USC Muslim students: "We are outraged at the censorship of a complete religious and classic text without consulting us or religious authority first

By Jihad Watch

Nor does the fact that the "religious" and "classic" Muslim text in question promotes the genocide of Jews seem to matter much to these "outraged" Muslims. One must question, however, if deleting such texts is a good or bad move. Muslims will still have access to innumerable Muslim sites and books that still promote Jewish genocide -- not to mention all sorts of other "nasty" things. In many ways, then, the only people who will no longer know about these things are infidels searching through USC's hadiths. More on this story.

"Deleted site causes stir for Muslim organization: Provost Nikias takes down posted documents calling on Muslims to kill Jews," by Ashley Archibald for the Daily Trojan, September 5:

Provost C. L. Max Nikias has approved the deletion of part of a Muslim student group website that hosted religious documents urging Muslims to kill Jewish people. The material was removed from a collection of scriptures known as hadiths, historical sayings of the Prophet Muhammad not included in the Quran. The hadith in question, along with thousands of others, are hosted in their entirety on a USC server as part of the now defunct Muslim Student Association's website.

Nikias first heard of the hadiths' phrasing when Rabbi Aron Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a Jewish human-rights organization, approached USC trustee Alan Casden with his concerns. Hier was troubled by five hadiths advocating Muslim violence against Jews to hasten the coming of the "final hour."

Nikias reviewed the site, and responded that "the passage cited is truly despicable. … We did some investigations and have ordered the passage to be removed."

Members of the Muslim Student Union, which is the dominant Muslim student organization on campus but which is not associated with the MSA [officially, anyway], declined to be interviewed, but in a statement, they called Nikias' actions "unprecedented and unconscionable" and said they amounted to unwarranted censorship. Nikias did not consult the group before he took down the hadith, they said.

Really, what sort of dhimmi does not consult his Islamic overlords? Not a good one obviously. ....

Palin and the Culture Wars

Contributed by Maurine Proctor By now it is not news that the mainstream media is working overtime to smear, beat up and eviscerate Sarah Palin. It is so over the top that it is impossible to even pretend that it is just objective journalism or the reporters' chance to vet a vice-presidential candidate. We mention it here because it is a stark reminder of how real the culture war is in this country and how high the stakes. There are those in very high places, who consider themselves the elite of the country, who occupy positions of power in the media, the entertainment industry, government and university, who really despise traditional values and anyone so backward as to hold them. They are looking, not just to trample them, but ultimately to destroy them so that they can remake the nation in their own image. They hate Palin because she is a feisty, vibrant, can-do reformer who represents everything they hope to marginalize. She believes in life, marriage, family and religion. She believes in good and evil, right and wrong and is willing to say it. When faced with giving birth to a Down's Syndrome child that studies show some 90% of parents would have aborted, she not only gave birth to Trig, but says of him, "Sometimes even the greatest joys bring challenge. And children with special needs inspire a special love." Governor Palin has the Left shivering because she can be such a powerful force to rally the enthusiasm and hope of ordinary Americans who still hold traditional values. She has reignited the troops in the culture war. Examples abound of Palin's shoddy treatment. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd compares her nomination to watching a chick flick. She writes: "This chick flick, naturally, features a wild stroke of fate, when the two-year governor of an oversized igloo becomes commander in chief after the president-elect chokes on a pretzel on day one. "The P.T.A. is great preparation for dealing with the K.G.B.," President Palin murmurs to Todd, as they kiss in the final scene while she changes Trig's diaper. "Now that Georgia's safe, how 'bout I cook you up some caribou hot dogs and moose stew for dinner, babe?" Gloria Steinem offered this in an opinion column, "This isn't the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need." Voices like these hope to quiet and cow her. But she answers with the kind of spunk that may fire everybody involved in the quest to maintain a moral America. "Here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion. I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country," she said. Writing in the National Review online, Michael Knox Beran notes, "The deeper division which Gov. Palin's selection has exposed is religious. Palin has called herself a "Bible-believing Christian." The idea that a person formed in such a troglodytic, pre-Enlightenment school should hold a high place in the government frightens a class that believes, with all the certainty of its Ivy League vision of the world, that Bible-believing Christians are a threat to the republic."

Palin and Abstinence Education After the media learned that Palin's 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, is pregnant, the value of abstinence education has been widely attacked and belittled. The argument, of course, is that here is one of the governors who accepts federal funding for abstinence education in her state, and it is obviously clear that it doesn't work. The laugh is supposed to be on all those who would be so truly daft as to believe that teenagers can learn to abstain from sex. In fact, they may even want to. Now, the Left has one more tool to use in their campaign against abstinence. And make no doubt it is a campaign. Here is a trend that should alarm you and has gone nearly unreported. According to First Things, "The ACLU and Planned Parenthood have teamed up in an aggressive campaign over the past several years-a campaign to pressure states to eliminate abstinence education and to reject federal funding for these programs. And though their work hasn't drawn much attention, it has been remarkably successful. A year ago, only four states refused federal abstinence-education funding. Today the number is seventeen. The goal is to get enough states to refuse the federal abstinence-education funding to the point where the ACLU and Planned Parenthood can convince Congress to eliminate such funding entirely."

Tactial Laser Could Work Like Long-Range Napalm

In science fiction, it's one zap of a laser gun, and you're dead. But real-life energy weapons likely won't work that way.

Take the Advanced Tactical Laser (ATL) that U.S. Special Forces have begun to test-fire. Intended for "covert strikes," the ATL has been sold on its ability to blast away with pinpoint accuracy. A very rough estimate shows, however, that the effects when you target an individual are not quite what you might expect.

.... Bullets are lethal when they damage a vital organ (like the heart or the brain) or when they cause rapid blood loss. Most likely, a laser of this type would not easily be able to go deep enough to affect a vital organ. Plus, the laser would will be self-cauterizing, with the heat sealing off blood vessels. It's not going to kill you quickly.

While research in this area tends to be classified. But from what we know, the Air Force considers laser effects on eyes and skin, for the most part. Skin damage is very much easier to achieve than penetration; simply raising skin temperature to (say) 80C/ 180 f to a depth of a couple of millimeters will cause serious blistering (second-third degree burns). If 40% of the body is burned in this way, then the target will be disabled and may die.

A rough calculation suggests that exposed skin would be blistered/burned in under a twentieth of a second, so the beam could play over the target at quite a high rate. It's unclear whether clothing would have much protective effect or whether it would simply ignite and cause secondary burns.

So instead of "zap-and-you're-dead" in normal science fiction style, with a hundred kilowatt laser, it's more a matter of spraying the target all over to ensure they're done. The description of the ATL as a "long range blow torch" is probably quite accurate. ....

The Value of Service

Lt. Col. Mark Murphy, 354th Maintenance Group deputy commander.

Commentary by Lt. Col. Mark Murphy
354th Maintenance Group deputy commander

8/15/2008 - EIELSON AIR FORCE BASE, Alaska -- I learned a big lesson on service Aug. 4, 2008, when Eielson had the rare honor of hosting President Bush on a refueling stop as he traveled to Asia.

It was an event Eielson will never forget -- a hangar full of Airmen and Soldiers getting to see the Commander in Chief up close, and perhaps even shaking his hand. An incredible amount of effort goes into presidential travel because of all of the logistics, security, protocol, etc ... so it was remarkable to see Air Force One land at Eielson on time at precisely 4:30 p.m.--however, when he left less than two hours later, the President was 15 minutes behind schedule.

That's a big slip for something so tightly choreographed, but very few people know why it happened. Here's why.

On Dec. 10, 2006, our son, Shawn, was a paratrooper deployed on the outskirts of Baghdad. He was supposed to spend the night in camp, but when a fellow soldier became ill Shawn volunteered to take his place on a nighttime patrol--in the convoy's most exposed position as turret gunner in the lead Humvee. He was killed instantly with two other soldiers when an IED ripped through their vehicle.

I was thinking about that as my family and I sat in the audience listening to the President's speech, looking at the turret on the up-armored Humvee the explosive ordnance disposal flight had put at the edge of the stage as a static display.

When the speech was over and the President was working the crowd line, I felt a tap on my shoulder and turned to see a White House staff member. She asked me and my wife to come with her, because the President wanted to meet us.

Stunned, we grabbed our two sons that were with us and followed her back into a conference room. It was a shock to go from a crowded, noisy hangar, past all of those security people, to find ourselves suddenly alone in a quiet room.

The only thing we could hear was a cell phone vibrating, and noticed that it was coming from the jacket Senator Stevens left on a chair. We didn't answer.

A short time later, the Secret Service opened the door and President Bush walked in. I thought we might get to shake his hand as he went through. But instead, he walked up to my wife with his arms wide, pulled her in for a hug and a kiss, and said, "I wish I could heal the hole in your heart." He then grabbed me for a hug, as well as each of our sons. Then he turned and said, "Everybody out."

A few seconds later, the four of us were completely alone behind closed doors with the President of the United States and not a Secret Service agent in sight.

He said, "Come on, let's sit down and talk." He pulled up a chair at the side of the room, and we sat down next to him. He looked a little tired from his trip, and he noticed that his shoes were scuffed up from leaning over concrete barriers to shake hands and pose for photos. He slumped down the chair, completely relaxed, smiled, and suddenly was no longer the President - he was just a guy with a job, sitting around talking with us like a family member at a barbeque.

For the next 15 or 20 minutes, he talked with us about our son, Iraq, his family, faith, convictions, and shared his feelings about nearing the end of his presidency. He asked each of our teenaged sons what they wanted to do in life and counseled them to set goals, stick to their convictions, and not worry about being the "cool" guy.

He said that he'd taken a lot of heat during his tenure and was under a lot of pressure to do what's politically expedient, but was proud to say that he never sold his soul. Sometimes he laughed, and at others he teared up. He said that what he'll miss most after leaving office will be his role as Commander in Chief.

One of the somber moments was when he thanked us for the opportunity to meet, because he feels a heavy responsibility knowing that our son died because of a decision he made. He was incredibly humble, full of warmth, and completely without pretense. We were seeing the man his family sees.

We couldn't believe how long he was talking to us, but he seemed to be in no hurry whatsoever. In the end, he thanked us again for the visit and for the opportunity to get off his feet for a few minutes. He then said, "Let's get some pictures." The doors flew open, Secret Service and the White House photographer came in, and suddenly he was the President again. We posed for individual pictures as he gave each of us one of his coins, and then he posed for family pictures. A few more thank yous, a few more hugs, and he was gone.

The remarkable thing about the whole event was that he didn't have to see us at all. If he wanted to do more, he could've just given a quick handshake and said, "Thanks for your sacrifice." But he didn't - he put everything and everyone in his life on hold to meet privately with the family of a Private First Class who gave his life in the service of his country.

What an incredible lesson on service. If the President of the United States is willing to drop everything on his plate to visit with a family, surely the rest of us can do it. No one is above serving another person, and no one is so lofty that he or she can't treat others with dignity and respect.

We often think of service in terms of sacrificing ourselves for someone in a position above us, but how often do we remember that serving someone below us can be much more important? If you're in a leadership capacity, take a good look at how you're treating your people, and remember that your role involves serving the people you rely on every day.

OIC's "blasphemy" laws "turning freedom of expression into restriction of expression"

by Dhimmi Watch

More on this story here and here. "Attempts to shut down criticism of Islam are still on the table at the UN," from National Secular Society, September 5:

The National Secular Society, together with the International Humanist and Ethical Union, has been working over the past year to try to raise the alarm about the concerted efforts by Islamic groups to write blasphemy laws into international human rights legislation.

Our efforts seem to be paying off, as other countries and organisations begin to appreciate the profound dangers to free speech posed by proposals from the 57-member Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC).

The OIC has sponsored a resolution at the United Nations Human Rights Council entitled “Combating Defamation of Religion.” It has been approved by the UNHRC every year since 2005, and is coming up for renewal in the next couple of months.

But at last the United States and various human rights organisations have woken up to the fact that the OIC resolution is actually an attempt to make “defamation of religion” (and in particular Islam) into an international offence. “Defamation of religion” is a wide ranging concept and can be used to silence any criticism of Islam.

Now U.S. officials have said they hope to persuade “moderate Muslim nations” — among them Senegal, Mali, Nigeria and Indonesia — to reject the measure, which so far lacks the force of law but has provided diplomatic cover for regimes that repress critical speech. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic.

Religious rights groups say other U.N. measures, including statements by the Human Rights Council in Geneva, replicate the language of the resolution.

“Before, it was one resolution with no impact and no implementation,” said Felice Gaer, chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, a bipartisan federal body that investigates abuses and proposes policies to advance freedom of thought, conscience and religion. “Now we are seeing a clear attempt by OIC countries to mainstream the concept and insert it into just about every other topic they can,” Miss Gaer said. “They are turning freedom of expression into restriction of expression.”

European governments are also concerned. The European Centre for Law and Justice filed a brief with the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights in June warning that such anti-defamation resolutions “are in direct violation of international law concerning the rights to freedom of religion and expression.”

U.S. officials working on human rights said the resolutions are being used to justify harsh blasphemy laws in countries such as Pakistan, Egypt, Sudan and Afghanistan.

The American and European governments warn that the resolution — which specifically mentions Islam but no other religions — is “an Orwellian text” that has been used to shut down free speech.

The resolution “replaces the existing objective criterion of limitations on speech where there is an intent to incite hatred or violence against religious believers with a subjective criterion that considers whether the religion or its believers feel offended by the speech,” said the brief by the European Centre for Law and Justice. “In cases we’ve monitored, it’s minority religions — Christians, Baha’i, and non-conforming Muslims” — who are most at risk, Miss Gaer said. “People who want to interpret their religion differently than some of the more orthodox clerics would.”

“This [language] destabilises the whole human rights system,” said Angela Wu, international law director for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a public interest law firm in Washington. “It empowers the state rather than individual, and protects ideas rather than the person who holds them.”

Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the NSS, who has been particularly active in raising awareness in international forums of the dangers of the OIC resolution, said: “It is gratifying that others are at last taking on board the dire threat the OIC proposals pose to free expression. If they are approved and gain some kind of legal credence, we can expect to see prosecutions for blasphemy (or “defamation of religions” as it will be called) all over the world. The Islamist desire to stop all open discussion of Islam will have been achieved.

Michelle's Boot Camps For Radicals

(Compiler's note: You're not likely to hear about this on the evening news from our standard media. Perhaps you remember Obama's pledge to create a "Universal Voluntary Public Service" "stronger than the military'? Well, here's the model, called "Public Allies", already started by him and funded with public money. I don’t know about you, but this is not what I consider we should be doing with tax dollars. It chills me to think about what it means. Here is the link, but the document is also provided in full below.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=305420655186700

Idle thought: how many of these "Public Allies" trainees/graduates were in St. Paul, trying to disrupt the RNC convention, or for that matter, the Democrat convention in Denver? Mighty fine on-the-job training.

I have a friend who chairs a small charity that helps children in Vietnam. In dealing with Vietnam ex-pats here and with Vietnamese in their country, he has come to more fully appreciate the term ‘re-education camp’. Some of his friends spent as many as 14 years being re-educated! This continues today, and one of the most recent uses of these ‘camps’ has been to remove the beggars from the streets of the cities and place them into camps in the hinterlands, away from where any tourists might see the poverty. By the way, don’t forget that Vietnam is a communist country. We need to prevent our country from being led down the path to socialism! rca)

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Election '08: Democrats' reintroduction of militant Michelle Obama in Denver was supposed to show her softer side. But it only highlighted a radical part of her resume: Public Allies.

Barack Obama was a founding member of the board of Public Allies in 1992, resigning before his wife became executive director of the Chicago chapter of Public Allies in 1993. Obama plans to use the nonprofit group, which he features on his campaign Web site, as the model for a national service corps. He calls his Orwellian program, "Universal Voluntary Public Service."

Big Brother had nothing on the Obamas. They plan to herd American youth into government-funded reeducation camps where they'll be brainwashed into thinking America is a racist, oppressive place in need of "social change."

The pitch Public Allies makes on its Web site doesn't seem all that radical. It promises to place young adults (18-30) in paid one-year "community leadership" positions with nonprofit or government agencies. They'll also be required to attend weekly training workshops and three retreats.

In exchange, they'll get a monthly stipend of up to $1,800, plus paid health and child care. They also get a post-service education award of $4,725 that can be used to pay off past student loans or fund future education.

But its real mission is to radicalize American youth and use them to bring about "social change" through threats, pressure, tension and confrontation — the tactics used by the father of community organizing, Saul "The Red" Alinsky.

"Our alumni are more than twice as likely as 18-34 year olds to . . . engage in protest activities," Public Allies boasts in a document found with its tax filings. It has already deployed an army of 2,200 community organizers like Obama to agitate for "justice" and "equality" in his hometown of Chicago and other U.S. cities, including Cincinnati, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New York, Phoenix, Pittsburgh and Washington. "I get to practice being an activist," and get paid for it, gushed Cincinnati recruit Amy Vincent.

Public Allies promotes "diversity and inclusion," a program paper says. More than 70% of its recruits are "people of color." When they're not protesting, they're staffing AIDS clinics, handing out condoms, bailing criminals out of jail and helping illegal aliens and the homeless obtain food stamps and other welfare.

Public Allies brags that more than 80% of graduates have continued working in nonprofit or government jobs. It's training the "next generation of nonprofit leaders" — future "social entrepreneurs."

The Obamas discourage work in the private sector. "Don't go into corporate America," Michelle has exhorted youth. "Work for the community. Be social workers." Shun the "money culture," Barack added. "Individual salvation depends on collective salvation."

"If you commit to serving your community," he pledged in his Denver acceptance speech, "we will make sure you can afford a college education." So, go through government to go to college, and then go back into government.

Many of today's youth find the pitch attractive. "I may spend the rest of my life trying to create social movement," said Brian Coovert of the Cincinnati chapter. "There is always going to be work to do. Until we have a perfect country, I'll have a job."

Not all the recruits appreciate the PC indoctrination. "It was too touchy-feely," said Nelly Nieblas, 29, of the 2005 Los Angeles class. "It's a lot of talk about race, a lot of talk about sexism, a lot of talk about homophobia, talk about -isms and phobias."

One of those -isms is "heterosexism," which a Public Allies training seminar in Chicago describes as a negative byproduct of "capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and male-dominated privilege."

The government now funds about half of Public Allies' expenses through Clinton's AmeriCorps. Obama wants to fully fund it and expand it into a national program that some see costing $500 billion. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the military, he said.

The gall of it: The Obamas want to create a boot camp for radicals who hate the military — and stick American taxpayers with the bill.

Arabs, Muslims "chilled" at thought of McCain-Palin in White House

Now if ever there was a clear indication of which team would prioritize the good of America, this is it: If Arabs and Muslims, two groups, especially the latter, that often make no secret of their hatred of America, are "chilled" by the notion of McCain-Palin in office, is that not evidence of the latter's commitment to the U.S.? "McCain-Palin Ticket Chills Arabs, Muslims," by Sana Abdullah for the Middle East Times, September 5:

AMMAN -- With the U.S. presidential elections just two months away, many Arabs and Muslims are increasingly worried that a victory for another conservative Republican administration will exacerbate the tensions and turbulence that have followed the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.

The events and speeches at the Republican Party convention in Minnesota, which endorsed the candidacy of Arizona Senator John McCain and his running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, were given special attention in the Arab media, as commentators voiced fears that a McCain administration would pursue, perhaps more belligerently, the path of the current government.

As a rule, Arab governments in the region prefer to refrain from showing their preferences in U.S. elections, but the media, including the state-controlled TV and press, have made no secret of their desire to see a new leadership in Washington that is run by Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Senator Barack Obama.

While talking heads have said they did not expect either administration to be more sympathetic to the Arab and Muslim causes, many are now saying that Obama would be the "lesser of two evils" [...].

Others, of course, are simply saying he's an evil, period.

As far as those Arabs and Muslims, who are looking forward to the end of the Bush era are concerned, that change may very well be for the worse. Some have indeed expressed that the prospect of a McCain-Palin victory is nothing less than chilling.

Interestingly, Osama bin Laden is one of those Muslims who have made it a point to demonize Bush and persuade Americans to not vote for him in the 2004 elections. Was that too not proof that Bush was doing something right?

Conclusion: whenever your taqiyya-practicing enemy tries to give you "advice" -- such as who or who not to vote for -- do the opposite.