Is this the person Americans want to lead the nation as we battle for survival against an implacable enemy bent on killing and destroying our country?
If you are still not convinced we should not place our trust in Obama, here is more of the liberal drivel the Democrat presidential candidate spews on us:
"We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity or suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence; it may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics."
"Most often, though, it grows out a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair."
"We will have to make sure, despite our rage, that any U.S. military action takes into account the lives of innocent civilians abroad. We will have to be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle-Eastern descent. Finally, we will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes and prospects of embittered children across the globe – children not just in the Middle East, but also in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and within our own shores."
As like other liberals, Obama believes that our enemies can be dissuaded from killing innocent people and inciting resurrection where ever possible by understanding "the root causes" of their actions and treating them as poor innocents who lacked love as children while they lived in poverty "across the globe". Without doubt this thinking is behind Obama’s desire to smoke the peace pipe with Iranian thugs and maybe hold a love-in "without preconditions" so they may succumb to his messianic message of "change". Diplomacy will somehow change the hearts and minds of those who would slit his throat without any qualm under different circumstances.
Thank God for the internet; only there is the truth available since the main stream press doesn’t want Americans to know the character and beliefs of the person chosen to be the next U.S. president. We got to see the cover of the New Yorker magazine which aptly described the next first couple; Michelle Obama in terrorist fatigues and AK-47, the future president dressed as a Muslim, the American flag burning in the background and a picture of the other "Osama" (bin Laden) hanging on the wall in the oval office. Of course this was not editorial comment by the liberal magazine; it just accidentally described the true nature of these two and their arrogance about the intellect of the folks.
Michelle Malkin in her usual excellent style wrote in National Review Online:
"Is this man for real? Osama bin Laden’s murderous legions are plenty able to 'imagine' the 'suffering of others.' Go watch an al-Qaeda beheading snuff video. Just Google it or surf You Tube. Imagining the suffering of infidels is covered amply in basic Jihadi Training 101."
Robert Spencer, director of the Jihad Watch website, also had it right:
"What Obama could not, and apparently cannot, allow himself to do is to investigate the nature of Islam, to find out what it teaches about Believers and Infidels. I can help out a bit. I can tell him, right now, right here, that Islam is based on a clear division of the universe between Believers and Infidels."
Abe Greenwald in Commentary Magazine wrote, "[P]overty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.' Strange, considering our attackers were wealthy and educated, connected and ecstatic. You know, if Obama is going to keep ex-terrorists around, he should at least utilize them. He could have asked Bill Ayers, 'Bill, did your 'failure of empathy' stem from your impoverished upbringing as the son of the CEO of Commonwealth Edison?"
Last year WorldNet Daily conducted an interview with am unsuccessful suicide bomber and inquired if the terrorist act he wanted to commit was due to his desperation out of living in poor conditions. No that was not the case said the disciple of jihad; he was persuaded to do this to "satisfy Allah and his instructions. No money interests, nothing. No brainwash, no pressure; it is my decision."
"[It] became stronger when I understood what status I will have in heaven if I scarify myself for Allah."
When asked about media reporting Palestinian suicide attackers are acting in response to occupation or poor living conditions, the defender of Allah said those media claims are "lies" and "Israeli propaganda."
Wakeup America! We must not put Barack Hussein Obama in the Whitehouse; our lives and the life of the country as we know it is in the balance.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
The truth about the Muslim Brotherhood
Credo of the Muslim Brotherhood:
"Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Quran is our law.
Jihad is our way. Dying in the service of Allah is our highest hope".
The Muslim Brotherhood was founded as an Islamic movement in the Egyptian town of Isma'iliyaa in March 1928 by a school teacher Hassan al-Banna. Virtually all of the Sunni terrorist groups - including al Qaeda, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad - are derived from the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood's goal has been to promote the implementation of Shari'ah (Islamic law derived from the Quran and the Sunnah).
In early years, the Brotherhood focused on education and charity but it evolved into politics. The Muslim Brotherhood is still a major player in Egyptian politics but, more importantly, it is an inspiration for Muslims everywhere. The Brotherhood is so popular that it grew from about 800 members in 1936, to over 2 million in 1948; and is now a pervasive international Sunni Islamist movement, with covert and overt branches in over 70 countries and numbering in many, many millions.
Since its founding, the Muslim Brotherhood has openly sought to reassert Islam through the establishment of Sunni Islamic governments that will rule according to the strict and specific tenets of Sharia Law.
The Moslem Brotherhood has become a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times. It represents itself to Muslims over the world as having the most accurate understanding, comprehension and embrace of all Islamic concepts of life, culture, creed, politics, economics, education, society, justice and judgment, the spreading of Islam, education, art, information, science of the occult and conversion to Islam. In other words, the Muslim Brotherhood purports to make the rules for Muslims to follow wherever they are. Its tentacles extend throughout the Middle East and Africa – into almost any country with a Muslim population, including the United States. It is important to know that all Islamic terrorist groups have roots in the Muslim Brotherhood.
In the Middle East, the Muslim Brotherhood founded the terrorist organization Hamas as a Palestinian chapter. Article II of the Hamas charter states: The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine.
To the Brotherhood, the correct primary goal of human civilization is the unification of all countries under the banner of the Caliphate - or universal Islamic state. According to al-Banna, the Brotherhood founder, the Caliphate must govern all lands that were at one time under the control of Muslims. He stated:
"We want the Islamic flag to be hoisted once again on high, fluttering in the wind, in all those lands that have had the good fortune to harbor Islam for a certain period of time and where the muzzein's call sounded in the takbirs and the tahlis."
"The Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea must once again become Muslim seas, as they once were. [After this] is accomplished, the Caliphate is to be expanded to cover the entire globe, erasing national boundaries under the flag of Islam."
Jihad is at the center of the Muslim Brotherhood ideology. In a booklet entitled, "Jihad" and in other works, al-Banna defines jihad as violent warfare against non-Muslims to establish Islam as dominant across the entire world. He wrote:
"Jihad is an obligation from Allah on every Muslim and cannot be ignored nor evaded. Allah has ascribed great importance to jihad and has made the reward of the martyrs and fighters in His way a splendid one. Only those who have acted similarly and who have modeled themselves upon the martyrs in their performance of jihad can join them in this reward."
These views being promulgated to Islamic masses by the Brotherhood are derived from the Quran and Hadith, which al-Banna quotes extensively. The quotes define jihad as the obligatory nature of jihad. On the specific subject of "fighting with People of the Book [Jews and Christians]," al-Banna quotes Quran 9:29:
"Fight against those who believe not in Allah nor in his Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the Religion of Truth (i.e. Islam), from among the People of the Book, until they pay the jizya [poll tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
The Muslim Brotherhood founder al-Banna, also quotes a Hanafi scholar:
"Jihad linguistically means to exert one's utmost effort in word and action; in the Sharee'ah it is the fighting of the unbelievers, and involves all possible efforts that are necessary to dismantle the power of the enemies of Islam including beating them, plundering their wealth, destroying their places of worship and smashing their idols."
Islam allows jihad and permits war until the following Qur'anic verse is fulfilled:
"We will show them Our signs in the universe, and in their own selves, until it becomes manifest to them that this (the Qur'an) is the truth" (Surat al-Fussilat (41), ayah 53
The Muslim Brotherhood is behind all Islamic terrorism in the world today but this goes largely unacknowledged by most Americans and others in the western world; its credo quoted above says it all. They want to wage offensive jihad "in order to liberate the world from the servitude of man-made law and governance." The Brotherhood uses activism, mass communication and sophisticated schemes to build a large support base within the lower class and professional elements of society. By using existing support networks built around mosques, welfare associations, neighborhood groups and the prison population, the Brotherhood is able to effectively educate and indoctrinate people in Islam.
The Muslim Brotherhood seeks to restore the historical Caliphate and then expand its authority over the entire world by dismantling all non-Islamic governments. The Brotherhood aims to accomplish this through a combination of warfare - both violent and political. They provide the ideological model for almost all modern Sunni Islamic terrorist groups.
Richard Clarke, - the chief counterterrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council under Presidents Clinton and Bush told a Senate committee in 2003 - when discussing Hamas, Al Qaeda, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad - that "The common link here is the extremist Muslim Brotherhood - all of these organizations are descendants of the membership and ideology of the Muslim Brothers."
The leadership of Al Qaeda, from Osama bin Laden to his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri and 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed all were influenced by Muslim Brotherhood ideology. In fact, al-Zawahiri was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood as a young man, but according to Steve Emerson: "he broke with them because he thought the Brotherhood was neglecting jihad in favor of participating in elections; for him the Brotherhood was not violent enough."
Americans tend to be unaware of the threat because radical Islam as preached by the Muslim Brotherhood comes in a multitude of forms and uses a variety of tactics and strategies. Because of this flexibility, internal security is the prime threat to our country. While the government focuses on the external threat, the internal threat is overlooked.
For a long time trained Islamists have been operating successfully and with significant effect in our country using our own freedoms against us. We see this in the endless use of political correctness from claims of racism to highly charged litigation; all for the purpose of lessening objection to Muslim lifestyles and practices which are contrary to the American culture and laws. The nature and scope of this growing and complex internal threat is rarely addressed in public forums.
American-based Islamists and Islamic groups increasingly rely on Political Action to reduce government capability to uncover and dismantle terrorist cells and support mechanisms. They take advantage of our failure at all levels - from the individual to the government - to act against and counter their Political Action activities intended to achieve a radical Islam agenda. As Steve Emerson says "our open society is used as both a sword and shield by Muslims in this ideological warfare."
How many times have you heard the woeful exclamation by our liberals; "Why do they hate us?" Although the answer is obvious: too many of us in and out of government fail to accept the reality that Islamists do not hate us because of the freedoms we enjoy or because we are wealthy and powerful; they don’t even hate us because of our support of Israel. They hate us because we are the main obstacle to achieving their vision of a global caliphate under Sharia law. Since they know they cannot beat us with armed or economic warfare, or even with terrorism, they have adopted a strategy of political warfare to which our free society lends itself. They know, although we may not be able to be destroyed from without, if they are patient and clever we will self destruct from within.
Behind all this are the masters of Islamic warfare: the Muslim Brotherhood.
"Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Quran is our law.
Jihad is our way. Dying in the service of Allah is our highest hope".
The Muslim Brotherhood was founded as an Islamic movement in the Egyptian town of Isma'iliyaa in March 1928 by a school teacher Hassan al-Banna. Virtually all of the Sunni terrorist groups - including al Qaeda, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad - are derived from the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood's goal has been to promote the implementation of Shari'ah (Islamic law derived from the Quran and the Sunnah).
In early years, the Brotherhood focused on education and charity but it evolved into politics. The Muslim Brotherhood is still a major player in Egyptian politics but, more importantly, it is an inspiration for Muslims everywhere. The Brotherhood is so popular that it grew from about 800 members in 1936, to over 2 million in 1948; and is now a pervasive international Sunni Islamist movement, with covert and overt branches in over 70 countries and numbering in many, many millions.
Since its founding, the Muslim Brotherhood has openly sought to reassert Islam through the establishment of Sunni Islamic governments that will rule according to the strict and specific tenets of Sharia Law.
The Moslem Brotherhood has become a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times. It represents itself to Muslims over the world as having the most accurate understanding, comprehension and embrace of all Islamic concepts of life, culture, creed, politics, economics, education, society, justice and judgment, the spreading of Islam, education, art, information, science of the occult and conversion to Islam. In other words, the Muslim Brotherhood purports to make the rules for Muslims to follow wherever they are. Its tentacles extend throughout the Middle East and Africa – into almost any country with a Muslim population, including the United States. It is important to know that all Islamic terrorist groups have roots in the Muslim Brotherhood.
In the Middle East, the Muslim Brotherhood founded the terrorist organization Hamas as a Palestinian chapter. Article II of the Hamas charter states: The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine.
To the Brotherhood, the correct primary goal of human civilization is the unification of all countries under the banner of the Caliphate - or universal Islamic state. According to al-Banna, the Brotherhood founder, the Caliphate must govern all lands that were at one time under the control of Muslims. He stated:
"We want the Islamic flag to be hoisted once again on high, fluttering in the wind, in all those lands that have had the good fortune to harbor Islam for a certain period of time and where the muzzein's call sounded in the takbirs and the tahlis."
"The Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea must once again become Muslim seas, as they once were. [After this] is accomplished, the Caliphate is to be expanded to cover the entire globe, erasing national boundaries under the flag of Islam."
Jihad is at the center of the Muslim Brotherhood ideology. In a booklet entitled, "Jihad" and in other works, al-Banna defines jihad as violent warfare against non-Muslims to establish Islam as dominant across the entire world. He wrote:
"Jihad is an obligation from Allah on every Muslim and cannot be ignored nor evaded. Allah has ascribed great importance to jihad and has made the reward of the martyrs and fighters in His way a splendid one. Only those who have acted similarly and who have modeled themselves upon the martyrs in their performance of jihad can join them in this reward."
These views being promulgated to Islamic masses by the Brotherhood are derived from the Quran and Hadith, which al-Banna quotes extensively. The quotes define jihad as the obligatory nature of jihad. On the specific subject of "fighting with People of the Book [Jews and Christians]," al-Banna quotes Quran 9:29:
"Fight against those who believe not in Allah nor in his Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the Religion of Truth (i.e. Islam), from among the People of the Book, until they pay the jizya [poll tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
The Muslim Brotherhood founder al-Banna, also quotes a Hanafi scholar:
"Jihad linguistically means to exert one's utmost effort in word and action; in the Sharee'ah it is the fighting of the unbelievers, and involves all possible efforts that are necessary to dismantle the power of the enemies of Islam including beating them, plundering their wealth, destroying their places of worship and smashing their idols."
Islam allows jihad and permits war until the following Qur'anic verse is fulfilled:
"We will show them Our signs in the universe, and in their own selves, until it becomes manifest to them that this (the Qur'an) is the truth" (Surat al-Fussilat (41), ayah 53
The Muslim Brotherhood is behind all Islamic terrorism in the world today but this goes largely unacknowledged by most Americans and others in the western world; its credo quoted above says it all. They want to wage offensive jihad "in order to liberate the world from the servitude of man-made law and governance." The Brotherhood uses activism, mass communication and sophisticated schemes to build a large support base within the lower class and professional elements of society. By using existing support networks built around mosques, welfare associations, neighborhood groups and the prison population, the Brotherhood is able to effectively educate and indoctrinate people in Islam.
The Muslim Brotherhood seeks to restore the historical Caliphate and then expand its authority over the entire world by dismantling all non-Islamic governments. The Brotherhood aims to accomplish this through a combination of warfare - both violent and political. They provide the ideological model for almost all modern Sunni Islamic terrorist groups.
Richard Clarke, - the chief counterterrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council under Presidents Clinton and Bush told a Senate committee in 2003 - when discussing Hamas, Al Qaeda, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad - that "The common link here is the extremist Muslim Brotherhood - all of these organizations are descendants of the membership and ideology of the Muslim Brothers."
The leadership of Al Qaeda, from Osama bin Laden to his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri and 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed all were influenced by Muslim Brotherhood ideology. In fact, al-Zawahiri was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood as a young man, but according to Steve Emerson: "he broke with them because he thought the Brotherhood was neglecting jihad in favor of participating in elections; for him the Brotherhood was not violent enough."
Americans tend to be unaware of the threat because radical Islam as preached by the Muslim Brotherhood comes in a multitude of forms and uses a variety of tactics and strategies. Because of this flexibility, internal security is the prime threat to our country. While the government focuses on the external threat, the internal threat is overlooked.
For a long time trained Islamists have been operating successfully and with significant effect in our country using our own freedoms against us. We see this in the endless use of political correctness from claims of racism to highly charged litigation; all for the purpose of lessening objection to Muslim lifestyles and practices which are contrary to the American culture and laws. The nature and scope of this growing and complex internal threat is rarely addressed in public forums.
American-based Islamists and Islamic groups increasingly rely on Political Action to reduce government capability to uncover and dismantle terrorist cells and support mechanisms. They take advantage of our failure at all levels - from the individual to the government - to act against and counter their Political Action activities intended to achieve a radical Islam agenda. As Steve Emerson says "our open society is used as both a sword and shield by Muslims in this ideological warfare."
How many times have you heard the woeful exclamation by our liberals; "Why do they hate us?" Although the answer is obvious: too many of us in and out of government fail to accept the reality that Islamists do not hate us because of the freedoms we enjoy or because we are wealthy and powerful; they don’t even hate us because of our support of Israel. They hate us because we are the main obstacle to achieving their vision of a global caliphate under Sharia law. Since they know they cannot beat us with armed or economic warfare, or even with terrorism, they have adopted a strategy of political warfare to which our free society lends itself. They know, although we may not be able to be destroyed from without, if they are patient and clever we will self destruct from within.
Behind all this are the masters of Islamic warfare: the Muslim Brotherhood.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
