Fear of Islam? You Betcha!

by Ruth King

.... Is it irrational or bigoted to fear them? No. It's prudent.

We should demand that our elected legislators consider our safety and homeland security and confront and condemn putative terrorists and those who aid and abet them instead of pandering to the whining and pretended “victimhood” of those who would destroy us. I am afraid for our country. I fear creeping Sharia, and it is high time for the purported great majority of peaceful Musle\ims to speak out loudly and forcefully against fanatical hatred of Jews and Christians and to denounce violence and terrorism and dreams of a global Caliphate....

Bush's Legacy: European Socialism

By Dick Morris

The results of the G-20 economic summit amount to nothing less than the seamless integration of the United States into the European economy. In one month of legislation and one diplomatic meeting, the United States has unilaterally abdicated all the gains for the concept of free markets won by the Reagan administration and surrendered, in toto, to the Western European model of socialism, stagnation and excessive government regulation. Sovereignty is out the window. Without a vote, we are suddenly members of the European Union. Given the dismal record of those nations at creating jobs and sustaining growth, merger with the Europeans is like a partnership with death.

At the G-20 meeting, Bush agreed to subject the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and our other regulatory agencies to the supervision of a global entity that would critique its regulatory standards and demand changes if it felt they were necessary. Bush agreed to create a college of Supervisors.

According to The Washington Post, it would "examine the books of major financial institutions that operate across national borders so regulators could begin to have a more complete picture of banks' operations."

Their scrutiny would extend to hedge funds and to various "exotic" financial instruments. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), a European-dominated operation, would conduct "regular vigorous reviews" of American financial institutions and practices. The European-dominated College of Supervisors would also weigh in on issues like executive compensation and investment practices.

There is nothing wrong with the substance of this regulation. Experience is showing it is needed. But it is very wrong to delegate these powers to unelected, international institutions with no political accountability.

We have a Securities and Exchange Commission appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, both of whom are elected by the American people. It is with the SEC, the Treasury and the Federal Reserve that financial accountability must take place.

The European Union achieved this massive subrogation of American sovereignty the way it usually does, by negotiation, gradual bureaucratic encroachment, and without asking the voters if they approve. What's more, Bush appears to have gone down without a fight, saving his debating time for arguing against the protectionism that France's Nicolas Sarkozy was pushing. By giving Bush a seeming victory on a moratorium against protectionism for one year, Sarkozy was able to slip over his massive scheme for taking over the supervision of the U.S. economy.

All kinds of political agendas are advancing under the cover of response to the global financial crisis. Where Franklin Roosevelt saved capitalism by regulating it, Bush, to say nothing of Obama, has given the government control over our major financial and insurance institutions. And it isn't even our government! The power has now been transferred to the international community, led by the socialists in the European Union.

Will Obama govern from the left? He doesn't have to. George W. Bush has done all the heavy lifting for him. It was under Bush that the government basically took over as the chief stockholder of our financial institutions and under Bush that we ceded our financial controls to the European Union. In doing so, he has done nothing to preserve what differentiates the vibrant American economy from those dying economies in Europe. Why have 80 percent of the jobs that have been created since 1980 in the industrialized world been created in the United States? How has America managed to retain its leading 24 percent share of global manufacturing even in the face of the Chinese surge? How has the U.S. GDP risen so high that it essentially equals that of the European Union, which has 50 percent more population? It has done so by an absence of stifling regulation, a liberation of capital to flow to innovative businesses, low taxes, and by a low level of unionization that has given business the flexibility to grow and prosper. Europe, stagnated by taxation and regulation, has grown by a pittance while we have roared ahead. But now Bush -- not Obama -- Bush has given that all up and caved in to European socialists.

The Bush legacy? European socialism. Who needs enemies with friends like Bush?

Let Detroit Go Bankrupt

By MITT ROMNEY

IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check. ....

Why Bankruptcy Is the Best Option for GM

Chapter 11 would better preserve the valuable parts of the company than an ad hoc bailout.

Phoenix Imam Tells Muslims To Disregard U.S. Laws

by Robert Spencer

“A Muslim must try his best to abide by the rulings of Sharia [Islamic law] whenever possible as much as he can. He should not allow himself to be liable to those western laws that contradict the clear-cut Islamic rulings.” The rulings of Sharia, mind you, include stoning for adultery, amputation of the hand for theft, and institutionalized discrimination against women and non-Muslims. But the speaker was not some fanatic Wahhabi in Saudi Arabia; it was the Phoenix-based imam Omar Shahin, president of the North American Imams Foundation. This is probably one reason why, as The Arizona Republic reported Monday, the FBI has stepped up scrutiny of Shahin and other Muslim leaders in Phoenix.

Omar Shahin has been in the news before. He is the spokesman for a group of six imams who sued US Airways after being removed from a flight in 2006 when passengers and crewmembers reported that they were behaving suspiciously. The imams were handcuffed and later interrogated, then released with no charges, whereupon Shahin led a news conference to condemn prejudice against Muslims. All six imams later sued the airline, airport police and an FBI agent, claiming they had been singled out solely because they were Muslim. “We did nothing,” Shahin maintained in a report on Boston Herald.com -- and the Council on American Islamic Relations seized on the incident as evidence of American “Islamophobia.” “We are concerned that crew members, passengers and security personnel may have succumbed to fear and prejudice based on stereotyping of Muslims and Islam,” said CAIR’s executive director, Nihad Awad, in the same report.

The imams also initially sued the anonymous passengers who reported them, before House Republicans pushed through a measure protecting whistleblowers in such circumstances. As I discuss in my new book Stealth Jihad, if this initiative had been successful, the only winners would have been Islamic jihadists who wanted to hijack airplanes. Any ruling against the passengers would have essentially placed Muslims beyond the pale of security-related scrutiny, because someone who reported suspicious behavior by a Muslim in an airport or airplane would have faced a real risk of being sued for discrimination.

Shahin’s questionable activities didn’t begin with this lawsuit, either. In the '80s, he was an imam at the Islamic Center of Tucson, which the Republic identified as “a hub for adherents to the radical Wahhabi school of Islam, some of whom later became important aides to Osama bin Laden in the al-Qaida terrorist group.” The report by Sean Holstege and Dennis Wagner also notes that Shahin raised funds for two Islamic charities that were ultimately shut down on accusations that they were funneling contributions to the jihad terrorist group Hamas.

Yet despite all this, “Shahin has served as a Muslim community liaison with the FBI and the Phoenix police,” according to the Republic. How did a man with a record like Shahin’s ever get into the good graces of the FBI? He was able to do so because many officials in positions of influence in the United States are standing by passively as the stealth jihad advances. They are ignorant of what is happening, and those who do know are making sure not to tell them. Willfully blind officials appear dedicated to “multiculturalism” and “diversity” no matter what the cost. They hinder the investigation of and resistance to the stealth jihad.

There is no gauging the extent of stealth jihadist infiltration into American intelligence and law enforcement agencies. But there is no question that the chief enabler of that infiltration has been political correctness among American officials. In this great war against the global jihad network, no one wants to appear anti-Arab or anti-Muslim -- and this has led more or less directly to some serious lapses in national security.

If America is to survive, it is eventually going to have to choose national security over political correctness -- and call upon Islamic leaders like Omar Shahin to stop teaching Muslims in the U.S. to disregard American laws when they conflict with Islamic norms. The spectacle of the FBI increasing scrutiny of a man whom they have worked with in the past is ludicrous beyond belief. How many more imams in America will teach Muslims that when Islamic law and U.S. law contradict each other, it is U.S. law that must give way, before those sworn to uphold and defend U.S. law wake up to what is happening?

Britain grapples with role for Islamic justice

Osama warns Obama

By TOM WELLS

TERROR group al-Qaeda yesterday launched its first attack on US President-elect Barack Obama.

CAIRO, Egypt — Al Qaeda's No. 2 leader used a racial epithet to insult Barack Obama in a message posted Wednesday, describing the president-elect in demeaning terms that imply he does the bidding of whites.

The message appeared chiefly aimed at persuading Muslims and Arabs that Obama does not represent a change in U.S. policies. Ayman al-Zawahiri said in the message, which appeared on militant Web sites, that Obama is "the direct opposite of honorable black Americans" like Malcolm X, the 1960s African-American rights leader.

In Al Qaeda's first response to Obama's victory, al-Zawahiri also called the president-elect — along with secretaries of state Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice — "house Negroes."

Click here to watch a clip of the video.

Click here to view the English translation of Zawahiri's message.

In a chilling broadcast, Osama Bin Laden’s second-in-command warned Obama to end America’s war against the Taliban.

He told him: “The dogs of Afghanistan have found the flesh of your soldiers to be delicious, so send thousands after thousands of them.”

The warning by Ayman Al-Zawahiri — mastermind of the 9/11 attacks — follows Obama’s vow to take the fight to the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The terror boss said: “You are neither facing individuals not organisations, but are facing a Jihadi (holy warrior) awakening and renaissance which is shaking the pillars of the entire Islamic world.”

Al-Zawahiri, 57, slammed Obama for not becoming a Muslim like his father. And he accused America of “drowning in greed” and spreading “evil, murder and despotism”.

He also branded Obama and US politician Colin Powell “house negroes” — doing the bidding of white leaders.

The Sun was the first news organisation to uncover the rant on al-Qaeda’s website. Within hours it had flooded extremist websites worldwide.

Terror expert Glen Jenvey said of the broadcast: “It’s importance cannot be underestimated.”

Facts we should know

(Compiler's note: Source a friend.)

Apparently, Benjamin Netanyahu gave an interview and was asked about Israel's occupation of Arab lands -- his response was "It's our land." The reporter (CNN or the like) was stunned -- read below "It's our land..."

It's important information since we don't get fair and accurate reporting from the media and facts tend to get lost in the jumble of daily events.

"Crash Course on the Arab Israeli Conflict."

Here are overlooked facts in the current Middle East situation.

These were compiled by a Christian university professor.

BRIEF FACTS ON THE ISRAELI CONFLICT TODAY....
( It takes just 1.5 minutes to read! !!! )

It makes sense and it's not slanted. Jew and non-Jew -- it doesn't matter.

1. Nationhood and Jerusalem . Israel became a nation in 1312 B.C.E. Two thousand years before the rise of Islam.

2. Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part of a Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the modern State of Israel .

3. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 B.C.E., the Jews have had dominion over the land for one thousand years with a continuous presence in the land for the past 3,300 years.

4. The only Arab dominion since the conquest in 635 C.E. lasted no more than 22 years.

5. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem, they never sought to make it their capital, and Arab leaders did not come to visit.

6. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanach, the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran.

7. King David founded the city of Jerusalem. Mohammed never came to Jerusalem.

8. Jews pray facing Jerusalem. Muslims pray with their backs toward Jerusalem .

9. Arab and Jewish Refugees: In 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews. Sixty-eight percent left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier.

10 The Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands due to Arab brutality, persecution and pogroms.

11. The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated to be around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is estimated to be the same.

12. Arab refugees were INTENTIONALLY not absorbed or integrated into the Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory. Out of the 100,000,000 refugees since World War II, theirs is the only refugee group in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated into their own peoples' lands. Jewish refugees were completely absorbed into Israel, a country no larger than the state of New Jersey ..

13. The Arab - Israeli Conflict: The Arabs are represented by eight separate nations, not including the Palestinians. There is only one Jewish nation. The Arab nations initiated all five wars and lost. Israel defended itself each time and won.

14. The P.L.O.'s Charter still calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. Israel has given the Palestini ans most of the West Bank land, autonomy under the Palestinian Authority, and has supplied them.

15. Under Jordanian rule, Jewish holy sites were desecrated and the Jews were denied access to places of worship. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and Christian sites have been preserved and made accessible to people of all faiths.

16. The U.N. Record on Israel and the Arabs: of the 175 Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel .

17. Of the 690 G eneral Assembly resol utions voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel .

18. The U.N was silent while 58 Jerusalem Synagogues were destroyed by the Jordanians.

19. The U.N. Was silent while the Jordanians systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives .

20. The U.N. Was silent while the Jordanians enforced an apartheid-like a policy of preventing Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the Western Wall.

These are incredible times. We have to ask what our role should be. What will we tell our grandchildren we did when there was a turning point in Jewish destiny, an opportunity to make a difference?

Tainted meats point to superbug C. diff in food

....Nearly 30 percent of the contaminated samples of ground beef, pork and turkey and ready-to-eat meats like summer sausage were identical or closely related to a super-toxic strain of C. diff blamed for growing rates of illness and death in the U.S. — raising the possibility that the bacterial infections may be transmitted through food..... But specialists from the CDC and scientists who study C. diff said the connection between the presence of C. diff bacteria and infection has not been established and that there’s not enough evidence about food transmission to warrant public alarm. ....

Why socialism is evil

(Compiler's note: Some of our younger citizens are asking "What is wrong with Socialism? Some of our older elected citizens seem to be in the dark as well.)

by Walter E. Williams

Evil acts can be given an aura of moral legitimacy by noble-sounding socialistic expressions such as spreading the wealth, income redistribution or caring for the less fortunate. Let's think about socialism.

Imagine there's an elderly widow down the street from you. She has neither the strength to mow her lawn nor enough money to hire someone to do it. Here's my question to you, and I'm almost afraid for the answer: Would you support a government mandate that forces one of your neighbors to mow the lady's lawn each week? If he failed to follow the government orders, would you approve of some kind of punishment ranging from house arrest and fines to imprisonment? I'm hoping that the average American would condemn such a government mandate because it would be a form of slavery, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.

Would there be the same condemnation if instead of the government forcing your neighbor to physically mow the widow's lawn, the government forced him to give the lady $40 of his weekly earnings? That way the widow could hire someone to mow her lawn. I'd say that there is little difference between the mandates. While the mandate's mechanism differs, it is nonetheless the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.

Probably most Americans would have a clearer conscience if all the neighbors were forced to put money in a government pot and a government agency

would send the widow a weekly sum of $40 to hire someone to mow her lawn. This mechanism makes the particular victim invisible, but it still boils down to one person being forcibly used to serve the purposes of another. Putting the money into a government pot makes palatable acts that would otherwise be deemed morally offensive.

This is why socialism is evil. It employs evil means, coercion or taking the property of one person, to accomplish good ends, helping one's fellow man. Helping one's fellow man in need, by reaching into one's own pockets, is a laudable and praiseworthy goal. Doing the same through coercion and reaching into another's pockets has no redeeming features and is worthy of condemnation.

Some people might contend that we are a democracy where the majority agrees to the forcible use of one person for the good of another. But does a majority consensus confer morality to an act that would otherwise be deemed as immoral? In other words, if a majority of the widow's neighbors voted to force one neighbor to mow her law, would that make it moral?

I don't believe any moral case can be made for the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another. But that conclusion is not nearly as important as the fact that so many of my fellow Americans give wide support to using people. I would like to think it is because they haven't considered that more than $2 trillion of the over $3 trillion federal budget represents Americans using one another. Of course, they might consider it compensatory justice. For example, one American might think, "Farmers get Congress to use me to serve the needs of some farmers. I'm going to get Congress to use someone else to serve my needs by subsidizing my child's college education."

The bottom line is that we've become a nation of thieves, a value rejected by our founders. James Madison, the father of our Constitution, was horrified when Congress appropriated $15,000 to help French refugees. He said, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Tragically, today's Americans would run Madison out of town on a rail.