Taxes and punishment: why attacking achievement hurts everyone

Here is a great op/ed on the Bush tax cuts that are about to expire at the end of this year. I know this is a bit different than what is usually posted here but I thought it might be of interest to Sam’s regular readers. If not, well then just blame me as I am pinch hitting for Sam Hindu.

If you are not familiar with Paul Ibbetson then here is your chance to for an introduction. Mr. Ibbetson really nails down the tax cuts that set to expire at the end of this year. I strongly think the tax cuts should be extended, made permanent for ALL income levels. Many of those ‘well off income earners($250,00 and up)are the ones that keep small business starting, growing and are an integral part of the American economic machine. The looming battle over these tax cuts will be one of the first battles obama is forced to ‘work with’. I hope obama is cut off at the knees very early into the game. His arrogance and ignorance, coupled with that of Pelosi and Reid are the main reason we are in the horrible shape that we are in.

Posted by PatriotUSA/Patriot’sCorner

Taxes and punishment: why attacking achievement hurts everyone
By Paul A. Ibbetson


The political wrangling over what to do with the Bush-era tax cuts that are set to expire has created another opportunity to observe the ideological difference in perspectives between liberals and conservatives on the issue of taxes. Most importantly, it highlights differences that go beyond differing blueprints for the economic future of the country and more to the contrasting viewpoints in how taxes should be used in modern America.


Out of the gate, liberals in the Democratic Party were resistant to extending the tax cuts in general. After the first rounds of debate it appeared that Democrats were willing to appease Americans with tax cut extensions for all but the wickedly rich. The problem with that plan was that the wickedly rich, which were deemed by the Obama administration as those with an income exceeding $250,000 also included arguably as much as half of all small-business owners. Despite the extensive political quibbling over what percent of small businesses will be negatively affected with higher taxes in a weak economy, there is an equally important question which is seldom addressed: What about the rich?


While many conservatives bring forth consumption tax proposals, these ideas receive quick and absolute rejection from the Democratic Party. Yes, liberals love the current system and pursue leveling taxes on the living and the dead with equal vigor. However, the left places their taxation efforts most forcefully on those who have achieved the highest economic levels in the nation. Why? If you listen to liberals such as Barack Obama, you will hear the argument that the rich can simply absorb additional taxes without any adverse effects. Under the surface of these arguments is a not-so-subtle hostility towards the rich. It is as if high income earners have dodged doing their fair bit in the tax department and liberals are just balancing the scales a little more in these hard times. Are they right? Are the rich deserving of a little less cash? Can the government do a few more wonderful things with a little bit more of their money? Let’s look at the economic facts.


In 2007 economist Stephen Moore addressed the same general set of questions and found that the top 1 percent of income earners pay 37 percent of the income taxes collected by the government. The top 10 percent of wage earners — that’s the filthy rich if you are wondering — pay almost 70% of total income taxes. The bottom 50 percent of wage earners pay only 3 percent of the taxes. Yes, in case the point has been overlooked, the rich pay the lion’s share of taxes in America and in doing so, received more money back from the Bush tax cuts than middle-class Americans who paid less in taxes, and the poor who don’t pay taxes at all. What is not talked about is what Moore observed as the final outcome of tax cuts regarding the rich. That is, when the wealthy got tax breaks they hired more employees as they expanded their businesses and in the end, they paid more taxes. More taxes to the tune of $100 billion recorded by the IRS in 2005. The number of tax filers who made a taxable income of more than $1 million went up from 180,000 in 2003 to over 300,000 in 2005. Yes, you guessed it, more people improving their financial income led to an increase in tax collections.


So, if tax cuts throughout history have created economic prosperity when enacted by presidents from John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, why do liberals still oppose them with all their might? The answer most likely has some complexity. It may be in part that liberals do not grasp the unintended consequences of economically strangling high wage earners that employ hundreds, if not thousands. It may be that liberals are inflicted with a form of economic nearsightedness that denies them the vision to see that in attempting to help the less fortunate at the expense of the wealthy, they are prolonging the economic misfortune for those that wish to find jobs in this country. Remember, a poor man or woman has never given anybody a job.


Unfortunately, with these possible explanations we must also entertain the conclusion that much of the aversion to tax cuts for high wage earners in America stems from a liberal hatred of economic achievement, the achievement our capitalistic society is founded on. Why else would liberals block programs that in the end would bring in more taxes? With economic prosperity come additional freedoms to buy what you want, to live as you wish, and to steadily turn away from a reliance of government intervention. This is not the Democratic way; in fact, it appears that they see taxes as a way to punish success, a billy club to beat down those that they see as having too much of the American dream. Small-business owners making over $250,000 a year may find themselves to be collateral damage as liberals attempt to attack the achievement of higher income earners. In the end, we all suffer.


© Paul A. Ibbetson

Original article is here.

---

Daily catch: Videos for 11/29/2010, Vlad Tepes, Wikileaks, abusing non-muslim women’s breasts is OK with mohammud

Here are three videos for today. First is one making fun of Geert Wilders at the hands of the dutch media. The next video is an excellent snapshot of the latest Wikileaks that is worst that the first ones. The last video is on a rather nasty topic that is in the qur’an and is about breast-feeding or abusing the breasts of non-muslim women. So someone explain to me how this show how islam values and honors women, especially kaffir women? Women are chattel or worse in islam.

The excuses, and apologists have started defending Portland terrorist Mohamed Mohamud

As predicted, the excuses and taqiyya have started flying in defense of mohamed mohamud. The imam of course and stated he has no idea what might have caused this rat from Somalia to act out in this way. Then we have it was because his parents got a divorce. Well so did mine and I have no desire to fly to mecca and blow up a bunch of muslims. So brace yourself for the excuses, the crybaby muslim syndrome and the apologists like John Esposito to come to poor mohamed mohamud’s defense. Make sure to take note that it is never islam or the accused’s fault, many times even after they found guilty and sentenced.

“Of course, many more terrorist attacks have been committed by Islamic jihadists who read and took seriously the Qur’an’s commands to wage war against infidels than by children traumatized by their parents’ divorce, but never mind: when it comes to exonerating Islam of any responsibility for motivating violent jihadists, government, law enforcement and media officials join Islamic spokesmen in grabbing hold of any alternative explanation, no matter how implausible.”(Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch). From the New York Daily News.

---

Neighbors say wannabe Christmas bomber Mohamed Mohamud embraced extremism after parents split

By Lukas I. Alpert

Daily News Staff Writer

Arsonists set fire Sunday to the Oregon Islamic center that the wannabe Christmas-tree bomber had attended, authorities said.The fire was reported about 2:25 a.m. at the Salman Alfarisi Islamic Center in Corvallis where Mohamed Osman Mohamud periodically attended services.

The blaze consumed much of a back office but was put out before it spread to the worship area, officials said. “It was discovered much sooner than it could have been,” Corvallis Fire Department spokeswoman Carla Pusateri told The Oregonian newspaper.

Imam Yosof Wanly said Mohamud did not regularly attend the mosque, but had visited once or twice a month since moving to Corvallis to attend Oregon State University. Wanly condemned Mohamud’s effort to detonate a bomb at a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland Friday.”I know people here know the true reality of the Muslim community here,” he said. “It’s a sad situation.”

Neighbors say Mohamud was doted on by his family but embraced militant Islam not long after his parents split up.”He was a quiet kid, but with his folks splitting up, who knows?” Adam Napier, who lived next door to Mohamed Osman Mohamud for years told the newspaper.Mohamud’s family moved to the U.S. when he was just 5 and were described as friendly and modern.Mariam Barre did not wear a hijab and her husband, Osman Barre, reportedly worked as an engineer for Intel. Mohamud appeared to be particularly close to his mother, neighbors said.

“She always talked so good about him. He was just a good kid,” said Adam Napier’s mother, Stephanie. In 2009, Mohamud parents split up, not long after he turned 18, the paper said.Omar Jamal, first secretary to the Somali Mission to the United Nations, told KPTV that Mohamud’s father had remarried a woman in Minneapolis, which has a large Somali population and has been a hotbed for jihadist recruitment.

Later in 2009, Mohamud began communicating with jihadists abroad, and wrote articles for a website called “Jihad Recollections,” authorities said.

Earlier this year, Mohamud came to the attention of federal agents who set up an elaborate sting, posing as like-minded terrorists.The plot ended Friday when Mohamud, 19, a naturalized U.S. citizen, tried to set off a dummy bomb and was arrested, kicking and screaming, “Allahu akbar!”

Many who knew Mohamud said he seemed like a normal kid who did well in school and loved basketball. “He was a really smart kid. He always got good grades. He was a part of a lot of good things, so it’s amazing he would do that,” elementary school pal Gavin Lipscomb told The Oregonian. “It never seemed like he had any hatred,” Lipscomb said.

But Mohamud told agents that he began thinking about holy war at age 15, when he prayed for guidance “about whether I should … go, you know, and make jihad in a different country or to make like an operation here.”

Hat tip: Jihad Watch

Original article is here.

Posted by PatriotUSA/Patriot’s Corner

Daily Catch of Videos for November 28, 2010: Baron Text and Benny Morris interview

Here are two of the latest from Vladtepes. First one is one the pending approval of the Baron text in Switzerland, which is an excellent move. The second video is of an interview with a former leftist, Benny Morris. A very interesting and insightful video if you can spare the time.

Posted by PatriotUSA/ Patriot’s Corner

 

Twlelve tactics of taqiyya

This is another post from Trencherbone, one of the most complete sources on islam. I have mentioned TB before and will in the future. This is one of TB’s original posts and it is superb. If you are not clear on the islamic tactic called taqiyya then please, by all means read on. You will notice that using taqiyya and what I call the ‘Crybaby muslim syndrome’ are very closely intertwined and used at the same time.
By PatriotUSA.

---

Twelve Tactics of Taqiyya – lying and deception for the benefit of Islam
By Trencherbone


Allah is “the best of deceivers” (Quran 3.54), and since the prime directive is to spread Islam by any means whatsoever, it should not be surprising that deceiving unbelievers is acceptable behavior if carried out for the benefit of Islam.


This “sacred deception” is known as taqiyya. It can take many forms, including outright lies, feigned moderation, and condemnations of terrorist attacks to the non-Muslims while celebrating the attacks with fellow Muslims.


Here are some of the ploys, arguments, logical fallacies and diversionary tactics used by taqiyya tacticians:


1. Taqiyya about taqiyya. Muslims deny that taqiyya exists, or that it is used to deceive infidels. “There is no such thing as Taqiyya.” Or “Taqiyya is something I never heard of and I had to go and look it up.” See here and here for refutations.


2. Playing the race card and guilt by association. An accusation of racism is such a trump card that jihadists will play it whenever they can. Despite Islam not being a race, any criticism of Islam immediately gets the knee-jerk retaliation of “racism.” For example, “You are expressing the same views about Islam as racists, therefore you are a racist.” This is similar logic, “Communists believe two and two make four. You believe two and two make four. Therefore you are a Communist.” Read more about why criticizing Islam is not a racist activity.


3. Godwin’s Law. A special (and inevitable) version of guilt by association with racism used in online discussions, whereby the first person to invoke Hitler or the Nazis wins the argument. The “logic” is something like this:


CRITICISM OF ISLAM = RACISM = NAZISM


Therefore, if you criticise Islam you are a Nazi.


4. Circular reasoning. The Quran says it is the word of God. So whatever it says must be true. Therefore it is true that the Quran is the word of God because it says so.


5. The infidels’ quotes from the Quran are always taken out of context. For example, “Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them” is taken out of context, and really means “Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them setting fire to your house” — or something similar. Read more about this objection. And also here.


6. Infidels can’t understand the original Arabic of the Quran. So “Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them” is actually a Medieval Arabic expression meaning “Help old ladies across busy streets and remember to feed the birds in winter.”


7. Tu Quoque (you also). “We blow people up and behead them but you do the same.” Normally this is used in attempts to refute arguments that Islam is intrinsically violent. Often people refer back to the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc. Also “There are equally nasty parts in the Bible.” Yes, there are violent episodes in the Bible, but the Bible is descriptive of battles and massacres long ago, whereas the Quran is prescriptive of battles and massacres yet to come. Read more about this here. And here.


8. “Abrahamic and monotheistic faith” false kin argument. This scam usually takes the form of “Islam is just a further development of Christianity, a brother Abrahamic or monotheist faith.” Of course it isn’t. Islam is a travesty and perversion of Christianity in many respects, and Jesus would probably have advised the pedophile Mohammed to tie a millstone round his neck and jump into the sea (Mark 9:42). In Islam, stoning of women is still a major spectator sport, whereas Jesus forbade it (John 8:7). Human sacrifice is an abomination in Judaism and Christianity, but is encouraged in Islam. Read more about the differences in basic doctrine here.


9. Quoting abrogated verses from the Quran in order to appear moderate. A favorite one is “Let there be no compulsion in religion.” This verse and many like it are actually null and void and disregarded by all Muslims (though not by gullible infidels). They are peaceful Meccan verses which are completely cancelled by later and much more violent Medinan verses. Read more about abrogation here. And here.


10. “You owe us a debt of gratitude because Islam is the basis of Western civilization.” This sort of statement is usually backed up by revisionist arguments that Muslims invented everything and were responsible for the Renaissance. In some ways this is a rather pathetic quest for significance. Muslim culture has been moribund for the past 600 years, whereas the West has forged ahead. Muslims now want a stake in the success story by claiming they were somehow responsible for the West’s development.


11. “A third of the world’s population believe in Islam, so it deserves respect.” But not so long ago a third of the world’s population believed the earth was flat. Numbers don’t mean anything, especially when the Islamic population is the most backward and illiterate on earth. Muslims are very keen on “respect,” but someone should tell them that respect needs to be earned.


12. “We are victims of Islamophobia.” Muslims are always playing the victim, if not of racism then of the even more heinous thought-crime of Islamophobia. Of course there is no such thing as Islamophobia, since a phobia is an irrational fear, whereas fear of Islam as a clear and present danger is a totally rational reaction from any infidel.


Learn more about taqiyya and how it is used here.

Original article is here.

Tactics of islam

A very good article on the tactics that islam and islamists use to help spread the cancer of islam and shariah law. This comes by way of Tulisan Murtad’s blog, which is an excellent source about islam. I have added this site to the blogroll and hope you will check Tulisan Murtad out. Keeping my comments short due to really being extremely tired and a bit burnt out. This article was originally posted back in 2007 but it is priceless and timeless information.

By PatriotUSA

---

Islamist Tactics

By Anonymous

Four Stages of Islamic Treachery: Islamist Tactics Towards Non-Islamic Societies

Based On The Evidence Of 1400 Years Of Islamic History

Introduction:

FACT #1:

The goal of Islam is the subjugation of the entire world to Islam through the establishment of a global Islamic rule and the eradication of all non-Islamic populations, cultures, religions, thoughts, knowledge, symbols, traditions and ways of life.

This goal is non-negotiable in fundamental doctrines of Islam and in the eyes of true Muslims.

FACT #2:

Islamists will not stop their assault (open or clandestine) on the non-Muslim world as long as they have not achieved Islamic rule.

FACT #3:

IN ISLAMIC TEACHING, THE END ALWAYS JUSTIFIES THE MEANS: Islamists have no respect for the rules, laws or values of the non-Islamic world, to them only the rules of the Islamic world are legitimate. In their mind, when they destroy the non-Islamic world then the rules will change to Islamic rules, laws and values.

FACT #4:

ISLAMISTS CONSIDER TREATIES WITH NON-MUSLIMS AS NON-BINDING. When in non-Muslim countries they will pretend a social behavior as a cover up to their true intentions of domination over the non Muslim world.

TIP: When it comes to Islamists, ALWAYS LOOK AT WHAT THEY DO, NEVER WHAT THEY SAY: Lying, treachery and deceit are the Islamists’ tactic of choice in their jihad of conquest of the non-Muslim world. This tactic (AL-TAQIYYA, or religious deception, pretending to be friends of the Non-Muslims in order to strengthen themselves against them) is a commonly practiced by Islamists. DECEPTION IS THE KEY TACTIC EMPLOYED BY ISLAMISTS.

FACT #5:

As a rule of thumb to get the truth from any Islamist, simply reverse what they say to a non-Muslim.

FACT #6:

The founder of Islam, MUHAMMAD WAS AN ISLAMIST.

Whether you able to face or ignore this harsh reality is beside the point, you will inevitably face its truth on the day you find yourself within the killing zone of Islamists.

Stages of Islamization

STAGE ONE: INFILTRATION

* First migration wave to target non-Muslim society.

* Appeal for humanitarian tolerance from the target non-Muslim society.

* Characterized by professed tolerance of others and their beliefs.

* Attempts to portray Islam as a peaceful religion and Muslims as victims of misunderstanding and racism.

* Images of women and children used to portray Muslims.

* Establishment of mosques as power bases (today globally funded by Gulf countries oil revenue). (Mosques are safe havens for Jihadi recruitment and subversive projects).

* Muslim leaders promote large push for increased Muslim births in target non-Muslim society to increase native Muslim population.

* Misrepresentation of their intentions or aims as a cover up for clandestine operations.

STAGE TWO: CONSOLIDATION OF POWER

* Proselytizing efforts increase.

* Establishment and recruitment of fundamentalist Jihadi cells.

* Efforts to convert alienated segments of the population of target non-Muslim society to Islam.

* Revisionist efforts to Islamize history.

* Efforts to destroy all evidence of incriminating historical evidence and sources that reveal true character of Islamism.

* Intellectual Jihad to discredit non-Muslim culture.

* Assault on cultural assumptions and icons of the non-Muslim world, such as democracy, law and science.

* Increased dissemination of anti-western propaganda and anti-western psychological warfare.

* Efforts to recruit allies who share similar goals (Communists, socialists, anti westerns activists, anti-globalists, anarchists).

* Alliances with the enemies of the Western society particularly anti capitalism leftists. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”

* Attempts to indoctrinate children to Islamist viewpoint. Efforts to infiltrate education system to propagate pro-Islamic points of view.

* Increased efforts to intimidate, silence and eliminate non-Muslim intellectuals and leaders.

* Efforts to introduce blasphemy laws into non-Muslim society in order to silence critics.

* Continued focus on enlarging Muslim population by increasing Muslim births and migration to target non-Muslim society.

* Use of first and second generation Muslim citizens of target non-Muslim society as Jihadist foot soldiers and public fronts.

* Use of charities to recruit supporters.

* Use of crime and fraud to obtain funds to finance activities.

* Covert efforts to bring about the destruction of non-Muslim society from within.

* Development of Muslim political base in target non-Muslim society. Efforts to penetrate political and legal structure of country so as to support Islamic growth from within.

* Use of bribes and blackmail of non-Muslim authorities to get them to disregard establishment of subversive activities.

* Islamic Financial networks strengthened to fund political growth, large acquisition of land and resources by any means. (Today they are funded by Muslim charities; Gulf countries Oil revenue and criminal activities).

* Highly visible assassination of critics aimed to intimidate opposition.

* Tolerance of non-Muslims diminishes and greater demands are placed upon Muslims to adopt strict Islamic conduct.

* Clandestine amassing of weapons and explosives stores in hidden locations in target non-Muslim society.

* Continuous and covert attacks and challenges against target non-Muslim society leaders and religious symbols.

* Overt disregard and rejection of target non-Muslim society’s legal system and culture.

* Efforts to undermine and destroy power base of non-Muslim religions such as Jews, Christians, Hindus or Buddhists in target non-Muslim society.

* Efforts to destroy the social structure of the country and bring the downfall of non-Muslim government.

* Use of Islamic gangs in campaign of fear and terror against Jews, Christians, Hindus and non-Muslims to reduce their populations and influence in the target non-Muslim society.

STAGE THREE: OPEN WAR WITH TARGET NON-ISLAMIST SOCIETY’S LEADERSHIP AND CULTURE

* Large-scale destruction of population, assassinations, killings, bombings.

* Intentional efforts to spread chaos in the target country to undermine its government and culture.

* Acts of barbarity and fierceness as a deliberate policy intended to foster submission of opponents.

* Open and covert efforts to cause economic collapse of the society.

* All opposition, no matter what kind, is challenged and either eradicated or silenced.

* Widespread ethnic cleansing with Islamic militias.

* Rejection and defiance of target society secular laws or culture.

* Murder of all opposition political, religious and intellectual leaders of target society.

* Murder of all moderate Muslim intellectuals who envision other alternatives to radical Islam.

* Toppling of government and usurpation of political power.

* Imposition of Sharia law.

* Mass execution of non-Muslims, ethnic cleansing.

STAGE FOUR: ISLAMIC THEOCRACY

* The Qur’an and the Sharia becomes the “law of the land. “

* All non-Islamic human rights cancelled.

* Freedom of speech and the press eradicated.

* All Religions other than Islam are forbidden and destroyed.

* Enslavement and genocide of non-Muslim population.

* Destruction of all evidence of non-Muslim culture, groups and symbols in

country.

Original article is here.

Another well assimilated muslim spreading the love of islam

I will be helping Sam Hindu out for the next few weeks. Please bear with me while I learn the ways of WordPress. This is cross posted from Patriot‘s Corner.

Another well assimilated muslim that has integrated into the United States, who just wants to introduce islam and allah to the people of Portland, Oregon. Way too close to home. From Vladtepes.

Bow Nobama Obama’s Jerusalem Hate is Exposed.

Bow Nobama Obama’s Jerusalem Hate is Exposed.
This s Awsome post is from My friend Kanish Sulran’s Blog AS IT WAS WRITTEN..

Obama’s Jerusalem Apartheid
When Obama attacked Israel for building housing on Jewish owned land in Jerusalem, he was doing more than just pandering to his Muslim hosts with an obligatory dose of Israel bashing. He was diving once again into the ugly pool of bigotry, that first surfaced when he used Joe Biden as a proxy to launch a hate campaign against Israel over the same issue back in March.

And what it comes down to is Apartheid. Plain and simple.

Obama does not object to Arab Muslims living in Jerusalem. He objects only to Jews living in Jerusalem. The issue is not about “Israelis”, as the media likes to present it, because Jerusalem Arabs and Jews are all citizens of Israel. What distinguishes them is race and religion.

The media and the administration only attack the municipal authorities of Jerusalem and the Israeli government for providing housing for its citizens– when those citizens happen to be Jewish. If they are Arab and Muslim, then there’s no problem. If they’re Jewish on the other hand, then the alarm bells go off and the politicians and the press denounce them as enemies of peace. How does one describe that as other than “Apartheid”? What else is it, other than the belief that one group of people should be segregated by race and religion. Forbidden from living in places that are deemed to be the sole property of their Muslim conquerors.

Mohammed’s last act was to ethnically cleanse Jews and Christians from lands under his control. That is why you will find a shortage of synagogues and churches in Mecca and Medina. Today there are hardly any Jews left in territories under Muslim rule, and the number of Christians is dwindling year by year. In 1948, Jordanian forces invaded and ethnically cleansed all Jews from the parts of Jerusalem under their control. In 1967, Israel reclaimed the entire city, but now Obama and his media backers would like to turn the clock back to 1948.

According to Obama and the media, Muslims have a right to build a mosque near Ground Zero, but Jews don’t have the right to live in apartments in their own city. How do you reconcile the two? Easy. Apartheid. Muslims can do anything they want, anywhere they want. If Muslims are offended by the odor of pork from a nearby restaurant, then the restaurant has to comply. If Muslims want exclusive use of municipal swimming pools, then they get them. If Muslims don’t want a city that they conquered and ethnically cleansed to be filled with “dirty Jews”, then Obama insists that they should get what they want.

And if they don’t, it’s an obstacle to peace. “Peace” being the condition in which Muslims finally stop blowing people up in the name of Allah. Anything that might serve as a justification for them to keep blowing people up, is an “obstacle to peace”.

But this is not peace. It’s bloody blackmail. It’s an open invitation for Muslims to impose their hateful and bigoted demands on the rest of the world. And where exactly does it end? When the Jordanian conquered half of Jerusalem is as ethnically cleansed of Jews, as the villages and towns of Hamas ruled Gaza. And where next? Muslim persecution of minorities, including Jews, has gone on for over a thousand years. Surrendering to it will not bring “peace”, only temporary hudnas, truces under which Muslims will agree to temporarily tolerate the Jews, before something makes them fly off the handle in a murderous rage again.

And among people who seriously believe that Israel laces chewing gum with aphrodisiacs, that it releases snakes and “super-rats” to terrorize them, or trains migrating eagles to spy on them, drops poisoned candies in front of schools or uses strippers in riot control– just about any imaginary thing will set them off. And the victims will be held to blame.

Because there’s no point in pandering to the victims. You always pander to the murderers. They’re the ones with the real power. Even when they’re on the wrong side of a technological and military disparity, their willingness to commit senseless acts of violence puts them in the driver’s seat. The willingness to kill means power. Particularly when employed against those who are unwilling to kill.

In a nutshell, that is what Obama’s trip is really about. Why are we so desperate to improve relations with the Muslim world? For all the nonsense about Islam being a “Religion of Peace”, or rather the “Religion of Submit and We’ll Stop Killing You”… it all comes down to a plea for mercy. Here, we’ll give you a bunch of scholarships, some trade deals, foreign aid and praise for your insane book consisting of the 7th century homicidal fantasies of a megalomaniac– and in return, maybe you’ll stop killing us. Or at least kill us less.

Golda Meir’s 1948 Chicago speech which made the Jewish nation possible wiith only a summer dress and a 10 dollar bill, went back with 50 Million USD which was about three times Saudi Arabia’s oil production of that year.

In 1957, Golda Meir spoke at the National Press Club and opined that, “Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.” But such a form of love contradicts the expressed will of the Koran, that Muslims put Jihad above their own families. As long as Muslims continue to follow the Koran, there can be no peace. Because the need to subjugate non-Muslims will always be important than their own welfare and prosperity. That is the fullest measure of Islam.

But the lies continue. Newspaper stories now routinely describe Jerusalem as a “settlement”, a thoroughly Orwellian appellation for one of the oldest cities in the world. To describe the Har Homa neighborhood in Jerusalem as a settlement, is akin to calling the Bronx a settlement.

The Administration predictably cloaks its bigotry in talk of “creating facts on the ground”, but when Arab Muslims occupy and demolish Jewish holy sites, there is no concern about creating facts on the ground. When Western leftists, from groups such as Rabbis for Human Rights, arrive to help Arab Muslims terrorize Jewish farmers in order to drive them off their land, again nothing to be seen here. When the Qatari government, which funds Hamas and Al Qaeda, underwrites an entire new city for Arab Muslims– the same international community which goes into a slavering fit over an Israeli house, applauds the project.

The term “Settlements” has now become completely meaningless, because it is being applied to housing in one of the oldest cities in the world. There can be no reasonable standard under which housing in Jerusalem is a settlement, and housing in Tel Aviv is not. After all Jerusalem is an ancient city whose very name comes from Hebrew. Tel Aviv is a fairly modern city. But in a twist of Orwellian logic, “settlement” is now a generic term for any place that Jews aren’t supposed to be living. It has become a more genteel way to say “ethnic cleansing”, to confine Jewish Israelis to a new Pale of Settlement, under a new Czar, in their own land.

What does one call a situation in which one race is permitted to build houses, but another is not? What else but Apartheid. Obama and the EU are not making this distinction based on citizenship. They are making it based on race and religion. While accusing Israel of doing the same.

We exist now in a land beyond history. A state of being adrift from fact and reason, governed not by historical events or realities, but hate and fear. By the Muslim hatred of the Jews. And civilization’s fear of Islam. In the face of that hate and fear, words have lost their meanings and laws have lost their force. There is only the panicked imperative to appease the murderers of one’s own country, with the land and freedom of others. To satiate the crocodile with another’s flesh.

This is not about peace. It is not about fair negotiations. It is not about being an equal partner. It is about the same thing as in the UK or Australia or Canada or India. It is about giving Muslims what they want, at the expense of non-Muslims in the hopes of preventing Muslim violence. It’s about Apartheid.

Golda Meir’s 1948 Chicago speech which made the Jewish nation possible wiith only a summer dress and a 10 dollar bill, went back with 50 Million USD which was about three times Saudi Arabia’s oil production of that year.

Ya Arabs Love to Pick On Tiny Nation Israel..

Image via Wikipedia

The invading settlements of Israel
Posted by HermitLion at 8:07 AM

Labels: Arab-Israeli History, Israel, Israeli Settlements Myth of a Non-Existent People And Non-Existent land of “Filistine” ” Palestine ”
Today I would like to talk about the settlements that are causing so much trouble in the middle east, and to the entire world. These manifestations of a ruthless, oppressive occupation, which treads on human rights without any thought, destroys any culture it touches, and warps history itself to suit its own purpose – which is to conquer all who dare stand in its path.
I’m talking, of course, about the Arab settlements in Israel.

Arab settlements in Israel far outweigh Jewish ones, for the simple fact that while Arabs deny Jews the option to live amongst them, Israelis allow its Arab population to proliferate wherever it pleases, though, to be honest, they’re not exactly being asked anymore. After all, the police doesn’t dare upset these gentle souls of the land, and the traitor-leaders are very busy not looking racist before their foreign masters, by maintaining a stranglehold on the Jewish population.
This is how besides invader settlements in Judea and Samaria, there’s East Jerusalem – which was cleansed from Jews by the Jordanian Legion during Israel’s independence war; Hebron – one of the most ancient of Jewish towns, and the resting place of the father of the nation – Abraham; Ramla and Lod (where crime runs rampant, thanks to good Arab citizens); Tiberias and the Galilee; the Negev (Bedouins look less exotic and mysterious when they ride into Beer-Sheba in Subaru sedans, looking for stuff to steal, and harassing anyone in sight); ‘the triangle’, which includes Um-Il-Fachem; Haifa and Acre, which both include mixed populations – the first sees much brazen dissent from its Arab students, and the later has witnessed a couple of pogroms in the past year; Jaffa in Tel-Aviv (where trendy rich leftists come to live, while others protest for the ‘indigenous population’ – as if ethnic purity in neighborhoods is some god given right), and the list goes on and on.

While foreign appeasers insist that Jews cease construction in their liberated, yet disputed lands (an area that becomes increasingly larger, the more appeasements are offered), Arab settlements, both in and out of Judea and Samaria, spread unabated. There is absolutely no counter-balance to that trend, as even the KKL (Keren Kayemet L’Yisrael) has given money, donated by Jews, to the cause of erecting even more Arab settlements. Not that it has to – Saudi funded groups already buy territories in this country as if it was open market day.

The supreme court, long since a bastion of pro-Arab, anti-Israeli rulings, has declared it illegal to prevent Arabs from settling anywhere in Israel, even though some villages require every potential citizen moving there to go through a screening interview. In practice, it is not a measure of equality, but one-sided favoritism. The same judges, naturally, do not want anyone not of their own ethnic group living anywhere near their ivory mansions.
Even if the law allows Jews to purchase land and houses in Arab, the immediate intimidation and threats of murder sends them looking for a safer alternative. A bold news piece covered such a case recently, though I can’t say anyone dared paint the whole picture as it is.

Israel’s position is not a good one, geographically speaking, and is even less favorable in demographic terms, with Islamic families having 7-12 children per wife (polygamy is quite alright, when speaking against it can spark violence). The lie of ‘Israeli-Arabs‘ is a bubble that will eventually burst, as they certainly do not identify with Jews, and even less with confused Israelis that can’t sell values to their own kids (save, maybe, the values of ‘partying!’, and ‘be kind to minorities like Arabs, gays, and criminal youth, but not religious Jews or your own countrymen’).

That is why when haughty leftists speak as if Israel is not under any reasonable threat, I can’t do much but laugh. Hubris has destroyed mightier nations, so their faith in miracles must be stronger than that of any messianic Jew.

For more on the subject, check out Israel’s Arab Settlements on Sultan Knish.

Myth of a Non-Existent People And Non-Existent land of “Filistine” ” Palestine ”

http://samhindu.wordpress.com/2010/10/27/how-did-this-myth-of-a-non-existent-people-and-non-existent-land-of-“filistine”-palestine/

Bow Nobama’s Terrorist Connection

Bow Nobama is right on India, wrong on Pakistan and his terrorist connection by appointing Kathawari of EHAN ALLEN. By M D Nalapat and Sam HIndu   The presence of a very influential pro-Pakistan group within the Pentagon and a pro-China lobby within the Department of Commerce during the Clinton,Bush and now Obama periods have ensured that this blacklisting of India has endured to the present. It was with surprise, therefore, that the Pakistan and China lobbies in the US reacted to President Obama’s promise (made before the Indian Parliament on November 9) to remove India from the so-called “Entity Lists”, and to give the world’s most populous democracy the same status as Germany and Japan.   The Pakistan army is aware that there can be no solution to Kashmir for decades to come,which is why they seek to blackmail NATO by demanding Indian concessions that this alliance is in no condition to enforce. Instead, those Pakistani generals, brigadiers and colonels who assist the Taliban and other terror groups (including the JeM and the LeT) should be subject to the same sanctions as are being applied to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. SIX weeks before leaving for Mumbai, President Barack Obama appointed a Kashmiri furniture dealer from New York, Farook Kathwari, Boycott Ethan Allen Which is supporting Terrorist Jihad. as a member of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Asian American and Pacific Islander affairs Kathwari is a generous financial backer of groups that have sought to integrate Kashmir with Pakistan. His own son left for Pakistan during the Clinton presidency to train as a jihadist. After developing expertise in the handling of AK-47s and the use of grenades, Kathwari Junior was inserted into the Kashmir valley by the ISI (an organisation that has had close and open links to Kathwari Senior since the 1970s), only to fall to an Indian bullet. On getting news of this, Kathwari held a get-together in his New York apartment to celebrate the young man’s martyrdom. All this, of course,was before 9/11 made jihad unfashionable for New Yorkers. Kathwari’s embrace of jihad and collaboration with the ISI’s schemes for acts of violence in India have not stood in the way of this backer of violence in Kashmir developing a close personal bond with Bill Clinton’s team, a warmth that endures to the present. He has repeatedly peppered both the US Congress as well as the US Administration with tracts explaining why the full might of the US ought to be deployed to secure “azaadi” for the Kashmiri people“. Of course, to Kathwari, the “people of Kashmir” comprise only the 780,000 Valley inhabitants who are Wahabbis, rather than the other six million Kashmiris, who are content to remain within India, and who include the state’s Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists, besides the Muslim Shia, Gujjas, Sufi and Bakkerwal community. In the international media and western chancelleries, the implicit assumption made while discussing Kashmir is that the state is comprised only of its Wahabbi minority, a view that geopolitical links between the West and the biggest financial backer of Kashmiri Wahabbis-Saudi Arabia -have only reinforced. Looking through the columns of the New York Times, The Washington Post or the Guardian, one may be forgiven for believing that Kashmir is exclusively Wahabbi,for it is only the views of that minority that get represented in these columns as “Kashmiri” opinion.Our own copycat media follows this trend faithfully. The sharp spike in terrorist incidents in Kashmir during the 2000 visit of (then) President Clinton to India was because it had been the Arkansan’s administration that had pushed and pummelled India for eight years in an effort to force it to surrender control over Kashmir. The jihadis had hoped that the innocent blood that they spilled in grisly terrorist incidents would strengthen their friend Clinton in forcing concessions from the Vajpayee government (which incidentally was nudged by the Clinton team into accepting Farook Kathwari as an “interlocuter” in its Kashmir dialogue, a shameful decision). President Clinton had linked a “solution of the Kashmir problem” to Pakistan’s satisfaction as proof that India was a “mature nation”. Mature enough, that is, to commit suicide. While a US Senator, Hillary Clinton continued her husband’s cosy links to Kathwari and other pro-Pakistan lobbyists in DC, New York, Chicago and elsewhere,and has been known to favour the continuance of the harsh Clinton policy of placing India in the same basket as Iran and North Korea, when it comes to the question of access to US “dual use” ( or hi-tech) items. The presence of a very influential pro-Pakistan group within the Pentagon and a pro-China lobby within the Department of Commerce during the Clinton, Bush and now Obama periods have ensured that this blacklisting of India has endured to the present. It was with surprise, therefore, that the Pakistan and China lobbies in the US reacted to President Obama’s promise (made before the Indian parliament on November 9) to remove India from the so-called “Entity Lists”, and to give the world’s most populous democracy the same status as Germany and Japan. Obama further sweetened his message by placing the US behind India’s bid to become a permament member of the UN Security Council, a policy already accepted by Russia, France and the UK, thereby leaving only China out as the only P-5 (Permanent Five) member not to back India as a permanent member of the UNSC. The powerful trio of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been sceptical of what may be termed the “George W Bush line” (or, indeed, the Franklin Roosevelt line) of treating India on par with key US allies. The three have repeatedly pointed to the lack of tact and transparency in India as reasons why the policy concessions announced by President Obama ought to have been denied till “the Indians make substantive concessions”. Robert Gates has followed the advice of key assistants in insisting on Delhi accepting the same conditions for transfer of US equipment that Islamabad does. The difference-be sides the ones obvious to all except Gates and his team-is that the Pakistan side routinely signs agreements that it has no intention of ever keeping, while in India, a nervous bureacracy (eager for its prized UN and World Bank assignments,all of which depend on goodwill from both the US as well as China) ensures that commitments are kept. Had the US Defense Secretary shown a modicum of flexibility in his dealings with India, by now at least two of the three agreements that he has been pressing the Manmohan Singh government to sign since 2005 would have been inked: that on the provision of logistical support,and the other on communications security. In the case of Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, he has developed a fixation with China, an attitude that has led him to neglect the potential for US businesses in India. In common with his Bush-era predecessor, Locke has been pushing India for concessions that would amount to political suicide for Manmohan Singh, such as opening up the retail trade to foreign brands without placing restrictions that protect the 28 million jobs that “kirana” (or small) retail trade provides in India. The US Commerce Secretary has become accustomed to doing business with China, a country where there is no need to consult public opinion before taking a decision. In this irritation with the admittedly more roundabout procedures of a democracy, and in his reluctance to take India off the list of countries that US companies face major hurdles in doing business with, Locke has been on the same page of Hillary Clinton, who has thus far followed the Bill Clinton line on foreign policy, including on relations with India, China and Pakistan. That President Obama did not bring along the Secretary of State on his India tour was an early indication that he was planning to jettison the Clinton policy of giving only minor concessions in exchange for substantive and significant changes in Indian policies. Instead, he has adopted a bold policy of accepting India’s case that this democracy of 1.2 billion people deserves at the least the same treatment as is given to Germany, France and Japan. If the 2008 India-specific waiver at the Nuclear Suppliers Group indicated the beginning of the end of the US policy of boxing India into a lesser category than its main NATO allies, the November 9,2010 Obama speech before the Indian parliament seems to have signalled the start of a “Relationship of Equals” between the US and India. As “equal”, that is, as Japan or Germany are with the US. Two years into his Presidency, Barack Obama seems to be freeing himself of the Clinton fetters that ensured his humiliation in the just-concluded Congressional polls. In his India policy, he has certainly shown that he favours change, and that he has the fire within him to force through that change over the wishes of his India-sceptic troika, Gates, Locke and Clinton. However, if the US-and the entire international community-is to get the benefit of such a re-assertion of Obama over Clinton, President Obama needs to break away from the Afghanistan-Pakistan policy that he has inherited from Bill Clinton and Dick Cheney, that of relying on the Pakistan army to take down the Taliban. That so many in the US cling to such a delusion is not surprising in a country where more than half the population believes that Saddam Hussein was the head of Al Qaeda, when in fact that mishmash of relics spent years seeking to murder him, a task successfully carried out by George W Bush,who thereupon avenged the attempted assassination of Bush Senior by Saddam a decade before he occupied Iraq. Unless the US and other NATO forces remove the imaginary distinction between the Pakistan and Afghanistan Pashtun belt,and treat the entire territory as a single military zone, they will continue to find the Taliban regrouping. The Pakistan army lacks the resilience and the training to take on the Taliban, no matter the extent to which they are stuffed with US weapons. NATO troops need to remove the safe havens from Pakistan by a judicious use of land,air and sea-power. Although this may be opposed initially by Pakistan (especially its military), the positive results within Pakistan society of the elimination of the Taliban will more than compensate for such temporary discord. There is nothing that India can do to make Pakistan more stable, unless Islamabad first allows free trade between the two countries, and opens up hitherto-blocked transit routes.The Obama administration needs to ensure such outcomes The Pakistan army is aware that there can be no solution to Kashmir for decades to come, which is why they seek to blackmail NATO by demanding Indian concessions that this alliance is in no condition to enforce. Instead, those Pakistani generals, brigadiers and colonels who assist the Taliban and other terror groups (including the JeM and the LeT) should be subject to the same sanctions as are being applied to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. They should be arrested if travelling abroad, and their dependents ought to be prevented from foreign travel, as it is more than likely that these may be acting as carriers of instructions and money to terror groups. Unless the Pakistan army feels the pain of backing the terror groups, they will continue to do so. Unfortunately, both the Vajpayee as well as the Manmohan Singh governments have dealt with Pakistan in a very Mahatma Gandhi fashion, with India making all the sacrifices. NATO is going down the same path. Unless it be understood that Pakistan can be saved from implosion only if the military is prevented from backing terror groups, the descent of that country towards extreme chaos will continue. It is not India that can ensure a stable Pakistan but NATO, by enforcing accountability on a military that has been surviving on handouts from the US, China and Saudi Arabia. And what about a stable India? The only way to ensure this is to take ruthless action against the corruption that has pervaded every aspect of governmental operations. The US has excellent ways of tracking money flows. Manmohan Singh needs to ask President Obama to forge a partnership with India that would give access to the results of US monitoring of illegal money flows from India into safe havens such as London, Dubai, Singapore and Macau. These days, too many politicians are escaping the attention of Indian agencies, rendered toothless by the over-tasking that has been a feature of the Chidambaram period in the Union Finance Ministry. The current Home Minister brought in numerous new restrictions and powers “to fight Black Money”. However, he knew full well that each such tightening of the regulatory screw would lead to massive increases in bribes, the reason why Palaniappan Chidambaram is a hero to legions of corrupt officials. Instead, what needs to be enforced is better monitoring, and because so much of the cash is going abroad (often in lorryloads of currency via the Nepal border), the help of the US needs to be taken to identify the major perpetrators. Such help can uncover the fresh deposits being made from India, so that those responsible can be exposed to public scrutiny. A stable Pakistan needs a military removed from jihad. A stable India needs to see its VVIP corrupt in jail. Boycott Ethan Allen Which is supporting Terrorist Jihad.