Thursday, July 3, 2008

Generation Y seeks more interaction with government online

BY GAUTHAM NAGESH, GNAGESH@GOVEXEC.COM

A recently released survey shows that Generation Y prefers to connect with government online in an interactive manner similar to the way they seek out news and other information.

The survey was commissioned by Meritalk, an online community of government information technology specialists, to examine the information-gathering habits of Gen-Y and its priorities for the next administration. A poll of 2,000 people born between 1977 and 1990 showed that 88 percent will obtain their news online during the next four years. Seventy-four percent want more information on government spending and programs, and 85 percent said they want the next president to reach out to the public online at least monthly.

"Generation Y really wants direct, honest, genuine communication [from the government]," said Liz Vandendriessche, spokeswoman for Meritalk. She said that through its research, Meritalk sought to capture how the fundamental relationship between government and citizens is changing. ...

Senate panel slashes foreign visitor ID system


BY JILL R. AITORO, JAITORO@GOVEXEC.COM

The Senate Appropriations Committee significantly cut the budget for the Homeland Security Department's program to electronically track when foreign travelers enter and leave the United States, fearing the system might not work as planned.

The committee's fiscal 2009 spending bill for DHS would provide $181.3 million for the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology program, a 62 percent cut from the program's $475 million fiscal 2008 budget and 54 percent less than the $390 million that President Bush requested. The bill now heads to the Senate floor for a vote.

"That would be a major cut," said Ray Bjorklund, senior vice president and chief knowledge officer for FedSources Inc., a federal consulting firm in McLean, Va. "The department may be anxious to move ahead with the program, but Congress is unsure whether there is a realistic possibility that the desired goals can be met on time. Until the possibility becomes a probability, the committee apparently sees no purpose in throwing money against the program." ...

Anti-Obama messages targeted by Google?

(Compiler's note: If I "need" to change this site to another location, I guess we will know why.)

Bloggers who have been critical of presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, a senator from Illinois, are expressing concerns they are facing an organized effort to shut down their message, possibly with help from Google's Blogspot.com.

The ComeALongWay blog author reported the pro-Hillary site was deactivated by moderators at Google recently, only to be reactivated a short time later.

"I am not sure what to make of it, but I suspect that Blogger saw or heard about all the negative Internet chatter and negative press …specifically mentioning this blog and responded," the blogger wrote.

But the writer confirmed, "Without any notice, apology, or explanation, my posting privileges ha[ve] been reinstated. Blogger's 'guilty until proven innocent' approach is appalling. As bloggers, it is a good thing we still have choices, and I have exercised my choice to leave Blogger and establish a new home at Wordpress. (I have been advised that Wordpress investigates charges before taking action.)

"Update: Hours after my posting privileges were restored, I receive an e-mail from Blogger. Interestingly, BlueLyon (another site with Obama criticism) received the same e-mail addressed to me," the blogger wrote.

The e-mail text said: "On behalf of the Blogger Team, I want to apologize for the recent trouble you've had with your locked blog. Automated spam detection is not yet a perfect science, and although we are constantly working to improve our tools, it appears that our filters have caused some Blogger accounts to mistakenly be blocked from creating new posts.

"We believe this may have been caused by mass spam e-mails mentioning the 'Just Say No Deal' network of blogs, which in turn caused our system to classify the blog addresses mentioned in the e-mails as spam," the e-mail said.

Blogspot.com blogs can be shut down if its content is flagged as spam. Conservative-leaning sites have been deactivated by the moderators at Google, in addition to Hillary supporting sites that have published anti-Obama material, according to Stop the ACLU.

In 2007, Obama paid a visit to Google headquarters right after releasing his technology platform in which he restated his continued support of Net Neutrality. Google is strongly in favor of Net Neutrality because it frees the web of restrictions on content.

The Just Say No Deal coalition of blogs is taking a stand against Obama. Some of the blogs are former Hillary-supporting blogs.

Carissa Snedeker regularly expressed her democratic views on her blog, created through Google, called Blue Lyon. She was among many other bloggers who supported Clinton but did not support Obama. Google moderators subsequently locked her out of her account.

"At first I thought it was just this random thing with Blogger’s spam bots," she told Hot Air.com. "I thought that perhaps in their looking across the blogger universe, that I got accidentally flagged somehow. Stuff like that happens."

However, when Snedeker discovered other anti-Obama sites had been deactivated, she wondered about a concerted effort by Obama supporters to squelch criticism.

Bloggers on the site are able to flag sites that they would like deactivated or reviewed by a human moderator. After receiving a certain number of flags, blogs are automatically locked for a period of time.

Jordan's Legal Jihad

(Compiler's note: A Middle Eastern country sends a chilling reminder to European citizens that they are accountable to Sharia Law.)

... The Jordanian court’s move is only the most ambitious attempt to silence debate about Islam. Until now, the preferred strategy has been to file civil lawsuits in western courts to intimidate critics. The latest version of what may be called the legal jihad is even more disturbing. ...

...
This new campaign of intimidation against the West is being mounted by a Jordanian organization calling itself “Messenger of Allah Unite Us”, which is made up of “… media outlets, professional associations, parliamentarians and thousands of volunteers.” ...

...
The subpoenas will be sent to the twelve Europeans through their embassies in Jordan. If they do not appear within 15 days, the Messenger of Allah group says it will seek international arrest warrants through Interpol. ...

....
critics of Islam who have outstanding warrants against them from courts in Muslim countries will have their freedom of movement restricted, since travel abroad will now be problematic. ...

...
But what is most disturbing is that an Islamic country would dare subpoena citizens of another state for an action not committed within its borders but in a land where no laws were broken. Besides being meant as a weapon of intimidation, this tactic also represents a frightening extension of Islamic law into the heart of western countries.

But perhaps most ominously, this incredibly brazen measure shows that even a small Islamic country like Jordan has no fear of Europe. And, indeed, no retaliatory response met the Jordanian court’s action against European citizens. ...

... The overall goal of the Messenger of Allah group’s legal and commercial campaign against the two European states, it says, is the enactment of “a universal law that prohibits the defamation of any prophet or religion”, especially of the Prophet Mohammad. Islamic countries are already pushing for such a law at the United Nations.

“The boycott is a means but not an end,” said Zakaria Sheikh, a spokesperson for Messenger of Allah Unite Us. “We are not aiming at collective punishment, but when the Danish and Dutch people put pressure on their governments to support the creation of an international law, we are achieving our goal.”

Well, there you have it. The Muslim organization wants Denmark and Holland not just to muzzle themselves but to help it muzzle the rest of the world as well. ...

... It should also be pointed out in the West that Jordan, which is demanding respect for its religion, does not respect other religions equally. While the practice of other faiths is not forbidden in the Middle Eastern country, none are allowed to proselytize, and converts from Islam to other religions are prosecuted by Jordanian sharia courts.

Moreover, the Jordanians should be told that if they want to extradite inciters of hatred to their courts, then citizens of their country, and of other Islamic countries for that matter, who have advocated killing Jews and other the infidels will be extradited to face western courts. In the end, if legal jihad is not recognized as the danger to the West that it is, and vigorously opposed, it will wind up punishing more than just two small European countries.

ACT for America: PC Outrage June 2008

Our June PC (Politically Correct) Outrage of the Month was a clear winner, simply because it stunningly reveals how many in our government do not want to believe that there is an Islamic political ideology that fuels the rising tide of terrorism threatening the world.

According to reports in sources such as the Financial Times and others, Charles Allen, the senior intelligence official at the Department of Homeland Security, urged that the West needs to stop using the term "war on terror" because, he says, "it creates animus in Islamic countries."

Allen went on to say this "has nothing to do with political correctness...It is interpreted in the Muslim world as a war on Islam..."

Note that the term Allen argues against, "war on terror", doesn't even include the word "Islamic." So even a generic "war on terror" is too offensive to Muslims?

The reports go on to address concerns among American Muslims and some in government that such phrases as "the war on terror" imply that all Muslims are terrorists.

So, let's examine the "illogic" of all of this.

The vast majority of terrorist acts worldwide are committed by Muslims (10,000 and counting just since 9/11).

The ideology of political Islam, clearly spelled out in hundreds and hundreds of passages in the Qur'an, Hadith and Sira, the holy books of Islam, calls for killing and subjugating "kafirs" (non-Muslims).

Dozens of Islamic terrorist organizations around the world refer to the holy books of Islam as the rationale for their actions.

The prophet Mohammed, the "ideal man" and the recognized role model for Muslims everywhere, engaged in over 60 different acts of violence against non-Muslims over a nine year period.

Over the past 1,400 years, Islamic conquests have resulted in the deaths of approximately 270 million non-Muslims.

Yet a vague "war on terror" description should be scrapped because of concerns that it implies all Muslims are terrorists?

Of course all Muslims aren't terrorists. Most Muslims aren't terrorists.

But when was the last time you saw hundreds of thousands of terrorists demonstrating to protest the terrorist activities of al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc.? Or saw a Muslim leader publicly renounce the 75% of the Sira (the life of Mohammed) that is about jihad? Or renounce the 200+ passages about violent jihad contained in the Bukhari Hadith, regarded as one of the two most authoritative accounts of the sayings and traditions of Mohammed?

Instead, let's ask this question: If Islamic terrorism were to end tomorrow, how much terrorism would there still be in the world?

We know the answer.

'He cried Allah Akhbar and hit the gas'

(Compiler's note: Can you actually believe that a soldier on leave would be armed? I'm just saying ... )

He was a soldier home on leave, riding his bike down Jaffa Road on Wednesday when he spotted the overturned No. 13 bus and a massive bulldozer tearing through the streets of Jerusalem. Realizing that the Arab behind the wheel was in the midst of a terror rampage, "M" (his identity and unit are barred from publication by a court order) threw his bike to the side of the road and began to chase the bulldozer. ...

Deal lets U.S. drones strike bin Laden

The United States has a standing agreement with Pakistan that CIA-operated Predator drones may strike Osama bin Laden's hide-out without prior permission from Islamabad, according to people familiar with the arrangement. ...

... Pakistan prohibits American military ground forces on its soil, limiting the U.S. presence to scores of CIA officers and paramilitary operators. ...

Young illegal immigrants lose their San Francisco sanctuary

SAN FRANCISCO -- California's best-known sanctuary city -- a haven for illegal immigrants -- has been escorting convicted juvenile offenders back to their home countries at city expense for nearly a generation and shielding them from federal officials in the process.

But after several recent embarrassing incidents, this famously liberal enclave has been forced to reconsider how it deals with young undocumented criminals. ...

Negotiating with Terrorists

The following is a spiritual perspective on the news from one of the leading elder statesmen of the Messianic Jewish movement, Israeli Dr. Daniel Juster. This view is information I wish every Christian knew. This should give intercessors excellent target-acquisition for the times.

The Debate on Negotiating with Terrorists

By Daniel Juster

JERUSALEM/July 2: Last May, a verbal firestorm erupted between President George W. Bush, Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama. The occasion was President Bush's visit to Israel and his address to the Israeli Parliament (the Knesset). The speech was very well received. In spite of his poor approval rating in the States, the President is very popular in Israel. In his speech, the President sharply criticized those who believe that we should negotiate with terrorists; he equated this orientation with appeasement. The Israeli leadership applauded his stand. However, a few days later (much to Israel's embarrassment), the Jerusalem Post revealed that Israel had been negotiating via Egyptian mediation with Hamas for a cease fire.

Senator Obama took issue with Bush; he reacted as if he was the object of the President's criticism. Democrats cried, 'Foul!' countering that the President used a state visit to Israel to play politics and unfairly criticize Senator Obama. They asked John McCain to repudiate what Bush had said. Senator McCain, however, stood with President Bush and said that Senator Obama was naïve in saying that he would negotiate with sponsors of terrorism without preconditions. McCain asked, what would Obama say to convince them that their behavior was wrong and that they should change? Obama's position would undermine the public stand of the United States and European powers not to negotiate with Hamas as long as they do not accept the existence of srael. Negotiations would surely empower Hamas. The President believes that political isolation, economic boycotts and military intervention against terrorists is the right policy.

Senator Obama responded eloquently by stating that negotiation was neither weakness nor appeasement. Reagan negotiated with the Russian communists as did Kennedy, with respect to the Cuba missile crisis. However, Russia was at that time the leader of a communist empire that controlled one third of the world. Kennedy's negotiations with Russia included an ultimatum! I do not think that Obama has this in mind. Obama criticized the President for the predicaments to which the United States is currently exposed: the Iraq war, Iran becoming more of a problem and political and military failure in Afghanistan. He then went on to argue that a significant reason for these problems was the U.S. lack of strong engagement by negotiations. Surely, this topic will be a central part of the campaign in the fall.

Is the Problem Lack of Negotiation?

My view of the situation is at odds with Senator Obama; living in the Middle East has clarified my perspective on the issues. I do not believe that the problem is lack of negotiations. Rather, the issue is primarily an unwillingness to enforce standards. This is an endemic problem among Western powers. In addition, Any negotiated position, cease fire, etc., legitimizes the terrorists, proclaims Western weakness, emboldens Islamic radicals, and is only a temporary lull for the sake of building a more fierce and violent Islamic offense. This view has been confirmed in public by Hamas spokesmen. many Westerners do not believe that Islamic radicals really act primarily out of religious convictions; they assume they are motivated by politics as they themselves are. However, these convictions are unshakable.The religious motivation of Islamic fascism simply will not compromise, split the difference, or embrace long term peace.

I believe there is only one answer to Islamic fascism and that is to defeat it. The reason we have not made progress is not for lack of negotiation. There is plenty of that; a good example is the European carrot and stick diplomacy being attempted with Iran. The real problem is that the carrot is large and the stick is very small. The large carrot is not working, because Iran wants nuclear weapons. So far, the sanctions have been very limited and strong sanctions have been rejected by the U.N. Security Council, largely due to Russian and Chinese pressure.

Recently the Swiss and the Austrians have made significant business deals with Iran for gas production and trade. The United States howled, as did Israel, but to no avail. Iran is able to buy weapons, arm Hamas and Hezbollah and wreck havoc in Lebanon. When Reagan negotiated with the Russians, it was from a place of real strength, because the Soviets were in severe decline. They accepted an agreement that benefited the U. S. in order to save themselves from economic disaster. No such situation exists in Iran today.

Really, the central issue is not of talking or not talking; though I do not think we should lend credibility to terrorists by talks without preconditions. Rather, the issue is standing up to the terrorists and enforcing very strong sanctions. If that does not work, the Western powers should be prepared to use strong military action. Radical Islam despises the weakness of the West. The spread of radical Islam is partly fueled by the perception that they are winning against the weak and fearful West. President Bush's failure to de-fang Iran and Syria is not through lack of negotiation, but because the Western allies are not willing to grasp the nettle and take strong measures. So we talk tough and act weak. The President has not acted according to "cowboy diplomacy." Toughness has not been tried and found wanting. It has not been tried!

The Response of the West

The history of backing down before Islamic radicalism is not pretty and has produced a very dangerous world. President Carter failed to stand up to the terrorists who kidnapped the U.S. embassy staff in Iran. This only served to embolden the radicals. At the time it may have seemed as if they could not truly be players on the world stage but the West's lack of fortitude has allowed a rogue nation to export terrorism across the globe. The Shah's regime had many flaws but is far preferable to the Islamic fascist dictatorship under the Ayatollahs. During the Reagan administration the U.S. failed to act in Lebanon. After the terrorists bombed the U.S. marine barracks and killed over two hundred personnel, defense secretary, Casper Weinberger, unilaterally disobeyed Reagan and refused to convey the order to retaliate. Reagan backed down!

I watched this with grief and dismay. The U.S. should have retaliated and demonstrated to the terrorists that their actions would bring swift and painful consequences. Instead, the U.S. pulled out. Lebanon was meant to be a safe haven for Arab Christians - half of them have now fled the country. It was a truly lovely country but the U.S. did nothing to counter the radical Islamic agenda.

The same lack of resolve moved the U.S. to push for Palestinian elections. The consequences were a disaster, with Hamas being elected. When will the Western politicians learn that absolute democracy is not necessarily just? 51% can vote to destroy the 49%. Political parties that espouse terrorism should be illegal. The Nazi party is illegal in Germany and other parts of Europe. Why did the U.S. force elections on Israel where Hamas could run? How foolish!

How Dangerous is Islamic Fascism?

When Senator Obama says that the threat from Iran and Islamic radicals is less than the former threat posed by the Soviet Union, he is really missing the main issues. The Russians were interested in preserving the world. In addition, they were a disciplined world force with centralized power in Moscow. If Moscow had fired a nuclear missile, there would have been an assured and instant retaliation. The calling card would be clear. This prevented Russia from doing so.

Would Iran send a nuclear missile against Tel Aviv if they acquire the ability? Perhaps, but that would be dangerous for them, since the world would know who was responsible and retaliation would be swift, certain and punitive. But here is the danger: the Islamic radicals are decentralized and fight an asymmetric war of terror. They would be glad to secretly plant a nuclear bomb in New York, Washington or Tel Aviv. A whole city and more could be destroyed. Against whom do we retaliate? Iran could as easily arrange for one of their proxies to put a device off shore from Tel Aviv and set it off, or plant a suitcase bomb in Washington. Terrorist nations would deny involvement. Who do we bomb? Do we bomb Tehran? Do we bomb the Al Qaeda camps? The danger is enormous.

Has President Bush Acted with too much Belligerence?

President Bush has stood up against Islamic terror more than any world leader, but he has had little support from Congress and the Western allies. The issue is not too much bluster, but too much bluffing. The U.S. cannot even get significant military contributions from Europe in the Afghan theater. The radicals know the West is weak. Unless we wake up and realize that we are in World War III, we will soon be in deep, deep trouble. We should heed Islamic terror scholar Steve Emerson on these matters. Emerson explains that the goal is not just to destroy Israel, but to conquer the whole world and establish a global Muslim caliphate. The vilest methods are acceptable. Western nations are mired in relativism and do not act with strength.

Islamic Hatred for Israel is a Source for Hope!

The central focus of Islamic terror and hatred is Israel, all other foci - the U.S., the West and India - are secondary, and yet we have great hope. Why? Because the destiny of Israel is to be a supernatural power to break the back of Islamic terror. This will lead to a great harvest in the Muslim nations of the world. We live in an impossible situation in Israel but in these difficult days, more and more Israelis are finding their Messiah, eshua of Nazareth. This is the situation that the prophets foresaw long ago. Whatever plans men or demons may have they are not taking the One who sits in heaven by surprise. The sure Word of God will prevail - this is our unyielding anchor of hope.