COMMENT:
I really like the "positives" this proposed Executive Order contains - would stop the immigration protests and make the controversial SB1070 in Arizona effectively null and void. Do they think nobody else is coming across the border now? Is the amnesty for those in the US now, or does it somehow extend to everyone who comes across the border in the future? If not, then Arizona's Bill will be just as effective next week as this week - they're still coming in!!!
What about the economic impact of this Executive Order? Obama just commissioned a panel to examine why the Federal deficit is exploding (results not expected before December). I hope it doesn't contain rocket scientists because that would be a waste of their time. Here's a great way to explode the deficit - take 11 million illegals and give them a blank check to legally get into the welfare and healthcare system. Yep, add 11 million people to the Obamacare portion that the taxpayers have to fund 100% - that's a lot of money that won't go to running our country, BUT it's precisely what Obama's goal has been all along with Obamacare...have the few pay for the majority and have HIS majority dictate how the healthcare system runs.
The only way to float it at all is to have the government handle ALL of the insurance. Yep, bye bye private insurance carriers and bye bye to you keeping your plan, and bye bye to more of your hard-earned money going to cover this "black hole of Federal money."
ARTICLE:
Jody Brown - OneNewsNow - 6/23/2010 2:25:00
Is Barack Obama drafting an executive order that would grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens?
Illegal alien climbing fenceFox News is reporting that a group of Republican senators have asked President Obama to clarify reports that he is drafting a plan to issue blanket amnesty for millions of people who are in the U.S. illegally. The plan would reportedly be unilateral in nature -- circumventing Congress entirely as the administration struggles to gain support on Capitol Hill for what the administration calls "comprehensive immigration reform" -- and be issued in the form of an executive order.
In a letter to the president, says Fox News, Senators Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Orrin Hatch (Utah), David Vitter (Louisiana), Jim Bunning (Kentucky), Saxby Chambliss (Georgia), Johnny Isakson (Georgia), James Inhofe (Oklahoma), and Thad Cochran (Mississippi) have urged the president to "abandon" what they describe as a plan to "unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens...."
The letter, sent to the White House on Monday, argues that such a move "would further erode the American public's confidence in the federal government and its commitment to securing the borders and enforcing the laws already on the books."
Fox News points out that an executive order granting a blanket amnesty would likely stem the high number of immigration-related protests across the country -- and would effectively make null and void the controversial bill signed into law recently by the governor of Arizona that allows state authorities to enforce federal laws regarding illegal immigration.
According to the report, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security estimated last year almost 11-million people live in the United States illegally.
Friday, June 25, 2010
What Have You Done For Me Lately?
COMMENT: Americans seem to be waking up, many voters seem to be swallowing their pride, and admitting that they got sucked in by his silver tongue, just like many did with Clinton. The difference seems to be that it didn't take near as long, mainly because at least Clinton did some positive things for the country (budget) albeit at the expense of our military. Added to Obama's dilemma is that he basically abandoned the majority who voted for him...people are quickly viewing his rhetoric as hollow, and now not he's not even being overwhelmingly viewed as honest - ominous clouds for Democrats but new hope for America!
ARTICLE:
Thu Jun 24, 2:28 pm ET
The White House has been fond of citing turning points lately, most recently when describing the administration's handling of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Now President Obama faces a turning point of his own — and not for the better.
A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll finds Obama's approval rating to be the lowest it's been since he took office 18 months ago. According to the poll, only 45 percent approve of the job Obama is doing in the White House, compared with 48 percent who disapprove. And the numbers only get worse from there: Sixty-two percent of respondents believe the country is on the wrong track — the highest number recorded since just before Election Day in 2008 — and just one-third believe things are going to get better, a 7-point drop since a month ago and the lowest such number in the Obama presidency.
The fallout from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill appears to be the biggest drag on Obama's numbers. Fifty percent disapprove of his handling of the crisis — including one in four Democrats. But generally, the poll finds increasing doubts about Obama as a leader. Just 49 percent of those polled give Obama positive ratings when asked if he has "strong leadership qualities" — that's a decline of 8 points since January and nearly 20 points from when he first took office. Less than half rate him positively when asked if he's "honest and straightforward." In January '09, 63 percent gave him positive marks for "being firm and decisive in decision-making." That number is now at 44 percent. Asked about his "ability to handle a crisis," only 40 percent rate him positively, an 11-point drop since January. You can read the full poll results here.
Obama's biggest problem: He's lost the middle — the so-called independent and moderate voters who are generally given the most credit for his win back in 2008. According to the poll, 52 percent of self-described independent voters disapprove of the job Obama is doing. He's even losing parts of his base. The poll finds Obama with 17 percent disapproval among Democrats — the highest number of his presidency.
None of this is good news for Democrats up for re-election this fall. Beleaguered Democrats had been counting on Obama's coattails to help them, as polls have also showed a historic trend away from the Democratic Party. According to this new poll, the GOP has a 2-point edge over Democrats in the generic congressional ballot — but among voters who describe themselves as most interested in the 2010 midterms, the GOP jumps to a 21-point lead over Democrats.
— Holly Bailey is a senior politics writer for Yahoo! News.
ARTICLE:
Thu Jun 24, 2:28 pm ET
The White House has been fond of citing turning points lately, most recently when describing the administration's handling of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Now President Obama faces a turning point of his own — and not for the better.
A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll finds Obama's approval rating to be the lowest it's been since he took office 18 months ago. According to the poll, only 45 percent approve of the job Obama is doing in the White House, compared with 48 percent who disapprove. And the numbers only get worse from there: Sixty-two percent of respondents believe the country is on the wrong track — the highest number recorded since just before Election Day in 2008 — and just one-third believe things are going to get better, a 7-point drop since a month ago and the lowest such number in the Obama presidency.
The fallout from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill appears to be the biggest drag on Obama's numbers. Fifty percent disapprove of his handling of the crisis — including one in four Democrats. But generally, the poll finds increasing doubts about Obama as a leader. Just 49 percent of those polled give Obama positive ratings when asked if he has "strong leadership qualities" — that's a decline of 8 points since January and nearly 20 points from when he first took office. Less than half rate him positively when asked if he's "honest and straightforward." In January '09, 63 percent gave him positive marks for "being firm and decisive in decision-making." That number is now at 44 percent. Asked about his "ability to handle a crisis," only 40 percent rate him positively, an 11-point drop since January. You can read the full poll results here.
Obama's biggest problem: He's lost the middle — the so-called independent and moderate voters who are generally given the most credit for his win back in 2008. According to the poll, 52 percent of self-described independent voters disapprove of the job Obama is doing. He's even losing parts of his base. The poll finds Obama with 17 percent disapproval among Democrats — the highest number of his presidency.
None of this is good news for Democrats up for re-election this fall. Beleaguered Democrats had been counting on Obama's coattails to help them, as polls have also showed a historic trend away from the Democratic Party. According to this new poll, the GOP has a 2-point edge over Democrats in the generic congressional ballot — but among voters who describe themselves as most interested in the 2010 midterms, the GOP jumps to a 21-point lead over Democrats.
— Holly Bailey is a senior politics writer for Yahoo! News.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
"Anchor Babies" Next Step For Arizona
COMMENT: I'm going to stand up right now and say "I AGREE" with the proposal being introduced in Arizona. I 100% agree with their contention that babies being born to illegal immigrants to establish themselves in this country is WRONG! They come across the border in the middle of the night when they're realistically too far along in pregnancy to be traveling, let alone under those conditions, to have their baby on American soil so the baby can be an American citizen. I don't think anyone who manipulates our Constitution should be rewarded, and I don't think squirting a baby out in the good ole U.S. of A. makes that child a U.S. citizen automatically. As stated in the following article, the 14th Amendment was intended to help slaves being released to establish citizenship - can that possibly in any way be paralleled with running across the border to have a child? I'll say it again, anyone who uses loopholes in our Constitution to selfishly serve their own purpose should NOT be rewarded. Enough from me -here's the article.
ARTICLE:
By ADAM KLAWONN / PHOENIX Adam Klawonn / Phoenix – Sat Jun 12, 10:00 am ET
"Anchor babies" isn't a very endearing term, but in Arizona those are the words being used to tag children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. While not new, the term is increasingly part of the local vernacular because the primary authors of the nation's toughest and most controversial immigration law are targeting these tots - the legal weights that anchor many undocumented aliens in the U.S. - for their next move.
Buoyed by recent public opinion polls suggesting they're on the right track with illegal immigration, Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona - and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution - to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens. The law largely is the brainchild of state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican whose suburban district, Mesa, is considered the conservative bastion of the Phoenix political scene. He is a leading architect of the Arizona law that sparked outrage throughout the country: Senate Bill 1070, which allows law enforcement officers to ask about someone's immigration status during a traffic stop, detainment or arrest if reasonable suspicion exists - things like poor English skills, acting nervous or avoiding eye contact during a traffic stop. (See the battle for Arizona: will a border crackdown work?)
But the likely new bill is for the kids. While SB 1070 essentially requires of-age migrants to have the proper citizenship paperwork, the potential "anchor baby" bill blocks the next generation from ever being able to obtain it. The idea is to make the citizenship process so difficult that illegal immigrants pull up the "anchor" and leave. (See pictures of the Great Wall of America.)
The question is whether that would violate the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment states that "all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." It was intended to provide citizenship for freed slaves and served as a final answer to the Dred Scott case, cementing the federal government's control over citizenship.
But that was 1868. Today, Pearce says the 14th Amendment has been "hijacked" by illegal immigrants. "They use it as a wedge," Pearce says. "This is an orchestrated effort by them to come here and have children to gain access to the great welfare state we've created." Pearce says he is aware of the constitutional issues involved with the bill and vows to introduce it nevertheless. "We will write it right." He and other Republicans in the red state Arizona point to popular sympathy: 58% of Americans polled by Rasmussen think illegal immigrants whose children are born here should not receive citizenship; support for that stance is 76% among Republicans.
Those who oppose the bill say it would lead to more discrimination and divide the community. Among them is Phoenix resident Susan Vie, who is leading a citizen group that's behind an opposing ballot initiative. She moved to the U.S. 30 years ago from Argentina, became a naturalized citizen and now works as a client-relations representative for a vaccine company. "I see a lot of hate and racism behind it," Vie says. "Consequently, I believe it will create - and it's creating it now - a separation in our society." She adds, "When people look at me, they will think, 'Is she legal or illegal?' I can already feel it right now." Vie's citizen initiative would prohibit SB 1070 from taking affect, place a three-year moratorium on all related laws - including the anchor baby bill - to buy more time for federal immigration reform. Her group is racing to collect 153,365 signatures by July 1 to qualify for the Nov. 2 general election.
Both sides expect the anchor baby bill to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court before it is enacted. "I think it would be struck down as facially unconstitutional. I can't imagine a federal judge saying this would be OK," says Dan Barr, a longtime Phoenix lawyer and constitutional litigator. Potentially joining the anchor baby bill at the Supreme Court may be SB 1070, which Arizona Republican Governor Jan Brewer signed into law in April. It is set to take effect July 29, but at least five courtroom challenges have been filed against it. Pearce says he will win them all.
ARTICLE:
By ADAM KLAWONN / PHOENIX Adam Klawonn / Phoenix – Sat Jun 12, 10:00 am ET
"Anchor babies" isn't a very endearing term, but in Arizona those are the words being used to tag children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. While not new, the term is increasingly part of the local vernacular because the primary authors of the nation's toughest and most controversial immigration law are targeting these tots - the legal weights that anchor many undocumented aliens in the U.S. - for their next move.
Buoyed by recent public opinion polls suggesting they're on the right track with illegal immigration, Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona - and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution - to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens. The law largely is the brainchild of state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican whose suburban district, Mesa, is considered the conservative bastion of the Phoenix political scene. He is a leading architect of the Arizona law that sparked outrage throughout the country: Senate Bill 1070, which allows law enforcement officers to ask about someone's immigration status during a traffic stop, detainment or arrest if reasonable suspicion exists - things like poor English skills, acting nervous or avoiding eye contact during a traffic stop. (See the battle for Arizona: will a border crackdown work?)
But the likely new bill is for the kids. While SB 1070 essentially requires of-age migrants to have the proper citizenship paperwork, the potential "anchor baby" bill blocks the next generation from ever being able to obtain it. The idea is to make the citizenship process so difficult that illegal immigrants pull up the "anchor" and leave. (See pictures of the Great Wall of America.)
The question is whether that would violate the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment states that "all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." It was intended to provide citizenship for freed slaves and served as a final answer to the Dred Scott case, cementing the federal government's control over citizenship.
But that was 1868. Today, Pearce says the 14th Amendment has been "hijacked" by illegal immigrants. "They use it as a wedge," Pearce says. "This is an orchestrated effort by them to come here and have children to gain access to the great welfare state we've created." Pearce says he is aware of the constitutional issues involved with the bill and vows to introduce it nevertheless. "We will write it right." He and other Republicans in the red state Arizona point to popular sympathy: 58% of Americans polled by Rasmussen think illegal immigrants whose children are born here should not receive citizenship; support for that stance is 76% among Republicans.
Those who oppose the bill say it would lead to more discrimination and divide the community. Among them is Phoenix resident Susan Vie, who is leading a citizen group that's behind an opposing ballot initiative. She moved to the U.S. 30 years ago from Argentina, became a naturalized citizen and now works as a client-relations representative for a vaccine company. "I see a lot of hate and racism behind it," Vie says. "Consequently, I believe it will create - and it's creating it now - a separation in our society." She adds, "When people look at me, they will think, 'Is she legal or illegal?' I can already feel it right now." Vie's citizen initiative would prohibit SB 1070 from taking affect, place a three-year moratorium on all related laws - including the anchor baby bill - to buy more time for federal immigration reform. Her group is racing to collect 153,365 signatures by July 1 to qualify for the Nov. 2 general election.
Both sides expect the anchor baby bill to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court before it is enacted. "I think it would be struck down as facially unconstitutional. I can't imagine a federal judge saying this would be OK," says Dan Barr, a longtime Phoenix lawyer and constitutional litigator. Potentially joining the anchor baby bill at the Supreme Court may be SB 1070, which Arizona Republican Governor Jan Brewer signed into law in April. It is set to take effect July 29, but at least five courtroom challenges have been filed against it. Pearce says he will win them all.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
The Jury Is Back - AZ SB 1070 Does NOT Racially Discriminate
COMMENT: Finally someone has taken the time to read the Bill before condemning it! This has to be the hardest-to-read 10 pages in the history of literature. This lawyer claims that Arizona's bill is indisputably constitutional. I had no doubt that it was as Arizona has been under a legal microscope for years because of Sheriff Arpaio's no-nonsense policies in the jails of Maricopa County. When the Bill was first signed, they interviewed Sheriff Arpaio about Reverend Al Sharpton coming down there to "get arrested" by him. He stated that, "9 Federal authorities have spent the last year and a half looking at everything he does and they haven't found one think wrong yet, let Al come on down." He added though that he wouldn't call him Reverend until he could figure out what church he's the pastor of. hahaha
Anyway, here's the article:
A California based lawyer is dismissing claims by many that the Arizona law aimed at cracking down on illegal aliens amounts to racial discrimination.
Brad Dacus, founder of the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), does not think opponents of Arizona’s immigration bill have a real argument. He notes that all attempts to dismantle the measure are merely political.
Brad Dacus PJI"If Arizona was caught in violating basic due process rights -- if they were pulling people over without cause -- then that would be one thing," he contends. "But the law is indisputably constitutional, and any contentions against it are purely politically based."
Last week, the Los Angeles Unified School District voted against the Arizona law and sought to place a dent in the state's economy by ending funded employee travel to the neighboring state. The school district also pushed for history and civics classes to discuss the measure "in the context of unity, diversity and equal protection for all."
The city of Los Angeles, which had more than $26 million in contracts with Arizona this year, showed its disapproval of the bill by proposing a boycott against the state, calling for actions like ending pension and municipal bonds. Gloria Molina, the city's supervisor, called the immigration bill unconstitutional. She believes it goes "too far" and says she must defend the Constitution.
Dacus argues that the Arizona law is constitutional, and he does not think that actions against the state have legal basis.
"This boycott by the city of Los Angeles is purely political and has no legal foundation to support its legitimacy," he explains. "The law passed by Arizona is a duplicate of the federal statute. The only difference is that the federal government isn't enforcing their statute. This law is to explicitly prohibit any issue of race as a basis of pulling someone over."
The boycott would end contracts with Arizona-based companies and would demand review of other contracts with the state that may be canceled.
Anyway, here's the article:
A California based lawyer is dismissing claims by many that the Arizona law aimed at cracking down on illegal aliens amounts to racial discrimination.
Brad Dacus, founder of the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), does not think opponents of Arizona’s immigration bill have a real argument. He notes that all attempts to dismantle the measure are merely political.
Brad Dacus PJI"If Arizona was caught in violating basic due process rights -- if they were pulling people over without cause -- then that would be one thing," he contends. "But the law is indisputably constitutional, and any contentions against it are purely politically based."
Last week, the Los Angeles Unified School District voted against the Arizona law and sought to place a dent in the state's economy by ending funded employee travel to the neighboring state. The school district also pushed for history and civics classes to discuss the measure "in the context of unity, diversity and equal protection for all."
The city of Los Angeles, which had more than $26 million in contracts with Arizona this year, showed its disapproval of the bill by proposing a boycott against the state, calling for actions like ending pension and municipal bonds. Gloria Molina, the city's supervisor, called the immigration bill unconstitutional. She believes it goes "too far" and says she must defend the Constitution.
Dacus argues that the Arizona law is constitutional, and he does not think that actions against the state have legal basis.
"This boycott by the city of Los Angeles is purely political and has no legal foundation to support its legitimacy," he explains. "The law passed by Arizona is a duplicate of the federal statute. The only difference is that the federal government isn't enforcing their statute. This law is to explicitly prohibit any issue of race as a basis of pulling someone over."
The boycott would end contracts with Arizona-based companies and would demand review of other contracts with the state that may be canceled.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
And Obama Bowed Before Him.....
COMMENT:
We live by a different set of ideals and rules. I learned that while living in Egypt. In the villages of Egypt, Saturdays are still a time of public punishment, including hand amputations and public hangings. America likes to call Saudi Arabia our strongest ally in the Middle East, but make no mistake - Israel is our only ally because they are the only nation in that region that doesn't ascribe to the laws of the Koran. Islamic countries govern much as the ocean tides...they move toward democratic, westernized ideals for a short time, but then revert back to very strict Islamic rule.
For those out there who believe Islam is a religion of peace, simply look at the examples of what happens EVERY time a country begins following the strict rule of Islam. I've posted on my blog before the true tenets of Koranic teaching, including lesser and greater jihads (worry about the lesser in this phraseology) and how America's arrogant way of thinking that everyone wants to be like us and enjoy our freedoms will lead to our destruction.
Okay, I'm jumping off my soapbox; here's the story that prompted this dissertation - enjoy.
ARTICLE:
By ABDULLAH AL-SHIHRI, Associated Press Writer Abdullah Al-shihri, Associated Press Writer – 57 mins ago
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia – A Saudi court convicted a man and sentenced him to four months in prison and 90 lashes for kissing a woman in a mall, a government-owned daily reported Thursday.
Saudi religious police arrested the man and two women after seeing them on mall cameras "engaging in immoral movements in front of other shoppers," the Al-Yom newspaper said.
The man, who is in his 20s, was seen with a woman "sitting on one of the chairs, exchanging kisses and hugs." It was unclear what the other woman was doing. Neither the man nor the women were identified by name.
The kingdom's powerful religious police, under the control of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, enforce Saudi Arabia's strict interpretation of Islam, which prohibits unrelated men and women from mingling.
Zealous officers routinely jail unrelated couples found sitting together in restaurants or coffee shops.
The policemen also patrol public places to ensure women are covered and not wearing makeup; shops are forced in most places to close several times a day for Muslim prayers and men go to the mosque and worship.
Such kissing busts have increased as economic pressures have made it harder for young couples to marry and as the ultraconservative kingdom grapples with a push to relax its strict social mores.
Young men often must pay more than $50,000 in dowry and gold before their brides' families will accept marriage — a huge burden in a country where economists put male unemployment at over 20 percent.
But the Saudi establishment remains divided on how far separation rules should go.
King Abdullah has been encouraging change in the oil-rich kingdom since becoming crown prince in 1982, and has intensified his efforts since assuming the thrown in 2005.
Male and female students can study together at the newly opened King Abdullah Science and Technology University, launched by the Saudi monarch last year. Abdullah dismissed a prominent hard-line cleric who criticized the policy.
But in April, the head of the religious police fired the chief of the Mecca branch for suggesting that women and men should be able to mix freely, showing that such reforms have their limits.
The newspaper said the man sentenced for kissing will receive his 90 lashes in three batches, and is banned from malls for two years.
The women will be tried in another court.
COMMENT:
I find that last, tiny little statement at the end to be very intriguing. In Islam, the woman is less than the man AND is normally viewed as much more culpable for their actions. If the man received 4 months and 90 lashes, I'm certain the reason her sentence was not publicized was to prevent a worldwide outcry. If she hasn't already received it from her family, I'm sure she can look forward to at least genital mutilation and stoning, probably at the hands of her own parents. My guess is she will be executed for disgracing her family - welcome to the wonderful world of Islam.
We live by a different set of ideals and rules. I learned that while living in Egypt. In the villages of Egypt, Saturdays are still a time of public punishment, including hand amputations and public hangings. America likes to call Saudi Arabia our strongest ally in the Middle East, but make no mistake - Israel is our only ally because they are the only nation in that region that doesn't ascribe to the laws of the Koran. Islamic countries govern much as the ocean tides...they move toward democratic, westernized ideals for a short time, but then revert back to very strict Islamic rule.
For those out there who believe Islam is a religion of peace, simply look at the examples of what happens EVERY time a country begins following the strict rule of Islam. I've posted on my blog before the true tenets of Koranic teaching, including lesser and greater jihads (worry about the lesser in this phraseology) and how America's arrogant way of thinking that everyone wants to be like us and enjoy our freedoms will lead to our destruction.
Okay, I'm jumping off my soapbox; here's the story that prompted this dissertation - enjoy.
ARTICLE:
By ABDULLAH AL-SHIHRI, Associated Press Writer Abdullah Al-shihri, Associated Press Writer – 57 mins ago
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia – A Saudi court convicted a man and sentenced him to four months in prison and 90 lashes for kissing a woman in a mall, a government-owned daily reported Thursday.
Saudi religious police arrested the man and two women after seeing them on mall cameras "engaging in immoral movements in front of other shoppers," the Al-Yom newspaper said.
The man, who is in his 20s, was seen with a woman "sitting on one of the chairs, exchanging kisses and hugs." It was unclear what the other woman was doing. Neither the man nor the women were identified by name.
The kingdom's powerful religious police, under the control of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, enforce Saudi Arabia's strict interpretation of Islam, which prohibits unrelated men and women from mingling.
Zealous officers routinely jail unrelated couples found sitting together in restaurants or coffee shops.
The policemen also patrol public places to ensure women are covered and not wearing makeup; shops are forced in most places to close several times a day for Muslim prayers and men go to the mosque and worship.
Such kissing busts have increased as economic pressures have made it harder for young couples to marry and as the ultraconservative kingdom grapples with a push to relax its strict social mores.
Young men often must pay more than $50,000 in dowry and gold before their brides' families will accept marriage — a huge burden in a country where economists put male unemployment at over 20 percent.
But the Saudi establishment remains divided on how far separation rules should go.
King Abdullah has been encouraging change in the oil-rich kingdom since becoming crown prince in 1982, and has intensified his efforts since assuming the thrown in 2005.
Male and female students can study together at the newly opened King Abdullah Science and Technology University, launched by the Saudi monarch last year. Abdullah dismissed a prominent hard-line cleric who criticized the policy.
But in April, the head of the religious police fired the chief of the Mecca branch for suggesting that women and men should be able to mix freely, showing that such reforms have their limits.
The newspaper said the man sentenced for kissing will receive his 90 lashes in three batches, and is banned from malls for two years.
The women will be tried in another court.
COMMENT:
I find that last, tiny little statement at the end to be very intriguing. In Islam, the woman is less than the man AND is normally viewed as much more culpable for their actions. If the man received 4 months and 90 lashes, I'm certain the reason her sentence was not publicized was to prevent a worldwide outcry. If she hasn't already received it from her family, I'm sure she can look forward to at least genital mutilation and stoning, probably at the hands of her own parents. My guess is she will be executed for disgracing her family - welcome to the wonderful world of Islam.
Americans Are Throwing Pebbles In The Stream Too!!!
Those who have followed this blog for awhile know one of my mantras is about Obama "pebbles" tossed into the stream of change. Well, with each Primary the majority is speaking out about the way this country is being governed. With each Primary, more incumbents (Democrat, Republican, whatever) are getting nervous about election day.
I'm finding it very comforting that despite the rhetoric emanating from the White House of "knowing what Americans want," the arrogance of condemning without knowing the facts (AZ SB1070, BP response, Boston police), liberal media spoon-feeding the public information and censoring anything that doesn't fit the liberal agenda, the vocal MINORITY convincing us that gays and Mexicans have rights but God-fearing people don't ----- despite all of this, REAL Americans are speaking out in the polls and sending a strong message that it's all a bunch of crap!!!
For the first time in an election, I categorically refused to place my mark beside anyone who was an incumbent. Additionally, I refused to throw my hat in the ring with any candidate who had a liberal background (Art teacher, LAUSD Superintendent, Civil Rights Lawyer, etc.). Is that biased? Yes. Is that fair? No. Is it what this country needs? YES! It's the right thing to do because our government is so imbalanced presently that common sense has taken a vacation. Ideals that only 10 years ago would not even be discussed are now being forced on the American people --- "don't ask, don't tell" policy repealed without public vote, persecution of God in the US of A, bowing to violent leaders, apologizing to the world, unknowledgeable condemnation at the highest level of our government.
Right now "far-right-of-center thinking" is required to regain the balance. Once balance is achieved, then and only then will central thoughts and actions be effective. The majority is speaking out in these primaries and all I can say is, "Thank God common sense and wholesome ideals seem to be making a comeback." I just hope it's not too late to save this country I love.
I'm finding it very comforting that despite the rhetoric emanating from the White House of "knowing what Americans want," the arrogance of condemning without knowing the facts (AZ SB1070, BP response, Boston police), liberal media spoon-feeding the public information and censoring anything that doesn't fit the liberal agenda, the vocal MINORITY convincing us that gays and Mexicans have rights but God-fearing people don't ----- despite all of this, REAL Americans are speaking out in the polls and sending a strong message that it's all a bunch of crap!!!
For the first time in an election, I categorically refused to place my mark beside anyone who was an incumbent. Additionally, I refused to throw my hat in the ring with any candidate who had a liberal background (Art teacher, LAUSD Superintendent, Civil Rights Lawyer, etc.). Is that biased? Yes. Is that fair? No. Is it what this country needs? YES! It's the right thing to do because our government is so imbalanced presently that common sense has taken a vacation. Ideals that only 10 years ago would not even be discussed are now being forced on the American people --- "don't ask, don't tell" policy repealed without public vote, persecution of God in the US of A, bowing to violent leaders, apologizing to the world, unknowledgeable condemnation at the highest level of our government.
Right now "far-right-of-center thinking" is required to regain the balance. Once balance is achieved, then and only then will central thoughts and actions be effective. The majority is speaking out in these primaries and all I can say is, "Thank God common sense and wholesome ideals seem to be making a comeback." I just hope it's not too late to save this country I love.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
"PC" Is A One-Way Street?
COMMENT:
I guess it is when Americans feel so tongue-tied by it that they won't even use the same words and phrases that the terrorists employ. It seems almost as if our government officials are trying to will jihad into extinction simply by not saying the word - as if the word itself invokes some form of magic against us. I think it rather idiotic to think relations are improved by not using the word for fear of offending American Muslims, and I really don't think the terrorists are concerned about hurting anyone's feelings, be it Americans or Muslims. Anyway, a fairly long read but I think it's important to truly understand Muslims and the Koran, so here's an article by OneNewsNow with quotes from an authority on the subject.
ARTICLE:
Most Americans are sympathetic to public references to Islam and to Muslims that do not offend patriotic American Muslims or affix to the Islamic religion the rantings of al-Qaeda. But sensitivity to the need to be civil to Muslims doesn't -- or shouldn't -- obviate the need for intellectual honesty when discussing or analyzing America's Islamist political foes.
At a recent briefing to scholars and reporters at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan, assistant to the president for homeland security and counter-terrorism, went into contortions to avoid admitting what seems commonsense to most Americans: there is a connection between some parts of Islamic thought and the repeated assertions of Osama bin Laden and his supporters and sympathizers that they are waging "jihad" against the United States. Brennan said the religious views of America's Islamist terrorist adversaries shouldn't even be discussed. Yet to accept that view would be like asking the State Department to examine the views of Adolf Hitler during Word War II and avoid mentioning his hatred of the Jews.
Brennan said the White House and State Department were avoiding reference to "jihadists" even though terrorist adversaries of the United States often call themselves exactly that. He said that jihad was "a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to purify oneself and one's community." True, this is the "greater jihad," as defined by Mohammed himself -- but it is not the whole meaning of jihad at all. In fact, serious and respected scholars of Islam such as Professor Bernard Lewis assert that by far the largest proportion of Islamic historical references to jihad refer to what is called the "lesser jihad" -- the duty of Muslims to wage war on non-Muslims in order to subdue all countries and communities for Allah.
The Koran, Islam's holy book, is quite explicit about this. Surah 9, for example, the "surah of the sword," explicitly calls on Muslims to "fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and his Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the book [i.e,. Jews and Christians] until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection" (Surah 9:29). Just in case readers didn't get that message, Surah 2:216 says "jihad is enjoined for you, though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know" (Surah 2:216).
Brennan claimed that the extremists were victims of "political, economic, and social forces," and that they should not be described in "religious terms." But if America's Islamist opponents describe themselves in religious terms, why shouldn't we take seriously what they are saying?
In addition to the Koran, other sources of Islamic interpretation of jihad include the "hadith," anecdotal stories illustrating Mohammed's life; and the "sharia," the corpus of Islamic religious law. Though there are four main schools of law within Islam, there is almost a complete overlap among all of them in the interpretation of jihad.
In Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law Umdat Al-Salik -- the authoritative source of Islamic rulings of the shafi school of Islam -- it states: "jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word 'mujahadan,' signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self....The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus, is such Koranic verses as [2:216] 'fighting is prescribed for you,' [4:89] 'slay them wherever you find them,' and [9:36] 'fight the idolaters utterly' and such hadiths as the one related by Bukari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said...the hadith reported by Muslim, 'to go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.'"
Brennan's unawareness of key Islamic explanations of jihad is baffling when you consider that he once headed the CIA in the entire Middle East and he spent a year learning Arabic at university in Cairo.
Even today, jihad is used by Islamist movements as justification for their politics. Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist group that currently rules Gaza and which seeks the entire destruction of Israel, openly describes itself as fighting a jihad against the infidel. Back during World War I, the entire Ottoman Empire officially declared jihad against Great Britain and all the Entente powers allied with her against Germany and her allies (which included the Turks). I don't think the supreme mufti in Constantinople was trying to get the Muslims of the world to simply become purer in their behavior: he wanted them to kill Brits.
There is certainly a need to be cautious in discussing Islam, especially since many Muslims live in the United States and indeed love the United States. But to avoid the word "jihadis" when it is employed by terrorists themselves is rather like visiting Lenin's tomb in Moscow and failing to mention that Lenin was a communist. Come to think of it, Arab-language specialist Brennan went into contortions during his first mention of Jerusalem, a city he says he loves. He called it "Al-Quds," the Arabic term that didn't come into existence until the era of Islam in the 7th century AD. Jerusalem is the English word that comes from Hebrew Yerushalayim. In fact, this city had been inhabited by Jews for hundreds of years before Mohammed claims to have visited it.
Is the White House listening? Less political correctness and more honesty and common sense, please.
COPYRIGHT AMERICAN FAMILY NEWS NETWORK 2010
I guess it is when Americans feel so tongue-tied by it that they won't even use the same words and phrases that the terrorists employ. It seems almost as if our government officials are trying to will jihad into extinction simply by not saying the word - as if the word itself invokes some form of magic against us. I think it rather idiotic to think relations are improved by not using the word for fear of offending American Muslims, and I really don't think the terrorists are concerned about hurting anyone's feelings, be it Americans or Muslims. Anyway, a fairly long read but I think it's important to truly understand Muslims and the Koran, so here's an article by OneNewsNow with quotes from an authority on the subject.
ARTICLE:
Most Americans are sympathetic to public references to Islam and to Muslims that do not offend patriotic American Muslims or affix to the Islamic religion the rantings of al-Qaeda. But sensitivity to the need to be civil to Muslims doesn't -- or shouldn't -- obviate the need for intellectual honesty when discussing or analyzing America's Islamist political foes.
At a recent briefing to scholars and reporters at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan, assistant to the president for homeland security and counter-terrorism, went into contortions to avoid admitting what seems commonsense to most Americans: there is a connection between some parts of Islamic thought and the repeated assertions of Osama bin Laden and his supporters and sympathizers that they are waging "jihad" against the United States. Brennan said the religious views of America's Islamist terrorist adversaries shouldn't even be discussed. Yet to accept that view would be like asking the State Department to examine the views of Adolf Hitler during Word War II and avoid mentioning his hatred of the Jews.
Brennan said the White House and State Department were avoiding reference to "jihadists" even though terrorist adversaries of the United States often call themselves exactly that. He said that jihad was "a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to purify oneself and one's community." True, this is the "greater jihad," as defined by Mohammed himself -- but it is not the whole meaning of jihad at all. In fact, serious and respected scholars of Islam such as Professor Bernard Lewis assert that by far the largest proportion of Islamic historical references to jihad refer to what is called the "lesser jihad" -- the duty of Muslims to wage war on non-Muslims in order to subdue all countries and communities for Allah.
The Koran, Islam's holy book, is quite explicit about this. Surah 9, for example, the "surah of the sword," explicitly calls on Muslims to "fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and his Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the book [i.e,. Jews and Christians] until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection" (Surah 9:29). Just in case readers didn't get that message, Surah 2:216 says "jihad is enjoined for you, though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know" (Surah 2:216).
Brennan claimed that the extremists were victims of "political, economic, and social forces," and that they should not be described in "religious terms." But if America's Islamist opponents describe themselves in religious terms, why shouldn't we take seriously what they are saying?
In addition to the Koran, other sources of Islamic interpretation of jihad include the "hadith," anecdotal stories illustrating Mohammed's life; and the "sharia," the corpus of Islamic religious law. Though there are four main schools of law within Islam, there is almost a complete overlap among all of them in the interpretation of jihad.
In Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law Umdat Al-Salik -- the authoritative source of Islamic rulings of the shafi school of Islam -- it states: "jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word 'mujahadan,' signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self....The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus, is such Koranic verses as [2:216] 'fighting is prescribed for you,' [4:89] 'slay them wherever you find them,' and [9:36] 'fight the idolaters utterly' and such hadiths as the one related by Bukari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said...the hadith reported by Muslim, 'to go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.'"
Brennan's unawareness of key Islamic explanations of jihad is baffling when you consider that he once headed the CIA in the entire Middle East and he spent a year learning Arabic at university in Cairo.
Even today, jihad is used by Islamist movements as justification for their politics. Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist group that currently rules Gaza and which seeks the entire destruction of Israel, openly describes itself as fighting a jihad against the infidel. Back during World War I, the entire Ottoman Empire officially declared jihad against Great Britain and all the Entente powers allied with her against Germany and her allies (which included the Turks). I don't think the supreme mufti in Constantinople was trying to get the Muslims of the world to simply become purer in their behavior: he wanted them to kill Brits.
There is certainly a need to be cautious in discussing Islam, especially since many Muslims live in the United States and indeed love the United States. But to avoid the word "jihadis" when it is employed by terrorists themselves is rather like visiting Lenin's tomb in Moscow and failing to mention that Lenin was a communist. Come to think of it, Arab-language specialist Brennan went into contortions during his first mention of Jerusalem, a city he says he loves. He called it "Al-Quds," the Arabic term that didn't come into existence until the era of Islam in the 7th century AD. Jerusalem is the English word that comes from Hebrew Yerushalayim. In fact, this city had been inhabited by Jews for hundreds of years before Mohammed claims to have visited it.
Is the White House listening? Less political correctness and more honesty and common sense, please.
COPYRIGHT AMERICAN FAMILY NEWS NETWORK 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)