Cartoon: Red Flags

Geert Wilders – Philadelphia Oct. 09

Who is Geert Wilders?

Geert Wilders is a 45 year old Dutch politician, member of Parliament in the Netherlands and leader of the Party for Freedom. He has been outspoken on the issues of Islamic extremism and freedom of speech.

His provocative 2008 film about Islam in the Netherlands, FITNA, has received international attention and condemnation. For his views, he has been forced into guarded isolation, banned in the UK, indicted in his own country for violating “hate-speech” laws, and wanted in Jordan.

Why is Geert Wilders so important?

The Islamization of Europe brought with it the prohibition of criticizing Islam as a religion, ideology or political system. As European radical Islam became increasingly powerful, the Western doctrine of free and open speech came under sustained attack. Quickly, this totalitarian movement to suppress Free Speech gained momentum in the Islamic world culminating with a Member of the European Union, Mr. Wilders, being charged by his own country with illegally criticizing Islam, thus violating the “hate-speech” laws of the Netherlands. Mr. Wilders is the prototypical “poster-boy” of the decline of Western civilization … if Western civilization still requires open and free speech? Is the attack on free and open speech marching to America? Yes, it is. Mr. Wilders is in Florida to sound the alert to those who still value the fundamental principle of Free Speech, codified by our Framers, articulated in Amendment # 1, and practiced in our lives.

What has Geert Wilders done that is so “bad”

Mr. Wilders has dared to open his mouth to criticize Islam as a totalitarian ideology. Be careful here. The issue is not whether Islam is a totalitarian ideology, but the issue is whether someone can speak freely and claim that a religion, any religion … stinks! The casual observer can list scores of occasions in America where the religions of Christianity and Judaism have been mocked, scorned, ridiculed and, yep, even criticized as being totalitarian. Civil, progressive, educated Americans must decide if Islam occupies a “special status” in America, as it does in Eurabia, or if Islam … stinks … if that is what someone wants to conclude. This decision ought not be influenced by the fear of 10,000 angry Muslims demonstrating in London, but by blood, real blood, not imaginary, metaphorical blood, but warrior blood, shed at places like Normandy, blood dedicated to inalienable rights, not alienable religions.

What’s the big deal with this movie – FITNA?

The “big deal” with FITNA is that many Muslims, worldwide, simply did not like the movie!

Did you understand that last sentence? Muslims don’t like FITNA.

Usually, when someone doesn’t like a movie they figure out a way to avoid promising to kill the film maker. Conversely, the global success of the message of FITNA has only intensified the desire of many Muslims to welcome the death of Geert Wilders. Even the boys over at Al Qaeda Incorporated, dragging out some cave-dwelling cleric, issued a death FATWA, which is like pouring petrol on the “youths” burning up democracy throughout London, Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam and the rest of Europe – now referred to by many analysts, as “Eurabia”.

The reason why Muslims did not like the movie differs among the group, but in light of the totalitarian demands of Islam and the global fear of criticizing Islam, it naturally follows that their supremest script requires “a morally righteous indignation” over the verbal and visual abuse of their “special status” faith. Though some in the USA think this Islamist reaction is ridiculous nonsense, the many in America better realize the experience of Mr. Wilders is quickly marching into American culture and law. The irresistible force of Islam is confronting the immoveable object of American democracy … and the outcome remains to be seen?

{FITNA – “disagreement and division among people” or a “test of faith in times of trial”}

Why is Geert Wilders in Philadelphia?

Because some of us in Philadelphia enjoy those crazy ideas that our early “white-hairs” came up with like, democracy, free speech, freedom of (any) religion, freedom of no religion and freedom to criticize all religions. We have a lot to learn from the courageous Geert Wilders.

Why the sun is setting on England

Nothing new for our readers – but this article reinforces our concern for the United States of America.

Why the sun is setting on England

by Bill Muehlenberg

Posted: Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 10:56 (BST)

In its heyday it was said of the British Empire that the sun never set on it. Because so many lands across the globe bore the English flag, it was once the world’s great superpower. Of course today that grand empire is no more. And for that matter, England itself is almost no more.

As has been documented here on numerous occasions, the UK is on the verge of giving it all away, renouncing everything that once made it great. Like so much of the rest of the West, it is committed to abandoning its Judeo-Christian heritage, and with it, all that makes for national greatness.

Three more links in a massive chain dragging the UK to its doom can be mentioned here. Each link in itself is not enough to destroy a nation, but when hundreds of such links are joined together, the heaviness of the chain around a nation’s neck is almost impossible to carry.

The three episodes all occurred in the past few days, and simply add to the oppressive burden of national self-destruction. The first concerns the ever widening grip of Islamic fundamentalism. A recent news item has noted that Britain now has 85 sharia law courts. One press report says this:

“At least 85 Islamic sharia courts are operating in Britain, a study claimed yesterday. The astonishing figure is 17 times higher than previously accepted. The tribunals, working mainly from mosques, settle financial and family disputes according to religious principles. They lay down judgments which can be given full legal status if approved in national law courts. However, they operate behind doors that are closed to independent observers and their decisions are likely to be unfair to women and backed by intimidation, a report by independent think-tank Civitas said.”

It is difficult for any nation to maintain any sort of social cohesion when it effectively has two different law systems in operation. Yet that is what we seem to find here. One Conservative MP, Philip Davies, expressed his concerns:

“Everyone should be deeply concerned about the extent of these courts. They do entrench division in society, and do nothing to entrench integration or community cohesion. It leads to a segregated society. There should be one law, and that should be British law. We can’t have a situation where people can choose which system of law they follow and which they do not. We can’t have a situation where people choose the system of law which they feel gives them the best outcome. Everyone should equal under one law.”

While it is good to hear the Opposition speaking out on this, things in fact get worse. The second episode I wish to highlight in fact concerns the Tory leader in the UK, David Cameron. He has just recently spoken at a major homosexual pride event, and he has been bending over backwards to win homosexuals over to the conservative side of politics.

He apologised for a 1988 law passed under Margaret Thatcher, Section 28, which banned local authorities from portraying homosexuality in a positive light. Cameron said that one of his “proudest” moments as leader of the Conservatives was when he told a party conference in 2006 that they had a duty to support a “commitment to marriage” among men and women, between a “man and a man, and a woman and a woman”.

The real question is, with leaders like this, just how conservative is the Tory opposition going to be? In trying to woo the homosexual vote, he is making the Tories indistinguishable from the Labour Party, and doing his own bit to finally destroy marriage and family in England.

A third episode which also speaks to the decline of Christianity in England is the advent of atheist summer camps. Yes, you heard me right. Concerned atheists are setting up summer camps to help make sure that little Johnny or little Sarah do not get to close to any of that nasty religious stuff.

Here is how one news report describes the story: “Now, an atheist summer camp for children set up in the United Kingdom is to offer a ‘godless alternative’ to religious camps. The 24 places on Camp Quest UK (CQUK), which will be held next month near Bath, Somerset, in England’s West Country, have already been booked up, according to organisers. Organisers said the purpose of the camp was ‘to encourage critical thinking and provide children with a summer camp free of religious dogma.’ The camp, supported by scientist Richard Dawkins, plans to expand after receiving hundreds of inquiries.”

The camp organiser said, “We want to encourage children to think for themselves and to evaluate the world critically and thus draw their own conclusions. However, parents should be aware that we adopt a critical, scientific approach as opposed to a ‘faith-based’ approach. At Camp Quest, children aren’t taught that ‘There is no god,’ Instead, they are taught to come to their own conclusions, but more importantly, that ‘It’s OK not to believe in a god.’”

Hmmm, really? What if, upon examining the evidence (and it all depends on what evidence the kiddies are actually allowed to examine), they come up with the conclusion that God in fact does exist? Will they then say, ‘It’s OK to believe in a god’? Somehow I just don’t think so.

But you have you hand it to our atheist buddies – they are always good for a laugh. They are absolutely sure that God does not exist, yet they are working overtime making sure they can convince everyone of this. Maybe they aren’t so sure after all.

One thing can be said with certainty: they are certainly evangelistic for their cause, on a holy mission to spread the good word. They seem to be one of the more active missionary religions around at the moment. Onward atheist soldiers, marching as to war….

These three recent episodes speak to the slow but steady decline of the UK. By themselves they may seem minor. But when considered with the many other examples produced here and elsewhere, the cumulative case for a nation of the brink is easily made. One simply has to ask how many more links must be added to the chain before the whole nations is dragged down into the abyss.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196165/Britain-85-sharia-courts-The-astonishing-spread-Islamic-justice-closed-doors.html
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/david-cameron/5710650/David-Cameron-says-sorry-over-Section-28-gay-law.html
www.assistnews.net/Stories/2009/s09060171.htm

About Bill Muehlenberg:
Bill Muehlenberg is an Australian apologist and ethicist, and head of ministry CultureWatch. He comments regularly on issues of the day from the Christian perspective on his website www.billmuehlenberg.com

Canadian Healthcare

Canada’s ObamaCare Precedent

Governments always ration care by making you wait. That can be deadly.

By DAVID GRATZER

Congressional Democrats will soon put forward their legislative proposals for reforming health care. Should they succeed, tens of millions of Americans will potentially be joining a new public insurance program and the federal government will increasingly be involved in treatment decisions.

Not long ago, I would have applauded this type of government expansion. Born and raised in Canada, I once believed that government health care is compassionate and equitable. It is neither.

My views changed in medical school. Yes, everyone in Canada is covered by a “single payer” — the government. But Canadians wait for practically any procedure or diagnostic test or specialist consultation in the public system.

The problems were brought home when a relative had difficulty walking. He was in chronic pain. His doctor suggested a referral to a neurologist; an MRI would need to be done, then possibly a referral to another specialist. The wait would have stretched to roughly a year. If surgery was needed, the wait would be months more. Not wanting to stay confined to his house, he had the surgery done in the U.S., at the Mayo Clinic, and paid for it himself.

Such stories are common. For example, Sylvia de Vries, an Ontario woman, had a 40-pound fluid-filled tumor removed from her abdomen by an American surgeon in 2006. Her Michigan doctor estimated that she was within weeks of dying, but she was still on a wait list for a Canadian specialist.

Indeed, Canada’s provincial governments themselves rely on American medicine. Between 2006 and 2008, Ontario sent more than 160 patients to New York and Michigan for emergency neurosurgery — described by the Globe and Mail newspaper as “broken necks, burst aneurysms and other types of bleeding in or around the brain.”

Only half of ER patients are treated in a timely manner by national and international standards, according to a government study. The physician shortage is so severe that some towns hold lotteries, with the winners gaining access to the local doc.

Overall, according to a study published in Lancet Oncology last year, five-year cancer survival rates are higher in the U.S. than those in Canada. Based on data from the Joint Canada/U.S. Survey of Health (done by Statistics Canada and the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics), Americans have greater access to preventive screening tests and have higher treatment rates for chronic illnesses. No wonder: To limit the growth in health spending, governments restrict the supply of health care by rationing it through waiting. The same survey data show, as June and Paul O’Neill note in a paper published in 2007 in the Forum for Health Economics & Policy, that the poor under socialized medicine seem to be less healthy relative to the nonpoor than their American counterparts.

Ironically, as the U.S. is on the verge of rushing toward government health care, Canada is reforming its system in the opposite direction. In 2005, Canada’s supreme court struck down key laws in Quebec that established a government monopoly of health services. Claude Castonguay, who headed the Quebec government commission that recommended the creation of its public health-care system in the 1960s, also has second thoughts. Last year, after completing another review, he declared the system in “crisis” and suggested a massive expansion of private services — even advocating that public hospitals rent facilities to physicians in off-hours.

And the medical establishment? Dr. Brian Day, an orthopedic surgeon, grew increasingly frustrated by government cutbacks that reduced his access to an operating room and increased the number of patients on his hospital waiting list. He built a private hospital in Vancouver in the 1990s. Last year, he completed a term as the president of the Canadian Medical Association and was succeeded by a Quebec radiologist who owns several private clinics.

In Canada, private-sector health care is growing. Dr. Day estimates that 50,000 people are seen at private clinics every year in British Columbia. According to the New York Times, a private clinic opens at a rate of about one a week across the country. Public-private partnerships, once a taboo topic, are embraced by provincial governments.

In the United Kingdom, where socialized medicine was established after World War II through the National Health Service, the present Labour government has introduced a choice in surgeries by allowing patients to choose among facilities, often including private ones. Even in Sweden, the government has turned over services to the private sector.

Americans need to ask a basic question: Why are they rushing into a system of government-dominated health care when the very countries that have experienced it for so long are backing away?

Dr. Gratzer, a physician, is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

=

Cartoon: US Missile Defense Cuts

Perhaps we should reconsider the missile defense cuts.

North Korea Nukes White House

Valuable insight about our media – But please read the last sentence of this article.

Don

U.S. Ranked 36th Freest Press in the World

It is not economic prosperity but peace that guarantees press freedom. That is the main lesson to be drawn from the world press freedom index that Reporters Without Borders compiles every year and from the 2008 edition.

Said Reporters Without Borders:

“The post-9/11 world is now clearly drawn. Destabilized and on the defensive, the leading democracies are gradually eroding the space for freedoms. The economically most powerful dictatorships arrogantly proclaim their authoritarianism, exploiting the international community’s divisions and the ravages of the wars carried out in the name of the fight against terrorism.

Religious and political taboos are taking greater hold by the year in countries that used to be advancing down the road of freedom.”

Aside from New Zealand and Canada, the first 20 positions on the Index are held by European countries, with Iceland, Luxembourg and Norway tied for first. While the economic disparities among the top 20 are immense, what they have in common is a parliamentary democratic system, and not being involved in any war. This is not the case with the United States, which ranks 36th domestically and 119th outside its own territory.

The worst violators of free expression were Turkmenistan (171st), North Korea (172nd) and Eritrea (173rd).

Sources:

Reporters Without Borders

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

The United States was founded in large part on the first amendment, which includes the freedom of speech. So for the U.S. to be ranked only 36th for free press sure seems like a colossal step backwards.

And believe it or not, this is a vast improvement from where the U.S. has ranked in the past. In 2006, the U.S. was only 53rd on the Index, and it rose 12 more places in the last year alone.

At the top of the list were Iceland, Luxembourg and Norway. These were the countries with no recorded censorship, threats, intimidation or physical reprisals.

Why is free press in the United States not on par with these European countries?

Reporters Without Borders compiles the Index by asking the 14 freedom of expression organizations that are its partners worldwide, its network of 130 correspondents, as well as journalists, researchers, jurists and human rights activists, to answer 50 questions about press freedom in their countries. In response, here is what they had to say about press in the United States:

• The release of Al-Jazeera cameraman Sami Al-Haj after six years in the Guantanamo Bay military base contributed to the United States’ improved ranking.

• The absence of a federal “shield law” means the confidentiality of media sources is still threatened by federal courts, but the number of journalists being subpoenaed or forced to reveal their sources has declined in recent months and none has been sent to prison.

• The August 2007 murder of Oakland Post editor Chauncey Bailey in Oakland, California is still unpunished a year later. The way the investigation into his murder has become enmeshed in local conflicts of interest and the lack of federal judicial intervention also help to explain why the United States did not get a higher ranking.

• Account was also taken of the many arrests of journalists during the Democratic and Republican conventions.

It’s worth pointing out that the Index measures press freedom violations, such as harassment, censorship, the legal framework of the media, the independence of the public media, Internet restrictions and financial pressure.

So to really get the whole picture on the media in the United States, it helps to have some other background information as well.

Who Controls the U.S. Media?

For the most part, the media spreads a lot of misinformation and corporate propaganda. This is not at all surprising considering that Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch’s News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, Viacom (formerly CBS) and General Electric’s NBC are the top owners of the entire media industry, which includes everything you read and hear in newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations, books, records, movies, videos, wire services and photo agencies.

In the last 15 years alone, your sources for news have shrunk drastically. Whereas in 1983, 50 corporations ruled the U.S. news media, by 2004 this number decreased to a minuscule six corporations!

As you might imagine, with just six corporations deciding what’s worthy of news and what’s not, you end up with sensationalized tragedies, celebrity features, and anything else that will capture people’s attention.

There is virtually no competition in the media market today whatsoever, and this spells disaster for all types of news, including health information.

Unbiased, REAL Information IS Out There

Even though the United States enjoys access to much more free press than many other countries, the system is clearly not without flaws and you simply cannot rely on a news station, newspaper or any other media outlet to provide you with unbiased, reliable information.

However, the Internet and technology have seriously leveled the playing field when it comes to having access to reliable, unbiased information, and is one of the primary reasons why I remain highly confident that we are making more than a dent in the media process.

The Internet has really become one of the last bastions of independent, free-thinking news available — and I am proud to be one of the top-ranked independent voices in the vastness of corporate monopoly, offering objective information to empower you with alternative choices that can radically improve your health, open your eyes to the truth, and keep you and your family safely out of the mainstream media madness.

As you weed through the information you read or hear on a daily basis, always remember this important piece of wisdom:

All truth goes through three phases.

1. First, it is ridiculed.
2. Second, it is violently opposed.
3. Third, it is accepted as being self evident.

So if you want to get to the truth, you often have to keep an open mind, do more than a little bit of digging, and even then take everything you read and hear with a grain of salt.

American Socialism

How Americans Are (Or Are Not) Coming To Grips With ‘S’ Word

By RAGHAVAN MAYUR | 26 March 2009 | IBD

Socialism in the U.S. appears to be in a formative stage. For most Americans, the idea is fairly new, and many have yet to take a firm stand on policies such as income redistribution and government control of industries.

Yet, we’ve come a long way in just seven months. Last August, only 25% of Americans surveyed in our IBD/TIPP Poll agreed with the statement, “The U.S. is evolving into a socialist state.” But when asked again this month, the number jumped to 39%.

This included leaps to 63% from 35% for Republicans and to 47% from 23% for Independents. Only 13% of Democrats, on the other hand, agreed with the statement vs. 20% in August.

The numbers mark a rather significant shift and merit further analysis. But rather than welcome a healthy discussion, many in the media bridle when the “S” word is brought up.

Recall the scorn heaped on Joe the Plumber during last fall’s campaign, when he said Barack Obama’s tax plan to spread the wealth “scares me because it’s just one more step towards socialism.” Or the attacks on the professionalism of Florida TV newswoman Barbara West when she asked Joe Biden if Obama might lead the U.S. “into a socialist country much like Sweden.”

View larger image

We even experienced it ourselves. A writer for Salon.com, for instance, accused us of bias in our August presidential tracking poll simply because we dared to run a few questions about socialism.

Still, it’s important to understand the American mindset. And to get at hidden segments that underlie our survey data, March’s IBD/TIPP Poll asked Americans a few relevant questions tapping into their level of agreement to the statements below:

• I believe the government should control or own key industries such as health care and energy.

• Generally, I support the idea of a government-run universal health care system.

• I believe it is the government’s role to redistribute wealth and income.

• The U.S. is evolving into a socialist state.

Based on responses to these questions, we developed a statistical model that reveals three latent segments of the American populace: Undeclared Socialists, Passionate Capitalists and Hybrid Deniers.

Undeclared Socialists are the smallest segment, with 29%, while Passionate Capitalists encompass 37% of Americans. Hybrid Deniers fall in between at 35%. The segments cross traditional party lines and political ideologies. Here are the differences:

Undeclared Socialists see the government in a very positive light. They believe it’s the government’s role to redistribute wealth and income, and they support government-run health care. They are the most willing to pay higher taxes to fund social programs.

While they lean toward socialistic tenets, we call them “undeclared” because the majority don’t believe the U.S. is evolving into a socialist state. Demographic groups most represented are blacks and Hispanics (55%), liberals (43%) and moderates (41%).

Passionate Capitalists strongly oppose the redistribution of wealth and income and believe the government should stay out of key industries. They’re also against universal health care, oppose higher taxes for more social programs and are sure the U.S. is evolving into a socialist state.

Two-thirds of Republicans (65%), most conservatives (57%) and a quarter of moderates (23%) fall into this segment.

Hybrid Deniers base their views on capitalistic tenets, but may be skeptical. Their thinking is “hybrid” in that they oppose the redistribution of income but are on the fence about government-run health care (with 38% giving a neutral rating).

They are “deniers” because they refute the notion the U.S. may be evolving into a socialist state. They are generally not willing to pay higher taxes to support more social programs. Most liberals (52%), nearly half (49%) of Democrats, a third whites (35%) and a similar share of blacks and Hispanics (33%) belong to this segment.

In the future, we’ll look closer at whether socialism is taking root so we’ll have a better handle on the nation’s direction.

• Mayur is president of TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence, which directs the IBD/TIPP Poll that was the most accurate in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections.

An Olive Branch For A Terrorist State

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | 23 March 2009

War On Terror: Is there some grand strategy behind President Obama’s “Happy Persian New Year” video message to Iran? Or is America embracing the naive notion that we can get the Islamofascists to like us?

---

Read More: Global War On Terror | Iran

---

As Mark Finkelstein’s “FinkelBlog” noted, there were no American flags visible in the background to ruffle the mullahs’ turbans in Obama’s Friday midnight video message. A wide shot featured on the White House Web site has the president sitting before Old Glory, but it turns out there is more than one edition of the video.

The version with Farsi subtitles — presumably the one pegged for Iranian consumption — was closely cropped, with no sign of the U.S. flag (although you can see the tiniest edge of the red and white stripes for a time during the second half of the message). Even the president’s lapel pin of the flag is cropped out during much of the address.

While bereft of anything to offend Iranians who make a practice of burning the stars and stripes, the video’s “tough diplomacy” consisted mainly of palavering the Islamic nation.

Extending his “very best wishes to all who are celebrating Nowruz around the world,” the president called the occasion “both an ancient ritual and a moment of renewal” and “just one part of your great and celebrated culture.“

The president told Iran how “over many centuries your art, your music, literature and innovation have made the world a better and more beautiful place,” adding that “here in the United States, our own communities have been enhanced by the contributions of Iranian Americans.”

“We know,” he said, “that you are a great civilization, and your accomplishments have earned the respect of the United States and the world.”

He also made a point of referring to the country by what became its official name after the Ayatollah Khomeini’s Carter-era revolution turned it into an anti-American theocratic state — “the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

In closing, Obama recited a verse from the medieval Dervish poet Saadi, which is prominently featured within the United Nations building in New York City:

“The children of Adam are limbs to each other, having been created of one essence.”

Lovely sentiments all around. But who really thinks Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the other leaders of revolutionary Islamist Iran see all the children of Adam — particularly those living in Tel Aviv and the world’s free industrialized nations — as equal in the eyes of God? Whoever does is too naive to be involved in U.S. foreign policy.

Ahmadinejad spokesman Ali Akbar Javanfekr immediately responded to Obama’s message by calling on the U.S. to end its support for Israel and apologize for: siding with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s; accidentally shooting down an Iranian airliner in 1988 (for which the U.S. has already paid Iran $132 million); and the CIA’s role in the shah’s 1953 coup.

The Tehran regime has been in a de facto state of war with the U.S. for 30 years. It has provided bombs that have killed our soldiers in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan. It spends millions supplying and training Lebanon’s Hezbollah terrorists, and funds Hamas’ rocket and suicide attacks against Israel.

Under the autocratic rule of this Islamic “republic,” Iran has hosted pseudo-scholars to compare notes on denying the Nazi genocide of the Jews. Its leaders have referred to the state of Israel as a disease, calling for the Jewish state’s destruction by force. They believe the 12th imam will return to lead an apocalyptic jihad against Jews and other purported enemies of Islam.

And, most importantly, these dangerous fanatics are spending a billion dollars a year — 2% of its annual oil revenues — in pursuit of nuclear weapons. Clearly, the regime has already produced enough fuel for one atomic bomb, and last month Iran’s nuclear chief said its 6,000 operating uranium enrichment centrifuges at Natanz would be expanded to 50,000 over the next five years.

Franklin Roosevelt’s strategy against Hitler was not to send a Christmas card noting the artistic achievements of Goethe and Wagner. Does this Democratic president, like his great 20th century predecessors, recognize evil when he sees it?

Terror Attacks Within United States

Dear friends,

This in ONLY A SAMPLE of Terror Attacks by Muslims here in the United States. An example on one that is left out – from a local restaurant , La Shish owner Talal Chahine – committing and “honor” killing. Khalil, was convicted of murder. He murdered Paul Hallis, a Maronite Christian Arab, for the crime of daring to become engaged to a Muslim woman–a woman who reportedly dated the younger Chahine AND his married brother-in-law, Ali El-Ozeir. Yes, there are Islamic honor killings in America. And FYI, prior to his jail stint for murder, Khalil Chahine was the youth leader at the Hezbollah mosque.

Pass on or comment: any clippings you may have collected – adding to this list

We’ve heard so much from The Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) about attacks on Muslims by Americans, indicating to them that Muslims are being targeted for just being……. Muslims. Here’s a bit of “hate history” indicating just the opposite.

HATE CRIMES COMMITTED BY MUSLIMS SINCE 1972

————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Date	Country	City/State	Killed	Injured	Description
4/14/1972	USA	New York, NY	1	3	Ten members of a local mosque phone in a false alarm and then ambush responding officers, killing one.
1/19/1973	USA	Brooklyn, NY	1	1	Muslim extremists rob a sporting goods store for weapons, gunning down a police officer who responds to the alarm.
7/18/1973	USA	Washington, DC	8	2	Nation of Islam members shoot seven members of a family to death in cold blood, including four children. A defendant in the case is later murdered in prison on orders from Elijah Muhammad.
10/19/1973	USA	Oakland, CA	1	1	Nation of Islam terrorists kidnap a couple and nearly decapitate the man, while raping and leaving the woman for dead.
10/29/1973	USA	Berkeley, CA	1	0	A woman is shot repeatedly in the face by Nation of Islam terrorists.
11/25/1973	USA	Oakland, CA	1	0	A grocer is killed in his store by Nation of Islam terrorists.
12/11/1973	USA	Oakland, CA	1	0	A man is killed by Nation of Islam terrorists while using a phone booth.
12/13/1973	USA	Oakland, CA	1	0	A woman is shot to deah on the sidewalk by Nation of Islam terrorists.
12/20/1973	USA	Oakland, CA	1	0	Nation of Islam terrorists gun down an 81-year-old janitor.
12/22/1973	USA	Oakland, CA	2	0	Nation of Islam terrorist kills two people in separate attacks on the same day.
12/24/1973	USA	Oakland, CA	1	0	A man is kidnapped, tortured and decapitated by Nation of Islam terrorists.
1/24/1974	USA	Oakland, CA	4	1	Five vicious shooting attacks by Nation of Islam terrorists leave three people dead and one paralyzed for life. Three of the victims were women.
4/1/1974	USA	Oakland, CA	1	1	A Nation of Islam terrorist shoots at two Salvation Army members, killing a man and injuring a woman.
4/16/1974	USA	Ingleside, CA	1	0	A man is killed while helping a friend move by Nation of Islam terrorists.
3/9/1977	USA	Washington, DC	1	1	Hanifi Muslims storm three buildings including a B’nai B’rith to hold 134 people hostage. At least two innocents were shot and one died.
7/22/1980	USA	Bethesda, MD	1	0	A political dissident is shot and killed in front of his home by an Iranian agent who was an American convert to Islam.
8/31/1980	USA	Savou, IL	2	0	An Iranian student guns down his next-door neighbors, a husband and wife.
1/31/1990	USA	Tuscon, AZ	1	0	A Sunni cleric is assassinated in front of a Tuscon mosque after declaring that two verses of the Qur’an were invalid.
11/5/1990	USA	New York City, NY	1	0	An Israeli rabbi is shot to death by a Muslim attacker at a hotel.
1/25/1993	USA	Langley, VA	2	3	A Pakistani with Mujahideen ties guns down two CIA agents outside of the headquarters.
2/26/1993	USA	New York, NY	6	1040	Islamic terrorists detonate a massive truck bomb under the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring over 1,000 in an effort to collapse the towers.
3/1/1994	USA	Brooklyn, NY	1	0	A Muslim fires on a vanload of Jewish boys, killing one.
3/23/1997	USA	New York, NY	1	6	A Palestinian leaves an anti-Jewish suicide note behind and travels to the top of the Empire State building where he shoot seven people in a Fedayeen attack.
4/3/1997	USA	Lompoc, CA	1	0	A prison guard is stabbed to death by a radical Muslim.
10/31/1999	USA	Near Nantucket	217	0	An Egyptian airline pilot runs a planeload of 217 passengers into the water after uttering a Qur’anic prayer.
3/17/2000	USA	Atlanta, GA	1	1	A local imam and Muslim spiritual leader guns down a deputy sheriff and injures his partner.
9/11/2001	USA	Washington, DC	184	53	Nearly 200 people are killed when Islamic hijackers steer a plane full of people into the Pentagon.
9/11/2001	USA	Shanksville, PA	40	0	Forty passengers are killed after Islamic radicals hijack the plane in an attempt to steer it into the U.S. Capitol building.
9/11/2001	USA	New York, NY	2772	251	Islamic hijackers steer two planes packed with fuel and passengers into the World Trade Center, killing hundreds on impact and eventually killing thousands when the towers collapsed. At least 200 are seriously injured.
3/19/2002	USA	Tuscon, AZ	1	0	A 60-year-old man is gunned down by Muslim snipers on a golf course.
5/27/2002	USA	Denton, TX	1	0	Muslim snipers kill a man as he works in his yard.
7/4/2002	USA	Los Angeles, CA	2	0	Muslim man pulls out a gun at the counter of an Israeli airline and kills two people.
9/5/2002	USA	Clinton, MD	1	0	A 55-year-old pizzaria owner is shot six times in the back by Muslims at close range.
9/21/2002	USA	Montgomery, AL	1	1	Muslim snipers shoot two women, killing one.
9/23/2002	USA	Baton Rouge, LA	1	0	A Korean mother is shot in the back by Muslim snipers.
10/2/2002	USA	Wheaton, MD	1	0	Muslim snipers gun down a program analyst in a store parking lot.
10/3/2002	USA	Montgomery County, MD	5	0	Muslim snipers kill three men and two women in separate attacks over a 15-hour period.
10/9/2002	USA	Manassas, VA	1	1	A man is killed by Muslim snipers while pumping gas two days after a 13-year-old is wounded by the same team.
10/11/2002	USA	Fredericksburg, VA	1	0	Another man is killed by Muslim snipers while pumping gas.
10/14/2002	USA	Arlington, VA	1	0	A woman is killed by Muslim snipers in a Home Depot parking lot.
10/22/2002	USA	Aspen Hill, MD	1	0	A bus driver is killed by Muslim snipers.
8/6/2003	USA	Houston, TX	1	0	After undergoing a religious revival, a Saudi college student slashes the throat of a Jewish student with a 4″ butterfly knife, nearly decapitating the young man.
12/2/2003	USA	Chicago, IL	1	0	A Muslim doctor deliberately allows a Jewish patient to die from an easily treatable condition.
4/13/2004	USA	Raleigh, NC	1	4	A Muslim man runs down five strangers with a car.
4/15/2004	USA	Scottsville, NY	1	2	In an honor killing, a Muslim father kills his wife and attacks his two daughters with a knife and hammer because he feared that they had been sexually molested.
6/16/2006	USA	Baltimore, MD	1	0	A 62-year-old Jewish moviegoer is shot to death by a Muslim gunman in an unprovoked terror attack.
6/25/2006	USA	Denver, CO	1	5	Saying that it was ‘Allah’s choice’, a Muslim shoots four of his co-workers and a police officer.
7/28/2006	USA	Seattle, WA	1	5	An ‘angry’ Muslim-American barges into a local Jewish center and shoots six women, one of whom dies.
10/6/2006	USA	Louisville, KY	4	1	In an ‘honor’ attack, a Muslim man rapes and beats his estranged wife, leaving her for dead, then savagely murders their four children.
2/13/2007	USA	Salt Lake City, UT	5	4	A Muslim immigrant goes on a shooting rampage at a mall, targeting people buying Valentine’s Day cards at a gift shop and killing five.
1/1/2008	USA	Irving, TX	2	0	A Muslim immigrant shoots his two daughters to death on concerns about their ‘Western’ lifestyle.
7/6/2008	USA	Jonesboro, GA	1	0	A devout Muslim strangles his 25-year-old daughter in an honor killing.
2/12/2009	USA	Buffalo, NY	1	0	The founder of a Muslim TV station beheads his wife in the hallway for seeking a divorce.

3,293 killed by Muslims in America in 62 terror attacks – (list not complete)

Watch out for Al Qaeda

It wants to target America’s economy, and it wants to prove it can defeat us.

By Marc A. Thiessen
February 15, 2009

We’re bombarded with bad news — the credit markets could freeze, millions more could lose their jobs, and today’s recession could turn into a depression. But the danger we aren’t hearing about could outweigh them all: the increased risk of a catastrophic terrorist attack.

A careful study of Osama bin Laden’s videos, letters and Internet statements makes clear that Al Qaeda’s goal is more than to terrorize Americans or to drive us out of the Middle East. Bin Laden believes that Al Qaeda can bring about the economic collapse of the United States – and to achieve this goal, he has adopted a strategy of targeting America’s financial centers and economic infrastructure.

Bin Laden cites the 9/11 attacks as proof that this strategy can succeed. In a November 2004 videotape broadcast on Al Jazeera, he boasted that Al Qaeda spent $500,000 on the event, while America lost, “according to the lowest estimate, $500 billion … meaning that every dollar of Al Qaeda defeated a million dollars [of America] … besides the loss of a huge number of jobs.”

“America is a superpower, with enormous military strength and vast economic power,” he concluded, “but all this is built on foundations of straw. So it is possible to target those foundations and focus on their weakest points, which, even if you strike only one-tenth of them, then the whole edifice will totter and sway.”

The terrorists’ ambitions are shaped by their experience fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Before the 9/11 attacks, Bin Laden said, “People used to ask us: ‘How will you defeat the Soviet empire?’ And at that time, the Soviet empire was a mighty power that scared the whole world. … Today, there is no more Soviet empire. … So the one God, who … stabilized us to defeat the Soviet empire, is capable of sustaining us again and of allowing us to defeat America.”

After 9/11, Bin Laden issued a letter warning the American people that our fate “will be that of the Soviets, who fled Afghanistan to deal with their military defeat, political breakup, ideological downfall and economic bankruptcy.”

These statements tell us something important about the enemy: Although Bin Laden has many skilled bomb-makers and propagandists working for him, he lacks a single competent economist. Yes, the 9/11 attacks did cost America billions of dollars — but our resilient free-market economy replaced every lost job within a few years. We would similarly recover from any other attack Al Qaeda might pull off.

But the terrorists don’t have to be right to be emboldened. Clearly the daily news reports of our economic turmoil feed into Bin Laden’s deep-seated belief that America is teetering on the economic brink — and that with one big push, we can be forced into collapse. The financial crisis can only be serving to convince Al Qaeda that the time to strike America is now.

We have some factors working in our favor. The enemy has been weakened by our seven-year offensive against them. Our military removed Al Qaeda’s haven in Afghanistan in 2001. With the “surge,” we drove Al Qaeda from the new sanctuaries it had established in Iraq. And over the last year, America has put increasing pressure on Al Qaeda in its Pakistani stronghold. At least five of Al Qaeda’s top operational planners met their end in that country in 2008, culminating on Jan. 1 when Usama al-Kini, Al Qaeda’s chief of operations in Pakistan, and his lieutenant, Sheikh Ahmed Salim Swedan, were killed. This is the highest pace of strikes against senior Al Qaeda operational planners since the war on terrorism began.

Another factor working in our favor is the severity of the 9/11 attacks. In striking the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, Al Qaeda set an extremely high bar for itself. If it launched an attack that did not meet that bar, it would be seen as a sign of weakness. This is likely why we have not seen smaller-scale attacks on shopping malls and other “soft” targets during the last seven years. By contrast, this also means that, whatever the terrorists are now planning, it likely will be on a scale to equal, or even dwarf, the attacks of 9/11.

Al Qaeda’s failure to strike America after seven years creates pressure on the terrorists to act. The lack of another catastrophic attack on the United States, combined with the massive defeat terrorists have suffered in Iraq, sends a message to the Muslim world that Al Qaeda is losing its war with America. The terrorists need to pull off something spectacular to prove that they are still a force and a threat. Al Qaeda’s growing desperation to strike America, and our perceived growing vulnerability, are a dangerous combination.

All this means that now is no time for President Obama to begin dismantling the institutions President Bush put in place to keep America safe. Obama needs to recognize that, at this moment, somewhere in the world, the terrorists are watching the economic turmoil in our country — and planning an attack they believe will bring our economy to its knees. In the face of this danger, America must not let down its guard.

Please Keep Them Safe

CAIR’s Silence on Hamas

IPT News
January 7, 2009

http://www.investigativeproject.org/article/969

Shortly after Israel started bombing Hamas targets in Gaza, four leaders of national Muslim-American organizations gathered at the National Press Club to condemn the violence.

Their language was nuanced, with calls for an “even-handed” U.S. policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. When they were specific, their criticism went in one direction. Nihad Awad, a co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations and its executive director, was the most pointed:

“And we demand that our government, the U.S. government, take immediate steps to end the immoral and illegal Israeli bombardment of Gaza and its population which has already resulted in more than 300 deaths, including many women and children.”

…

“Israel has to comply with international law. Israel has to respect the sanctity of human lives, and Israel has to respect its allies.”

One word was never mentioned: Hamas.

For years, CAIR officials have refused to condemn Hamas by name or call on it to cease terror attacks in the name of peace. Now they won’t even say the terror group’s name.

It’s not just Awad. CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper was interviewed on CNN just after the news conference and was asked whether “making Hamas irrelevant in the region” would help improve life for the Palestinian people. His response made no reference to the terrorist group:

“Well what you want to do is give the Palestinians an idea that their future can be better. That their children can actually eat. Can you imagine right now, in the twenty first century, that we have a situation where there is a blockade keeping children from eating in any part of the world and America is supporting that blockade. It’s outrageous, it’s illegal, it’s immoral and it’s against international law. At a minimum we have to end the siege of the Gaza ghetto.”

CAIR-Los Angeles Executive Director Hussam Ayloush issued a statement on Dec. 30 echoing his national leaders:

“We demand that our government take immediate steps to end the immoral and illegal Israeli bombardment of Gaza. We also demand the Bush administration join with the international community in seeking the end to the savage collective punishment of the people of Gaza.”

Where international conflict fits in with CAIR’s stated mission isn’t entirely clear. The mission statement says CAIR seeks “to enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.”

When it delves into international politics, it consistently sides with radical Islamists. In 1994, Awad publicly expressed his support for Hamas. Earlier that year, he called out editors at The Message, an American-Muslim publication, for simply using the term “Israel.”

“I hope,” he wrote, “that the use of ‘Israel’ in your news briefs was the result of an oversight and not intentional…Furthermore I hope you will return to the terminology ‘Occupied Palestine’ to refer to that Holy Land.”

Israel assassinated two Hamas leaders in the spring of 2004 in the wake of ongoing terrorist attacks. CAIR issued statements condemning the acts and, like now, concealing the terrorist movement’s role in precipitating them. Hamas founder Ahmed Yassin was mourned as a “wheelchair-bound Palestinian religious leader.” Yassin’s successor, Abdel Aziz Rantisi, was described by CAIR merely as “a political leader.”

Past behavior is relevant in assessing CAIR’s current stand. If the objective truly is to help the people of Gaza, demanding that Hamas cease its daily firing of missiles into Israeli cities is required. But that is not what is happening.

At this point, it bears repeating that internal Muslim Brotherhood records show Awad and his organization were part of a Brotherhood effort to help Hamas in the U.S. That’s why CAIR was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas-support trial of the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and why FBI case agent Lara Burns testified CAIR is a front group.

Exhibits in evidence in the show the foundation served as the Hamas fundraising arm in the United States and CAIR officials often participated in fundraisers for it. In November 2008, jurors convicted the foundation and five former officials on all 108 counts against them. In a statement, CAIR dismissed the verdict as “based more on fear-mongering than on the facts.”

But CAIR’s statements about the Gaza conflict are straight out of the playbook designed during a secret meeting of Hamas members and supporters held in Philadelphia in the fall of 1993. The stated purpose of the meeting was to find ways to “derail” the U.S.-brokered Oslo Accords, which led to the creation of a Palestinian Authority and was considered an important step toward a peaceful, two-state solution to the conflict.

The two-dozen men assembled had two principal reasons for opposing the Accords. The new PA was dominated by their competitors — the secular Fatah movement — and they were concerned any success would marginalize the Islamist Hamas. And, as the Hamas Charter states, a negotiated, peaceful settlement that leaves Israel a viable state is unacceptable.

Records and FBI surveillance tapes show Awad presented a report in Philadelphia on “political, media, popular action and public relations in North America.” During a 2003 deposition, Awad claimed he couldn’t remember whether he attended the meeting. In his presentation, Awad refers to “Samah,” the simple code name meeting participants agreed to use instead of saying “Hamas” – its inverse – out loud. He also describes how the group can get its message out through the media:

“If you hear of a false rumor, you want to discredit it, huh? If people need money we would provide media coverage. We encourage people to donate to you. If there is a political issue, a Samah’s input for instance, about this or that, we inform people to contact their representatives, I mean…the [unintelligible] and others, print circulations and send them to them.”

Now, fast forward to today. CAIR chapters throughout the country are urging followers to lobby members of Congress with a unilateral focus. And they are soliciting people to sign petitions, which, in classic CAIR code, note:

“all parties in the Middle East conflict have committed violence against civilians. We unequivocally condemn all of these actions.”

In reality, though, they do not. No CAIR official has called on Hamas to stop firing rockets into Israeli cities and no CAIR official has criticized Hamas for placing Palestinian civilians in harm’s way.

Contrast that with criticisms of Hamas from the Palestinian Authority, Palestinians in Gaza and even Iranian students. In a statement issued Dec. 30, the group Daftar-e Tahkim-e Vahdat said:

“Those who have armed and encouraged groups like Hamas – which only yesterday did not hide its sympathy for the criminal Saddam Hussein, and which declared three days of mourning after his death – have innocent blood on their hands: [the blood of those killed] in the [recent] hostilities [in Gaza]. Now it is they who must be accountable to humanity, and it is they who must explain this tragic situation.”

The group criticized the Israeli invasion, too, but added “it is equally [important] to condemn the terror organizations that use kindergartens and hospitals as a shield against the [Israeli] attacks. [Hamas's use of human shields] prepares the ground for intensified bombardment [by Israel] and for the killing of children and civilians, and [therefore] it is an inhuman act.”

The next day, the Iranian government shut down a newspaper which published parts of the Daftar-e Takhim-e Vahdat statement. Neither the statement nor the newspaper’s closing has received much attention in the United States.

All of it casts doubt on just how committed CAIR really is to sparing Palestinian civilians from the violence. If there were no Hamas rockets being fired, there would be no Israeli invasion of Gaza. Can anyone say otherwise with a straight face?

PIRATES??? punishment….

Why Don’t We Hang Pirates Anymore?

Year-to-date, Somalia-based pirates have attacked more than 90 ships, seized more than 35, and currently hold 17. U.S., British and Indian naval ships have engaged the pirates by force. Yet the number of attacks keeps rising.

Why? there is no controlling legal authority. Title 18, Chapter 81 of the United States Code establishes a sentence of life in prison for foreigners captured in the act of piracy. But, crucially, the law is only enforceable against pirates who attack U.S.-flagged vessels, of which today there are few.

What about international law? Article 110 of the U.N.’s Law of the Sea Convention — ratified by most nations, but not by the U.S. — enjoins naval ships from simply firing on suspected pirates. Instead, they are required first to send over a boarding party to inquire of the pirates whether they are, in fact, pirates. A recent U.N. Security Council resolution allows foreign navies to pursue pirates into Somali waters — provided Somalia’s tottering government agrees — but the resolution expires next week. As for the idea of laying waste, Stephen Decatur-like, to the pirate’s prospering capital port city of Eyl, this too would require U.N. authorization. Yesterday, a shippers’ organization asked NATO to blockade the Somali coast. NATO promptly declined.

Global View columnist Bret Stephens discusses the difficulty in dealing with high-seas piracy. (Nov. 25)

Then there is the problem of what to do with captured pirates. No international body similar to the old Admiralty Courts is currently empowered to try pirates and imprison them. The British foreign office recently produced a legal opinion warning Royal Navy ships not to take pirates captive, lest they seek asylum in the U.K. or otherwise face repatriation in jurisdictions where they might be dealt with harshly, in violation of the British Human Rights Act.

In March 2006, the U.S. Navy took 11 pirates prisoner, six of whom were injured. Not wanting to set a precedent for trying pirates in U.S. courts, the State Department turned to Kenya to do the job. The injured spent weeks aboard the USS Nassau, enjoying First World medical care.

All this legal exquisiteness stands in contrast to what was once a more robust attitude. Pirates, said Cicero, were hostis humani generis — enemies of the human race — to be dealt with accordingly by their captors. Tellingly, Cicero’s notion of piracy vanished in the Middle Ages; its recovery traces the recovery of the West itself.

By the 18th century, pirates knew exactly where they stood in relation to the law. A legal dictionary of the day spelled it out: “A piracy attempted on the Ocean, if the Pirates are overcome, the Takers may immediately inflict a Punishment by hanging them up at the Main-yard End; though this is understood where no legal judgment may be obtained.”

Severe as the penalty may now seem (albeit necessary, since captured pirates were too dangerous to keep aboard on lengthy sea voyages), it succeeded in mostly eliminating piracy by the late 19th century — a civilizational achievement no less great than the elimination of smallpox a century later.

Yet what ought to be a triumph for both justice and security has turned out closer to the opposite. Instead of greater security, we get the deteriorating situation described above. And in pursuit of a better form of justice — chiefly defined nowadays as keeping a clear conscience — we get (at best) a Kenyan jail. “We’re humane warriors,” says one U.S. Navy officer. “When the pirates put down their RPGs and raise their hands, we take them alive. And that’s a lot tougher than taking bodies.”

Piracy, of course, is hardly the only form of barbarism.  There are suicide bombers on Israeli buses, the stonings of Iranian women, and so on. But piracy is certainly the most primordial of them, and our collective inability to deal with it says much about how far we’ve regressed in the pursuit of what is mistakenly thought of as a more humane policy. A society that erases the memory of how it overcame barbarism in the past inevitably loses sight of the meaning of civilization, and the means of sustaining it.

Write to bstephens@wsj.com

Bret Stephens – WSJ – 25 Nov. 2008

NOW AVAILABLE

The Real Messiah: Prophecies Fulfilled

_

ORDER NOW:

http://store.coralridge.org/ProductDetails.aspx?pc=115363

or Call: 1-800-988-7884

ALSO IF YOU ARE NEAR ANN ARBOR – WE HAVE COPIES HERE

Please contact: dvancurler@aol.com